E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Jordan Stead / Reuters
Same-sex couples take their vows during a group wedding Dec. 9 at the First Baptist Church in Seattle.
Same-sex couples in Washington state rushed giddily to the courthouse earlier this month after Washington became one of three states where voters approved laws giving them the legal right to marry.
Those newlyweds will probably be less excited the first time they get to file their tax returns together.
The gap between state laws that recognize same-sex marriage, and federal laws that don’t, makes tax season complicated at best, and costly at worst, for same-sex spouses.
“It’s certainly a big headache for people. I’ve literally seen them reduced to tears,” said M.V. Lee Badgett, research director of the Williams Institute for Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the University of California, Los Angeles.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear cases related to same-sex marriage could clarify the confusion if the court ends up striking down the Defense of Marriage Act, a national law that defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
That could clear the way for the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages in the states where it is legal: Washington, Maryland, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and the District of Columbia.
The recognition would mean that same-sex couples could file a joint tax return and be eligible for tax breaks and other government benefits, such as spousal Social Security benefits, that heterosexual spouses currently have.
But a decision on those Supreme Court cases is not expected until June. And as it stands now, filing taxes is a lot more complicated for same-sex couples because they are considered married by their state government and not married by the federal government.
“It’s very laborious,” said Judi O’Kelley, deputy director of development for Lambda Legal, which does advocacy work and provides legal guidance for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people.
To file state and federal income tax returns, experts say same-sex couples must first fill out a mock federal tax form as a married couple, which they use as the basis to file their state tax returns. Then, they must go back and file a second set of federal tax returns as if they are both single, because the federal government does not recognize their union.
In community-property states such as Washington and California, there is one more hurdle for the individual returns. Couples have to essentially split their wages down the middle, said Marci Flanery, a CPA who practices in Seattle. So, if one spouse makes $100,000 and another spouse make $20,000, each return would end up showing income of $60,000.
That’s because even though the marriage isn’t recognized, their assets are considered shared property.
There are other tax issues to consider. Same-sex partners who get health benefits from their spouse’s employer are taxed on those benefits, while heterosexual married couples are not.
Couples also have to figure out how to allocate deductions, and many worry about the tax implications should one same-sex spouse give the other money, or leave the other an inheritance.
“There are lots of rules in the Internal Revenue Code that depend on marriage,” said Patricia Cain, a professor of law at Santa Clara University and an expert on these issues.
Experts say that many same-sex couples probably don’t realize the tax implications when they get married, and may file incorrectly because they don’t know the rules.
Still, some are clearly thinking about money in addition to love as they prepare to get married.
O’Kelley said about 500 people showed up for a forum on legal issues related to same-sex marriage, held in Washington state just days before those unions became legal.
Flanery said she’s had a steady stream of potential accounting clients coming in to talk about the tax implications of a potential same-sex union, and especially the income-sharing provision.
“I don’t see that they’re not getting married because of this, but they do want to know about it,” she said.
The tax issues may be a headache, but they aren’t always a financial burden. For couples who both earn a higher salary, the current system can be a good financial deal.
That’s because high-earning couples are sometimes subject to a so-called marriage penalty in which their joint filing status puts them at a higher tax rate than if they were filing individually. By splitting their income, they can each enjoy a lower tax rate.
Nevertheless, even some advocates who benefit financially from the current situation say they’d be willing to pay more taxes to have the federal government recognize their marriage, and to be eligible for other federal safeguards.
“I don’t want to pay it, that’s true, but we’re not going to get divorced over it,” said Cain.
Related:
Advocates on both sides hope for Supreme Court clarity on same-sex marriage
Leave a Comment:
Ignorant people keep confusing about redefining marriage and modifying marriage.
There's a huge difference between "redefine" and "modify".
Marriage is still defined as between 2 individuals who love each other.
The key words: 2 individuals, love and man/woman are still the same. There's just a small addition to the old definition: same sex (man/man and woman/woman)
It's called MODIFICATION, not REDEFINITION.
Here is an example of redefinition of marriage:
Marriage is defined as only between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, NOT between a man a woman.
Here is an example of modification of marriage:
Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman.
Some idiots then say they can marry their dogs. Yeh, right! If the dogs can say "I do," and write their own vows. There will be no problem with that. Well, if no proofs provided, we'll call PETA to report animal abuses.
That's not all. Other ignorant fools keep saying the same sex couples cannot reproduce. Ok! Say that to the infertile heterosexual couples and old heterosexual couples, both of whom are unable to reproduce either.
I've said this before. if you want the country to vote for same sex marriage please do not use the picture that was used in this article...especially at voting time. you want to use HOT YOUNG GIRLS. Right hair. Right make up etc. No old queens holding hands. No flannel wearing dykes with chain driven billfolds. They can't have that image when they go to the polls. Some would say that's like telling a lie..who cares as long as you get what you want.
Pay up..LOL
Civil union and marriage are NOT the same in all aspects, including legal benefits.
There are 11 countries in the world: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa and Sweden that already legalized same sex marriage.
Ever wonder why those countries never considered civil union in the first place.
Also, the first countries that allowed same sex couples to get marriage are Netherlands in 2001 followed by Belgium 2 years after that. They have had no problems with tax or any other issues among same sex couples who are all treated as equally as heterosexual couples.
There's no reason to stop marriage equality in US. Also, according to LGBT, conservative Asian countries like Taiwan and Vietnam begin to consider legalization of same sex marriage. It's expected either Vietnam or Taiwan to be the first Asian country ever to legalize same sex marriage at the end of this year or next.
In addition, many countries with heavy catholic populations like Mexico and Brazil are in the process of legalizing same sex marriage. Other countries like Uruguay, France, Colombia, the United Kingdom, Finland, Luxembourg and New Zealand are on the way to legally allow same sex couples to get marriage.
Go figure.
It's interesting that many of the countries which have already achieved or are about to achieve marriage equality are predominantly Catholic.
But given the Catholic church's view of divorce it makes sense that Catholics in general understand the distinction between the legal contract of marriage and the irrelevant religious rite of "holy matrimony", since there are lots of divorced and remarried Catholics who can't get their divorces or their second marriages recognized or blessed by their church. It only seems to be the church hierarchy which doesn't comprehend that simple distinction.
I am surprised that the picture atop this article was taken at a same sex mass marriage ceremony in a BAPTIST church.
Agree that the odds are against it, but there are affirming churches in most denominations.
I find the "nah, nah, nah, nah, nah" aspect of the article and some of the comments truly juvenile and bigoted.
"The tax issues may be a headache, but they aren't always a financial burden."
It's so true because same sex couples have been fighting for their equal rights for so long. As a result, little things like those tax problems won't hurt same sex couples in the long term. Also, heterosexual couples can survive through all the tax issues for years. Why cannot same sex couples?
Besides, tax issues are just one thing. Marriage equality will legally grant same sex couples thousands of federal and state benefits. Thinking about these benefits and legal rights will make those little tax issues become nothing.
The price you pay for being unGodly!!!!!!!!!! Look for things to get worse for them because this life style only leads to destruction !!!!!!!!
What price do heterosexual pay for being unGODLY? I mean, eating shellfish is an abomination right?
Look for things to GET BETTER as equal marriage rights come to the entire United States. Course, you can always move to a more godly country, where religion is part of their lifestyle, try Iran
That shellfish thing is tired. That's old covenant.When Jesus died we had a new covenant.
So your imaginary friend changed his immutable Word? Disobedient children will be very happy to hear that since their parents will no longer be obligated to stone them to death.
Sounds like your bronze-age cult has a lot of silly sharia laws.
If you allow a tax break in some states, but not others, that would violate the equal protection clause of the constitution, and you would need a national means of same sex couples to register for this tax treatment even in states where it's not specifically legal to marry.. then I suppose you would have to extend this treatment to unmarried heterosexual couples for the same reason. It gets a bit ugly, and will remain that way until we have a majority view on the subject. Right now, too split to resolve in a reasonable fashion (just like "life vs choice" and a bunch of other social issues)
Not necessarily. It would be no different than a heterosexual couple who might be ineligible to marry in one state (perhaps one or both are too young), but who may marry in another. There's no provision for equal tax treatment in that circumstance. If DOMA is struck down entirely, as it should be, the logical extension would be that states will have to recognize same-sex marriages from other states, even if it didn't permit them to occur within its own boundaries (much as it would do with heterosexual couples who don't meet the requirements to marry within the state).
If same-sex marriage is treated as equal to heterosexual marriage, no special provisions are needed. All the case law is already established.
Phantom >>>>>>>> It's not life vs choice." It's "life v. death."
LOL,LOL, all the homosexuals rushed to the voting booths for Obama and now he gets to stick it up their behinds through the IRS, no wonder Obama supported homosexual relationships, he gets more money to spend. Just the beginning boys and girls, there will be more taxes to come and more expense to meet, Obamacare, higher government spending, Obamas lavish lifestyle has to be paid for too.
There is a price to pay for homosexuality and this is the beginning, you all trusted Obama and look where his support gets you, more taxes. LOL LOL.
It takes a fool to raise the idiots.
LOL .. the joke is on you. Obama has nothing to do with it, and can do nothing about it. It is the result of legislation passed in the 1990's.
Its interesting, you blame Obama for this situation. Yet, if he ordered the IRS to treat same-sex couples equally, I'm sure you'd be angry that he was violating the law. By your logic, damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.
Barry you stated it perfectily, Obama is violating the law, which he has done onseveral issues and he continues to do so. By my logic he is not an appropriate leader for this country, he says anything he wants to just to get stupid people to vote for him.
He makes promises he cant keep and if he does keep them he invokes executive privilege. You are right he is a President who does not abide by the laws. Stupid Muslims they all think that way.
What law or laws is Obama violating? The IRS is following the law in not recognizing legal same-sex marriages. So, tell me, what law is Obama breaking?
We all need to call a spade a spade, these people are not gay, gay means happiness, these people are homosexual, not gay, homosexual, stop using the word gay. They arent so gay if they dont get their way.
Homosexuals, homosexuals or same sex, get it right or keep your opinion to yourself.
Hey Hold that thought, sorry it took so long for someone to thaw you out of the deep freeze you've been in since before the 60s. A spade is a card, gay has multiple meanings and you need to look up a modern version of Webster's dictionary. And by the way, the last time you were awake civil rights had not yet been passed and please refresh your memory about the Constitution...it guarantees the right to free speech. We don't have to keep our opinions to ourselves. However the rest of us would appreciate it if you catch up with US History and get an education before exercising your right to idiocy.
This is what happens when cart before the horse agenda is adopted.
Marriage is a religious idea. We have institutionalized it by make it a requirement for taxes, insurance benefits, survivor benefits, inheritances, etc. What is actually needed is a seperation of the two ideas. I'm not pro-gay and resent having it 'in my face' all the time as they push for equal rights. I am, however, in agreement with them that equal rights is required under our system of individual freedoms. As adults of sound mind they are legally allowed to enter into a contract with another adult of sound mind to share their lives together. If we abolish marriage as a requirement for anything of a legal nature and view these unions as legal contracts, the moral issue goes away. The federal government is stone walling with the idea that they cannot make special rules for gay marriages if they are not legal in every state. They have done this for common law marriages for years. Some states allow common law marriage and some do not. If you are legally married in your state of residency, then you are married for tax purposes. Simple.
It isn't stone walling (interesting choice of words, by the way). What the IRS and other government agencies can do is limited by DOMA.
You missed my point. If marriage is not used as a criteria, but you substitue legal union contracts (which any adult of sound mind can enter into), what defines a "marriage" is no longer an issue.
WRONG. Civil marriage predates organized religion by thousands of years, and in this secular nation, legal marriage is and has always been strictly a civil contract. You are confusing "marriage" with "holy matrimony" -- and the government is only interested in marriage.
They do that to us in California and we can't even be married. It's egregious. We don't get benefits and we don't even get to file joint returns and get the reduced tax rates, but we get to pool our income and pay the tax on the joint amount.
The hypocrisy is nothing short of breathtaking.
Good that is the way it should be.
Why? Because you like the fact that they pay for the government handouts YOU probably get?
Never mind the lack of research or truth in reporting. Pay attention to the guy on the top left. Black vest, brown long sleeved shirt. His face looks like zombie!
Remember the Obama administration works from "Let's vote it in and approve things then we can read it all later." Thank you Nancy Pelosi on Obamacare.
They should be taxed as singles, this has nothing to do with the shame that they are married. Being queer has nothing to do with the tax structure.
They are taxed as singles by the federal government and ripped off in the bargain....meaning they pay more taxes than YOU.
Being straight has nothing to do with the tax structure.
To pay more in taxes and have fewer rights than other citizens is a form of slavery. Time to put this to rest. The first thing any clergey will have a couple do after the ceremony is to have them sign the marriage certificate. Marriage is legal not because of your religion, but when the government says it is. Keep religion out of this or else tax religions like any person or corporation. Give every citizen the same rights and that includes marriage, or treat and tax each person exactly the same.
I think the government having the ability to tell you who you can enter into a legal contract with is wrong. Marriage actually comes from religious ideas. You can actually be married in a church and not sign a certificate. I work with a man who has done just that. (Don't ask me why. I have no clue.) Using marriage as a criteria for legal matters violates seperation of church and state. When you sign that certificate you are making a legal contract. You have the legal right to make a contract with anyone you want.
STILL WRONG -- on both counts. Marriage was a civil contract long before there was any organized religion, and while two people can be married in a church without a license, the state and federal governments will only recognize marriages performed WITH a civil marriage license. That means that any couples married in a church without licenses are not legally married, only religiously.
ErinNJ: I'm not sure of the ends & outs and wouldn't even know what to look for if I tried to research it, but the civil authorities do, in fact, recognize marriages other than ones with a civil marriage license. Probably, the most common example would be common law marriages, but there are others.
Matilda, first of all, the phrase is "ins and outs," not "ends and outs". Second, common-law marriages can only be contracted in nine states; no other state allows or recognizes them, and only two others (NH and Utah) will recognize such marriages, either for probate purposes, or if they have been validated by a court or administrative order.
Third, I HAVE done research, and the only valid marriage in any state in the US (except for those few states that allow common-law marriage) is a marriage that is performed after obtaining a civil marriage license. If two people get married in a religious ceremony, without that license, they are not legally married, and the marriage is not recognized by either the state or federal governments.
Ditto Erin.
Ditto Erin.
Too bad, huh?? Get over yourself!
Wow - that's 1 of the scariest avatars I've ever seen! That a self-portrait, 'commentingbecauseican'???
I can see what unclean living has done to you --- whew!
Finally, the daily MSN gay article that we all wait for. So, the whole gay movement has changed from acceptance to seeking social benifits. Well, if you are born that way then I suppose you should receive social benifits like any other person with an affliction would receive. However, if you are choosing to live the life style...and many people are(swing both ways, married to the other sex before deciding to switch, too much glee influence,etc). Then you should not receive anything. So how does society know who is deserving and who is free loading? I say no to free loaders.
They are not freeloading. They are only asking for the same treatment as any other couple who has built a life together.
Not true. Couples living in sin pay the same rate as the sexual deviants.
It is a very"taxing" situation.
ya know, a flat tax would eliminate almost all of this dialogue, but then, what would we vent our innermost feelings on, in a futile attempt to 'convert' the non-believers, no matter what side they are on??? I guess it's really a matter of 'I'm right' and 'you are way too stupid to recognize my position as inherently, or obviously, or humanistically, or religiously correct', pick one... the financial implications says that all current 'benefit providers', corporations, government, et al, would take a huge financial blow, disrupting our economy enormously, but nobody talks about the real life problems associated with that...
End homosexuality today. It is a biological malfunction -- a violation of the theory of evolution.
Snoop Marky Mark <<<~~~>>> A biological malfunction??? That has NOT been PROVEN, nor for the benefit of some, it has not been DISPROVEN, either. However, even if it is a biological malfuntion, --- so what? If I am blind (or you are) which is definitely a biological malfunction, does that mean that it would be OKAY to pass a law which forbade me (you) to carry a white cane or take a guide dog into a restaurant just because society should never cater to the biologically unfortunate???
Actually, it has been proven to be a normal variant of our naturally-occurring sexual orientations; it is not considered a genetic defect, and has not been considered so for some time.
BTW, Snoop, if it is a "violation of the theory of evolution," then explain why it is that homosexuals have existed in approximately the same percentage of the population since humankind has existed.
Snoop - why don't you explain to us the theory of evolution....since you're such an expert and all.
Homosexuality is NASTY. These are some SICK PEOPLE.
Why? Are you afraid you'll catch it?
here is a good tax tip: Don't be a HOMO!!
Welcome to reality, perv's! Just wait til these sexual deviants encounter divorce court? The sh*t (pun intended) will really hit the fan.
Welcome to equal rights, dumb bigots!