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:
There you go, you are welcome
Careful what you ask for
There is no such thing as "same-sex spouses".
Homosexuality is perversion.
Marriage can only happen between opposite-sex couples.
Still pouting because your boyfriend won't marry you, LR?
Too bad its already happened LR
Is that because YOU say so, Willie? You are the one who decides which marriages are "real" and which are "pretend"?
Willie, what you have said gives me no reason to believe that the couple I just spent a week with on vacation were "pretending" or that their marriage is worth any less than a straight couple. Care to explain it to me?
They live together, they sleep in the same bed, they love each other, take care of each other, have combined finances, had a legal marriage, and are making plans for their future.
Name one thing that a straight married couple does differently that makes it not pretend.
Not Your ATM.... Really? Gays and Lesbians have been stating for years that they want to be equal in everything, including taxes - so don't make it sound like they are trying to skirt a law that doesn't even freaking apply to them yet. It is the religious right who confuse the civil right of marriage with Holy Matrimony (religious sanctioned). While I give that some of the gays and lesbians out there want a religious service, they would rather just have the same civil rights as straights. Like, gee, being able to visit their partners in the hospital, being able to enforce a living will by pulling a plug if need be. There are so many benefits that are just simple ones that straights take for granted. Taxes are taxes and if married, they need to pay them. However, you have to realize that there are many benefits that gay and lesbian relationships out there. For one, they can walk away from their partner's debts. I know several gay couples that have been together 25 plus years. My brother has been married 3 times during the same 25 years. Some straights aren't that great at marriage with the divorce rate that it is. And... unless gays and lesbians are afforded the same right to a civil marriage, the straights will have nothing to compare it to.... allow marriage and THEN after a few years of data (divorce rates and taxes), you have a right to say na-na-boo-boo to them if your complaints have merit. Until then...
The whole tax code needs revamping and long before these gay marraige anomolies - the courts will settle that problem in a year or so. Our congress (no matter who is in charge) will continue to complicate the overall code which then remains a mystery to most ( and keep accountants employed!!!)
i dont really care.. you get what you asked for.. dont b*tch about soemthing else now.
Sounds like the only ones who are bitching are the dumb bigots who are threatened when the people they hate get equal rights.
In contrast, gays are simply complaining that they still don't get equal rights under federal law.
Gays getting married aren't about "special" rights. It's about "equal" rights. Look up the definitions of those two words. I'm sure you'll be shocked to find out there is a difference.
That's OK, They just wanted to get married and that's what matters, right? It has nothing to do with anything financial.... right?!
Yeah, like all those heterosexuals who get married in a church and DON'T file with the State. After all, the marriage wouldn't be legal but it would be in God's eyes....since it has nothing to do with financial...right?
So straight peoples' accounting practices are justification for gay marriage
Not sure about all states but tax time here married people don't get as huge break in taxes as I thought? I can't believe they won't let three of us marry an should'nt we get a bigger tax break? I believe the orginal thought is these married people would start a family BS?
Actually Single moms is where its at you don't have to report the money you get from child support so you qualify for housing an food assistance go to collage for free an someone can watch these brats whether I go to school or do whatever? all Free!!! or maybe paid for by you idk who cares least they don't get a marriage tax break!!
The reason for 'marriage', historically, was to make sure that any man who fathered a child would be financially and morally responsible for that child. It has always been in the best interest of society to have a system where children are raised by two parents intensely interested in the welfare of those children. So a government, which is organized and run by people interested in having a stable society of laws and customs, does have an interest in the welfare of children as a means to maintaining civil society. In today's world, where birth control (including abortion on demand) have made it possible for women to have sexual relationships without the likely outcome being the production of children, whether or not men and women be married prior to having sex becomes less of a concern to society at large. But then again, when over 40 percent of your children are born to single mothers who are more likely to be poor and depend on government welfare programs for their existence, I would posit that it STILL is in the best interest of society for people who produce children to be married first.
They didn't touch that as it couldn't be refuted by -whoever
Why do you poeple keep say'n gay marriage... there is no such thing there never will be .... call it what you want A" life joining" or mabey a "union" of some sort... BUT IT WILL NEVER BE A MARRIAGE... hahaha
SCOTUS is most likely to rule that marriage licenses, much like dog licenses, licensing of doctors, drivers licenses, license to carry a concealed weapon, etc, etc, are a state matter under the Constitution, meaning that DOMA will be shot down as a Federal statute. Each state will get to determine, under its laws, whether gay marriage is legal or not. (In most states, you CAN NOT marry your first cousin, no matter how much you both love each other. In no state can you legally have two spouses at the same time.) If their state does not allow legal gay marriage, a gay couple WILL NOT be able to file a joint Federal income tax return. Will each and every state eventually legalize gay marriage? Nobody knows for sure.
People get all emotional over issues related to gay marriage, but law is whatever it is. Emotions play no role. Try fishing in Minnesota with your Ohio fishing license and you will still be fined if they catch you. Laws are whatever they are, like it or not.
Just like mixed-race marriage is a state's rights issue?
You always bring that up.If fat white chicks want to marry homie,so be it.
WRONG, Willie (as usual). Marriage equality would mean that ANY consenting adult could marry ANY OTHER consenting adult of his/her choice, regardless of their respective genders -- and that would apply to heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals. That is what "equality" means, Willie. I know it's hard for someone like you, who obviously is research-challenged, but do try to keep up.
Since prisoners have to get special permission to marry at all, that's not likely to happen. But your fascination with the sexual behavior of prisoners, as well as their marital status, says so much about you. How many prisoners are you having sex with, or are you considering marrying one?
Well let's hope same-sex conjugal visits are coming to a prison near us soon! That's what it's all about Willie!
Oh no! Not gay marriage! As an NRA member to be, and person who hates so called liberals, I say to you: Let the gays have marriage. Peace.
Tough noogies!
Homo sexuals should have all the rights normal people have, but just dont call it Marriage, call it civil union, and ban homosexual adoption. Kids have a right to a mom and a dad.
They should get the same tax breaks married people do.
Even single parents date, and strive to find a spouse. Homo sexuals would actually try and create a "family" without a mom! that it cruel! every little boy deserves a mommy! every little girl needs a mom. Imagine a little girl having to learn about her period from a man! Imagine a little boy falls off his bike, and comes running home crying, and his dad tries to pull him close, to his hairy chest, yuck!
Psychiatrists agree that the child bonds with the parent of the opposite sex at age 4.
Kids need to see a man and woman relate, so that when they grow up, they can marry.
You don't own the word "marriage," and the Supreme Court has already ruled that "separate" is not "equal". Furthermore, kids have a right to loving parents, whatever their gender(s) may be. All of the mainstream, reputable medical and scientific organizations agree that children of same-sex parents are just as well-adjusted as children raised by opposite-sex parents.
BTW, "homosexuals" is one word.
Only if they were two GAY MEN; lesbian couples would have TWO MOMS.
Proof?
It is not our purpose on earth to make children want to marry when they grow up.
American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, American Academy of Pediatrics, 2006
That is nice to be an expert on something that revolting Erin NJ.Only problem is the way for a gay person to be a parent is to have been heterosexual,changed their mind and already had a kid.Any other way is a bastardization of nature.To use semantics as rationale FOR gay marriage is absurd.Secular-sure,between same sex people-absurd.But the law backs it.Because noone thought when writing our great documents that anyone could be so stupid as to think an abomination needed mentioning as something seen in a legal light.Separate but equal-more hogwash.Noone wants to deny civil rights,you are usurping a right that is not yours to have.A genetic dead end
So heterosexuals who have children using that "other way" are also "bastardizing" nature, I guess. There are many of those types of heterosexuals.
The courts have consistently disagreed with bigots like you.
BTW, "no one" is TWO WORDS, not one. And learn to use the space bar after punctuating.
FYI, I am not "usurping" any rights, and homosexuals are not, either. They are taxpaying, law-abiding citizens of this country, just like you are -- and I am.
What "special rights" are homosexuals demanding, Willie?
And your parents would probably pay for you to stay away, with your attitude.
Those rights are aren't "special". They're available to anyone who's married. The REAL reason you don't want them to get married is the same old story. It just makes you feel better to think you have MORE than someone else. And that's exactly the way you want to it to stay.
What is "special" about those rights, Willie? Oh, they're "special" because you and I have them and gays don't -- that must be it. Gays are not asking for "special" rights, Willie; they are asking for the same rights that heterosexuals have, which gays currently do not.
Sounds like Willie enjoys having special rights and privileges which he denies to other Americans.
Looks like Willie is a greedy bigot, no different from the southern racists who banned mixed-race marriage.
PS,it's nice the killing in CT is past enough to leave room for this revulsion.Must've been tough there for a couple days there wasn't any room for this crap.Way to go MSN!
I think they should pay a special "We're part of what's wrong with America" tax. Our founding fathers are rolling in their grave at what you liberals are allowing this country to become. You take God and country out of schools and then are the first to complain when tragedies happen displaying the lack of values and human decency. This is the root cause of the values of our young people eroding more with each generation. The foundation of this once great country was developed by our founding fathers and was based on the values in the Bible. What happens to a building when you take away its foundation? It eventually falls as will this great nation if liberals keep eroding the values of our children. Put God and a sense of patriotism back into early childhood development and watch the upward trend this country will take in 20 years as opposed to the downward trend were currently experiencing. Welcome to common sense my fellow Americans.
God has never been IN our schools -- unless it was being introduced illegally; and how is our country "out" of our schools?
WRONG. Our Constitution was based on English common law, and documents like the Magna Carta. If it was based on the bible, then please show us where God, Jesus, the bible, or any other religious deity or text are mentioned in the document. Then you can show us where the Constitution allows us to kill our disobedient children, or prohibits us from eating shellfish, etc., as instructed in the bible.
Sure, let's go back to the "good old days" -- when we could own slaves, women could not vote, and the races could not intermarry. What great "morals" those were!
You speak of common sense, yet display none.
I hate to point this out Wentworth, but I bet a certain number of those highly moral founding fathers you're talking about were gay, pedophiles, adulterers, rapists, perverts of whatever sort, racists...and on and on and on......
We already know Thomas Jefferson boffed his black slave and Abe Lincoln used the n-word.....
Don't bother pointing out liberals bringing this country down - Dubya had a drinking problem, Nixon resigned because of Watergate, and Larry Craig liked his boyfriends.
The only difference between your heroes of yore and today, is that back then the stalkarazzi didn't exist, people were in the closet and nobody would have believed the victims.
Demonstratably false! Our country is based on the Constitution and NOT on the bible. I defy you to prove otherwise!
When was god in schools to begin with? And tragedies have nothing to do with your god. Even if everyone was pious, tragedies would still happen. God has nothing to do with anything!
Right. Because parental guidance/involvement, peer pressure, social interactions, ect., has nothing to do with it, right? >sarc<
Indoctrinating kids with your brand or religious BS is hardly what I'd call good development.
So when a nursing student recently shot up a Christian school in LA it was because Christians worship the wrong god and Quetzacoatl was pissed?
Then there is the real reason some people support gay marriage. Gay sex increases HIV infections and AIDS.
So does heterosexual sex. Your point?
Since monogamy reduces STDs for both gays and straights, you'd think the dumb bigots and "family values" nutballs would support marriage equality.