Same Sex Couples

[redux]

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which said "marriage" and "spouse" only applied to heterosexual unions, was unconstitutional.

A number of federal agencies have released information about changes to federal programs and benefits as a result of the Supreme Court's decision. Learn more about the changes to taxes, Social Security, Medicare, visas, and benefits for uniformed servicemembers and federal employees.

Subscriber Services:
Change Subscription Topics and Frequency of E-Mails | Unsubscribe | Help

[TaxCPANY]

Check out Rev. Rul. 2013-17 -- finalized just this past Tuesday.

I needed it to advise a client desiring tax-free treatment of health-insurance coverage of 'their' [deliberately ambiguous] "domestic partner" by the public university -- located in an 'unaccommodating' state -- they'd begun working for, this month. My conclusion was/is: no marriage/no such benefit. The university posts IRS Notice 2004-79 on its website; but I didn't see my client's fact-pattern availing that.

It seems to me that, despite the overthrow of DOMA, our same-sex clients still must marry formally, lest they scrabble for 'family/filing-status' benefits more likely than not to be denied on federal, state and local levels.

Anyone else here wrestling with this? VTY, TaxCPANY

[joanmcq]

The overthrow of DOMA simply means that the federal government recognizes same sex marriages. Yes, the couples have to actually get married to get the benefits, same as hetero couples.

[Mr. Pencil]

Check out Rev. Rul. 2013-17 -- finalized just this past Tuesday.

I needed it to advise a client desiring tax-free treatment of health-insurance coverage of 'their' [deliberately ambiguous] "domestic partner" by the public university -- located in an 'unaccommodating' state -- they'd begun working for, this month. My conclusion was/is: no marriage/no such benefit. The university posts IRS Notice 2004-79 on its website; but I didn't see my client's fact-pattern availing that.

That older notice sounds like it only refers to relatives, but it actually includes any household member who received more than 50% support regardless of the dependent's gross income. See if the client can qualify by putting dependent's earnings into savings, etc. Otherwise they will have to take a vacation to someplace where they can get legally married. Even then, who knows? If the employer is a state university it still might not offer the benefit.

It's going to be a while before we can advise clients without a lot of disclaimers. Domestic partners are in a particularly confusing situation, since they may not even be eligible to get legally married.

[Guest Taxed]

I would like Joanmcq to comment since she has a lot more same sex couple clients than me but I am not fnding any rush to amend to MFJ?

The 2 couples that I thought would most likely jump at this are taking a very laid back attitude because they have kept their finances separated so long and hate to stir up the water?

Joan what are you finding?

[kcjenkins]

I imagine our CA members have more to contribute to this thread, and will be interested in their input myself.

[joanmcq]

I'm finding a lot of my Registered Domestic Partners have already gotten married! As far as amending, I've had a few who I've been filing protective claims for that I already know will amend. Others that got married out of state in the interim have indicated they'd like to amend or at least see if its beneficial. Some who benefited greatly from splitting their wages know they won't amend. We made sure they filed before June just to make sure they got filed before any changes occurred. I'm teaching a class on this tomorrow night; changes to state issues are coming in fast & furious! I'd be grateful for any links like the Huff post one on the other thread that gives any guidance to what's occurring on th state level.

[Guest Taxed]

Are you teaching other tax preparers or the same sex couple taxpayers?

[joanmcq]

Tax preparers