Just to show you how F’d up the Windsor decision makes things…
So there’s a hypothetical gay couple who gets married in New Mexico. They file their federal tax return as MFJ, and they file a joint NM income tax return.
Then they move to Oklahoma, where the state does not recognize their marriage. However, the IRS still recognizes their marriage in the state of ceremony. So they file their federal taxes as MFJ. However, the state of Oklahoma doesn’t recognize their marriage, so they cannot file a joint state tax return.
Then, the said couple decides to get a divorce. But since the state does not recognize their marriage, they won’t grant a divorce. Is the couple still supposed to file MFJ for federal tax purposes?
Then, after many years of being married/divorced, one of them dies. The IRS follows the “state of ceremony” rule, so it will extend all federal tax benefits to them. However, the Social Security Administration follows the “state of residence” rule, so it will not give the survivor benefits, because they live in a nonrecognition state.
Greenman, im taking a tax course at my local univ to get enough credits to take CPA. will have some questions coming for u soon. hope u don’t mind. I take back everything bad I ever said about u.
Best solution: End government recognition of marriage altogether and just tax all individually. Its amazing to me in a country that loves its religious freedom that they scream for the State to uphold their beliefs. Let consenting adults arrange themselves as they see fit. I don’t understand why this needs to influence or be influenced by tax policy.
The federal government should not be involved in marriage. Someone choosing or not choosing to get married should not grant them any rights or lead to them being at any sort of advantage or disadvantage at the federal level.
It’s a tax issue. Spouse assets transfer between each other when one of them dies. Also, married people are subject to different income tax rules. The lawsuit that overturned Proposition 8 in California was based on estate tax.
In that case,even the people who are not actually gays may marry to exploit the tax arbitrage.
I think in a Bollywood movie called “Dostana” two Indian guys in California faked to be gays to exploit what ever advantage gays are subjected to enjoy.
If the State decides that people should be able to transfer assets tax free to another person at death, then what does it matter of the sexual orientation of that person. Folks should just deem a partner and that’s that. Why must we beg the State to get into our bedrooms and tell us the relationships we must have in order to obtain tax privledges???
That’s such a BS reply. Jeremy Irons got in a lot of trouble when he did an interview suggesting the same thing. He went a bit further suggesting a father could marry his son to get the tax break. Granted that’s way out there, but both scenarios are asinine. Where are all the straight people getting married purely for the tax breaks? What’s that? Never heard of a single case? No shit.
I’m sure it probably has happened, but in reality people get married because they want to spend the rest of their lives together, not for the tax breaks.