IRS Decides on married tax laws. Civil Unions/Domestic partnerships not equal.

[Amimnoch]

Well, I was just checking online for any update on this (Living as an expat resident in Canada, and married for 7 years now I needed to know how I could file my quarterly US income declaration, and how much I needed to pay to avoid the end of year penalty).

Surprising that I only found this info on a Forbes site, and none of my regular sites:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2013/08/29/irs-rules-all-legal-same-sex-marriages-will-be-recognized-for-federal-tax-purposes/

After weeks of speculation about how the Internal Revenue Service will treat same-sex marriages, we have our answer: the IRS has announced that same-sex couples, legally married in jurisdictions that recognize their marriages, will be treated as married for federal tax purposes. And that’s what we expected.

But here’s what we didn’t: the ruling applies regardless of whether the couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage.

Great news for most of us (myself included).. BUT:

the ruling does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, or similar formal relationships recognized under state law.

So, for all of us that were sold the bullshit line that the "separate but equal" title of civil unions, and domestic partnerships were really "equal", but just under a different name... well, it's officially bullshit.

Still, even with this exception clause, it's a great step forward.

Anyway, if anyone else was waiting, and biting their nails for this info, it looks like it's been decided. Heading to the IRS website to see if i can find some confirmation after this post is done.

[Pab Sungenis]

1. And the next round of lawsuits begins

in 3... 2....

I can't believe we have to do this so piecemeal.

[pinto]

2. Frequently Asked Questions for Civil Unions & Domestic Partnerships (IRS) -

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Answers-to-Frequently-Asked-Questions-for-Registered-Domestic-Partners-and-Individuals-in-Civil-Unions

[Amimnoch]

3. Link to the IRS announcement on their own site:

http://www.irs.gov/uac/Newsroom/Treasury-and-IRS-Announce-That-All-Legal-Same-Sex-Marriages-Will-Be-Recognized-For-Federal-Tax-Purposes;-Ruling-Provides-Certainty,-Benefits-and-Protections-Under-Federal-Tax-Law-for-Same-Sex-Married-Couples

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) today ruled that same-sex couples, legally married in jurisdictions that recognize their marriages, will be treated as married for federal tax purposes. The ruling applies regardless of whether the couple lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or a jurisdiction that does not recognize same-sex marriage.

The ruling implements federal tax aspects of the June 26 Supreme Court decision invalidating a key provision of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

Under the ruling, same-sex couples will be treated as married for all federal tax purposes, including income and gift and estate taxes. The ruling applies to all federal tax provisions where marriage is a factor, including filing status, claiming personal and dependency exemptions, taking the standard deduction, employee benefits, contributing to an IRA and claiming the earned income tax credit or child tax credit.

Any same-sex marriage legally entered into in one of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, a U.S. territory or a foreign country will be covered by the ruling. However, the ruling does not apply to registered domestic partnerships, civil unions or similar formal relationships recognized under state law.

Legally-married same-sex couples generally must file their 2013 federal income tax return using either the married filing jointly or married filing separately filing status.

Individuals who were in same-sex marriages may, but are not required to, file original or amended returns choosing to be treated as married for federal tax purposes for one or more prior tax years still open under the statute of limitations.

Generally, the statute of limitations for filing a refund claim is three years from the date the return was filed or two years from the date the tax was paid, whichever is later. As a result, refund claims can still be filed for tax years 2010, 2011 and 2012. Some taxpayers may have special circumstances, such as signing an agreement with the IRS to keep the statute of limitations open, that permit them to file refund claims for tax years 2009 and earlier.

Additionally, employees who purchased same-sex spouse health insurance coverage from their employers on an after-tax basis may treat the amounts paid for that coverage as pre-tax and excludable from income.

How to File a Claim for Refund

Taxpayers who wish to file a refund claim for income taxes should use Form 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.

Taxpayers who wish to file a refund claim for gift or estate taxes should file Form 843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement. For information on filing an amended return, see Tax Topic 308, Amended Returns, available on IRS.gov, or the Instructions to Forms 1040X and 843. Information on where to file your amended returns is available in the instructions to the form.

Future Guidance

Treasury and the IRS intend to issue streamlined procedures for employers who wish to file refund claims for payroll taxes paid on previously-taxed health insurance and fringe benefits provided to same-sex spouses. Treasury and IRS also intend to issue further guidance on cafeteria plans and on how qualified retirement plans and other tax-favored arrangements should treat same-sex spouses for periods before the effective date of this Revenue Ruling.

Other agencies may provide guidance on other federal programs that they administer that are affected by the Code.

Revenue Ruling 2013-17, along with updated Frequently Asked Questions for same-sex couples and updated FAQs for registered domestic partners and individuals in civil unions, are available today on IRS.gov. See also Publication 555, Community Property.

Treasury and the IRS will begin applying the terms of Revenue Ruling 2013-17 on Sept. 16, 2013, but taxpayers who wish to rely on the terms of the Revenue Ruling for earlier periods may choose to do so, as long as the statute of limitations for the earlier period has not expired.

[dballance]

4. A Time When Scalia was Correct

In Scalia's scathing dissent on the DOMA ruling he predicted the other shoe would drop. He was correct. The DOMA decision at the Supreme Court level most certainly paves the way for challenges to local and state laws that still criminalize or deny the validity of same-sex unions.

The arrogant bastard, Scalia, though, finds no irony in saying in his DOMA dissent that the Court doesn't have the power to decide the case and that it was "Jaw-dropping." “That is jaw-dropping. It is an assertion of judicial supremacy over the people’s Representatives in Congress and the Executive,” he wrote, adding that the framers of the Constitution created a judicial branch with limited power in order to “guard their right to self-rule against the black-robed supremacy that today’s majority finds so attractive.”

Yet just some months later it was apparently appropriate for the Court to use some "Black-robed supremacy" to invalidate sections of the Voting Rights Act enacted by the congress, the peoples' representatives and the Executive, with unanimous or near unanimous votes.

Scalia is the epitome of an activist jurist. He finds no irony or hypocrisy in his blatant votes to effect his world view upon the citizens and despite the laws passed by their representatives while, at the same time, he rails against the more liberal side of the court for doing so.

Fortunately for history's sake his rants are preserved and will be used and reviewed in the future just as the many decisions that favored segregation or the other oppressions of minorities before the 14th Amendment and before the Civil Rights Acts are now ridiculed as partisan efforts to keep the status quo no matter how repugnant it was.

[Ms. Toad]

5. Some of us have been saying separate but equal was BS

forever. For the exact same reasons the IRS has declared it BS.

And, for the record, the IRS based its analysis on the precise rules the Supreme Court should have used to decide Windsor, but failed to. Things would have been so much clearer if the Supreme Court had acted with integrity on this matter. I'm glad the IRS is, at least, following its common law marriage precedent.