Massachusetts and the IRS

Seeker630 · 21-Oct-2007, 12:05 AM (00:05)

Ok I was just in a Blog where the subject of gay marriage/civil union was brought up pertaining to Massachusetts, where it is now legal. My question is this:

If a legally married gay couple in that state file their income tax return as either "Married, filing Separately" or "Married Filing Jointly", will the IRS now recognize them as married for tax purposes?

HawkerHurricane · 21-Oct-2007, 01:10 AM (01:10)

Under current federal law, no, the IRS wouldn't recognize them.

21-Oct-2007, 03:24 AM (03:24)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkerHurricane

Under current federal law, no, the IRS wouldn't recognize them.

That's fucked up.

Garnet · 21-Oct-2007, 05:13 AM (05:13)

I dunno, Thalia...

Isn't it still true that married folk pay more income tax than single folk?

Gurdur · 21-Oct-2007, 05:19 AM (05:19)

Well, the IRS has no choice. They must comply with Federal law, AFAIK. It don't matter none what some state does; the IRS is Federal, not state, and must apply Federal criteria consistantly nation-wide.

Please correct me if I'm wrong; after all, I am not American.

HawkerHurricane · 21-Oct-2007, 05:39 AM (05:39)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Garnet

I dunno, Thalia...

Isn't it still true that married folk pay more income tax than single folk?

Only if thier combined income is over $150,000 a year. If under that, they pay less, often a lot less.

Master Taran · 21-Oct-2007, 05:45 AM (05:45)

Couldn't prove it by U/us.

Seeker630 · 21-Oct-2007, 01:12 PM (13:12)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkerHurricane

Only if thier combined income is over $150,000 a year. If under that, they pay less, often a lot less.

Having been married with a wife and three kids, and now being single, I have to say that on a per-person basis, I pay much higher taxes now than if I had stayed married. Especially when the kids were young. Here's a theoretical scenario:

All other things being equal---a single man lives next door to a married couple with two kids. They have the same income, and their homes are worth the same amount. So the only variables here are the wife and two kids. The couple get a total of 4 exemptions on the front page of the return. The single guy gets only one. Do the numbers-----the single guy pays the helluva lot more taxes than the married couple, due to the fact that a large portion of their income is non-taxable from the start.

Single people, to a significant extent, subsidize families in our society.

retrow · 21-Oct-2007, 04:00 PM (16:00)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seeker630

Single people, to a significant extent, subsidize families in our society.

Damn married folks with kids. Double damn married folks with lots of kids.

AspenMama · 21-Oct-2007, 04:06 PM (16:06)

Oddly, my ex-husband had a t-shirt on yesterday that said in big block letters on the front: "COMMITMENT IS COMMITMENT". On the back, it had some sort of gay marriage support group logo-- which I suppose makes sense. But still it seems odd to me to see my ex wearing that slogan, considering...

He and his partner (the guy he moved in with 2 seconds after our divorce was final) won't get married until its legal everywhere. They just don't see any logic in it.

Seeker630 · 21-Oct-2007, 04:47 PM (16:47)

Quote:

Originally Posted by AspenMama

Oddly, my ex-husband had a t-shirt on yesterday that said in big block letters on the front: "COMMITMENT IS COMMITMENT". On the back, it had some sort of gay marriage support group logo-- which I suppose makes sense. But still it seems odd to me to see my ex wearing that slogan, considering...

He and his partner (the guy he moved in with 2 seconds after our divorce was final) won't get married until its legal everywhere. They just don't see any logic in it.

It makes sense for certain things, like hospital visitation rights, maybe some insurance stuff too, especially health insurance. If Massachusetts has a state income tax, they can probably file for the 2nd married exemption on that return, even if they can't on the federal form.

AspenMama · 21-Oct-2007, 04:52 PM (16:52)

Perhaps. But we all live in Colorado. They don't see a point in traveling to another state to get married, then coming back here where it doesn't matter.

Seeker630 · 21-Oct-2007, 09:23 PM (21:23)

Ok sorry--I was still thinking Mass.

Godless Dave · 22-Oct-2007, 12:31 AM (00:31)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurdur

Well, the IRS has no choice. They must comply with Federal law, AFAIK. It don't matter none what some state does; the IRS is Federal, not state, and must apply Federal criteria consistantly nation-wide.

Please correct me if I'm wrong; after all, I am not American.

The IRS has to follow federal law, but marriage is a state, not federal, matter. So, unless there is some federal law saying otherwise (and there might be), then the IRS would have to consider any couple who Massachusetts says is married, married.

Wet Walnuts · 22-Oct-2007, 12:42 AM (00:42)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Godless Dave

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gurdur

Well, the IRS has no choice. They must comply with Federal law, AFAIK. It don't matter none what some state does; the IRS is Federal, not state, and must apply Federal criteria consistantly nation-wide.

Please correct me if I'm wrong; after all, I am not American.

The IRS has to follow federal law, but marriage is a state, not federal, matter. So, unless there is some federal law saying otherwise (and there might be), then the IRS would have to consider any couple who Massachusetts says is married, married.

There is a law which forbids the IRS and the various other agencies of the federal government from recognizing gay marriages--namely, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

It is a positively ridiculous and unnecessary law, but it has never been repealed or declared unconstitutional by the federal courts.

Godless Dave · 23-Oct-2007, 07:17 AM (07:17)

OK, I figured it was in the DOMA but I didn't know for sure.

Gurdur · 23-Oct-2007, 07:22 AM (07:22)

Thanks, Godless Dave and Wet Walnuts, for the clarifications. As ever, educating myself.

Bud · 23-Oct-2007, 01:57 PM (13:57)

And all of us.

Defence Of Marriage Act... Jeez

verte · 23-Oct-2007, 02:09 PM (14:09)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bud

And all of us.

Defence Of Marriage Act... Jeez

For sheer irony, it's right up there with that nasty agape.com site.

Bud · 23-Oct-2007, 02:14 PM (14:14)

Or the ruling military Junta in Burma, the "State Peace and Development Council".

All about the HH	Register	Arcade	Recreations Room	The HH FAQ
Zoints Search Tags		Other Site Content - Blogs, Wiki etc.		Mark Forums Read

21-Oct-2007, 12:05 AM (00:05)	#1
Seeker630 Barbequeing the Hangout. Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,870	Massachusetts and the IRS Ok I was just in a Blog where the subject of gay marriage/civil union was brought up pertaining to Massachusetts, where it is now legal. My question is this: If a legally married gay couple in that state file their income tax return as either "Married, filing Separately" or "Married Filing Jointly", will the IRS now recognize them as married for tax purposes?

21-Oct-2007, 04:06 PM (16:06)	#10
AspenMama The Decolletage Of Doom Join Date: May 2003 Location: Snuggled in by the fireplace with a glass of wine and fuzzy slippers. Posts: 5,700	Oddly, my ex-husband had a t-shirt on yesterday that said in big block letters on the front: "COMMITMENT IS COMMITMENT". On the back, it had some sort of gay marriage support group logo-- which I suppose makes sense. But still it seems odd to me to see my ex wearing that slogan, considering... He and his partner (the guy he moved in with 2 seconds after our divorce was final) won't get married until its legal everywhere. They just don't see any logic in it. Last edited by AspenMama : 21-Oct-2007 at 04:20 PM (16:20).
	Note to self 15c- Think of a clever signature line.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

21-Oct-2007, 05:13 AM (05:13)	#4
Garnet Zen Mistress: Loves you for your mind not just your body Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Lansing, MI Posts: 2,892	I dunno, Thalia... Isn't it still true that married folk pay more income tax than single folk?

21-Oct-2007, 05:19 AM (05:19)	#5
Gurdur Cuddly Wombat Join Date: May 2003 Location: Adminning Posts: 17,560	Well, the IRS has no choice. They must comply with Federal law, AFAIK. It don't matter none what some state does; the IRS is Federal, not state, and must apply Federal criteria consistantly nation-wide. Please correct me if I'm wrong; after all, I am not American.

21-Oct-2007, 05:45 AM (05:45)	#7
Master Taran Zen Master & Official Pr0n Checker Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Lat: 42.78 Lon: -84.6 Elev: 840.879 Posts: 6,086	Couldn't prove it by U/us.

21-Oct-2007, 04:52 PM (16:52)	#12
AspenMama The Decolletage Of Doom Join Date: May 2003 Location: Snuggled in by the fireplace with a glass of wine and fuzzy slippers. Posts: 5,700	Perhaps. But we all live in Colorado. They don't see a point in traveling to another state to get married, then coming back here where it doesn't matter.

21-Oct-2007, 09:23 PM (21:23)	#13
Seeker630 Barbequeing the Hangout. Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 2,870	Ok sorry--I was still thinking Mass.

23-Oct-2007, 07:22 AM (07:22)	#17
Gurdur Cuddly Wombat Join Date: May 2003 Location: Adminning Posts: 17,560	Thanks, Godless Dave and Wet Walnuts, for the clarifications. As ever, educating myself.