Posted on 06/16/2004 7:28:02 AM PDT by KMC1
WASHINGTON D.C. - Saying that it will violate the Federal Law known as the "Defense of Marriage Act" (or DOMA), the Internal Revenue Service is declining recognition of same sex marriages on all federal income tax issues.
In a letter released yesterday the IRS confirmed that due to the law signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton which states that "no state shall be forced to recognize" any union other than a man and a woman, they would not be able to allow same-sex unions to recieved "married" status on their returns or in the eyes of the federal department.
They even went as far as to say that even if a state recognizes such unions - that "recognition serves no effect for purposes under federal law".
(Excerpt) Read more at crosswalk.com ...
Whats Rosie Odonell going to do come tax time?
Ah, liberalism... all things to all people....
Yeah, I'm glad the IRS threw this one right into the Democrats' lap by citing the law signed by "Sick Willie" Bill Clinton.
Hey if it works, I don't care who they blame!
Thank GOD almighty. It's about time the government stood up for the morals of those who started this country.
It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.
Thank God at least one branch of the government still has a bit of dignity...
"...the IRS confirmed that due to the law signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton which states that "no state shall be forced to recognize" any union other than a man and a woman, they would not be able to allow same-sex unions to recieved "married" status on their returns..."
Heh, Heh, heh! All thanks to the Sinkmeister...who woulda thought!
Hmmmm. I wonder if libs will now want to abolish their favorite intimidation tool.
The same thing all the other rich liberals do; hire shady accountants and tax lawyers to help her cheat the system.
HEY - MAKE THEM PAY THE MARRIAGE PENALTY!!!
Too amusing.
This has been one of my questions from the beginning.
I also want to know what impacts the same sex marriage would have for employers. Should employers have to provide health benefits for a groups of people who are the highest risk for AIDS? Wouldn[t that action all but bankrupt small employers with premiums they can't afford?
The spector of Same Sex Marriages casts a large shadow, IMHO.
If we made them pay the marriage penalty, we'd soon have the entire press on our side to eliminate it.
I suppose that it's too much to hope that this would now put the gay community and its allies on the side of a flat tax or NRST.
bump !"...the IRS confirmed that due to the law signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton which states that "no state shall be forced to recognize" any union other than a man and a woman, they would not be able to allow same-sex unions to recieved "married" status on their returns..."
IRS: "NO - ON SAME SEX MARRIAGE" Excerpt:In a letter released yesterday the IRS confirmed that due to the law signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton which states that "no state shall be forced to recognize" any union other than a man and a woman, they would not be able to allow same-sex unions to recieved "married" status on their returns or in the eyes of the federal department.
They even went as far as to say that even if a state recognizes such unions - that "recognition serves no effect for purposes under federal law".
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.
I agree with you.
Those folks in "Faggachusetts" are gonna be sorely disappointed.
If both work, generally more taxes are owed if you are married than if you shack up. Having the IRS recognize these marriages would cost them money.
well at lest there is some hope for things
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.