Posted on 08/30/2013 9:02:52 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Same-sex couples who get a marriage license in a state that has redefined marriage to include same-sex couples, but who live in a state that does not recognize their marriage, will be treated as a married couple for federal tax purposes, the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service announced Thursday.
The change in tax policy came after the U.S. Supreme Court this Summer struck down a provision in the Defense of Marriage Act that says marriage will be defined as the union of one man and one woman for the purposes of federal law.
The decision left unclear what it would mean for same-sex couples who married in one state but live in a state that does not recognize their marriage. It was left to the executive branch to decide many details about how the Supreme Court's decision would be implemented. Thursday's ruling, therefore, was the executive branch's clarification of the issue.
"Today's ruling provides certainty and clear, coherent tax filing guidance for all legally married same-sex couples nationwide. It provides access to benefits, responsibilities and protections under federal tax law that all Americans deserve," Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said in a press release. "This ruling also assures legally married same-sex couples that they can move freely throughout the country knowing that their federal filing status will not change."
The ruling will apply to any part of the tax code that recognizes marriage. Civil unions, though, will not be recognized for tax purposes.
Same-sex couples can choose to, but are not required to, file an amended return for 2010, 2011 or 2012, and may receive a refund. Beginning with their 2013 tax filings, same-sex couples with a marriage license must file as either "married filing jointly" or "married filing separately."
The ruling does not apply to state taxes. So, a same-sex couple that has been married in a state that has redefined marriage, but lives in a state that has not redefined marriage, would file as married for their federal taxes and as single for their state taxes.
Since you are self evidently not a conservative, what are you BESIDES a cheerleader for the leftist promotion of homosexual sex normalcy?
When you gave fedgov power to deny it, you also gave fedgov power to grant it. You lost in giving it any jurisdiction. If you can't see that, then further explanation is wasting everyone's time.
Tell you what sport...come back to me when you can find one thing I’ve posted in favor of homosexuality. I won’t hold my breath because you can’t.But feel free to keep making s**t up if it makes you feel better.
Bad strategy is still bad strategy.
Ah, more generalized sloganeering! How convincing, concise, and detailed.
I never gave the fedgov anything except some hard earned dollars, very grudgingly.
And due to reasons known only to yourself, you don’t see that the fedgov shoving fagdom down our throats is not due to evil conservatives, but to fags and their leftist and libertarian admirers!
Yeah, pointing out where ya’ll screwed the pooch is sloganeering. You guys can’t even get the point of a lesson after you’ve had to learn the hard way. You’re the architects of your own ruin.
Toke on and have fun with your mind!
It isn't about gay "marriage" so much as it is about getting "benefits" (i.e. profiting from redistribution of wealth) and breaking down millennia old social structures.
Now that marriage is being redefined legally to mean anything, while people who can obtain a legal "marriage" document can receive all kinds of benefits because of that word "marriage", expect a lot of people to suddenly be discovering the joys of marriage. They don't have to be sexually involved--marriage could be between roommates who have no desire to form lasting relationships with members of the opposite sex, but who want all the benefits the law offers to actual married couples. These "married" roommates, while enjoying the financial benefits of marriage, would still be living single lifestyles and dating and so forth. Another use of "marriage" would be to evade inheritance taxes. Perhaps a businessman has no children to leave his estate to, but he doesn't want the inheritance tax levied on it. So he "marries" his business partner in order to leave his holdings to him.
And so forth. The one thing that legalizing gay "marriage" is almost certainly *not* about is love or relationships. It's all about societal destruction and wealth redistribution.
Whatever, sport.
Not really “granting” anything, they are recognizing the legal marriage of two persons who have been married by a state which allows same-sex marriages, regardless of whether the state they presently reside in recognizes such. Out of the two IRS options with the repeal of DOMA (any-state or resident state) this one makes the most sense.
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.