Not in the eyes of Uncle Sam
While my gay friends are still thinking about why their partner hasn't popped the question yet, I've been getting ready to field the inevitable tax questions that will come my way once they tie the knot.
The most obvious one is whether same-sex nuptials will be recognized for federal tax purposes. And the answer appears to be no.
Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act states:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."
Of course, this goes beyond tax issues. But from a tax standpoint alone, marriage can be worth a lot of money these days. Many couples now enjoy a bonus by getting married. Alas, that bonus is unavailable to gay marrieds.
O.k., on to the next one: How about on our Oregon state and Multnomah County income tax returns? I don't have the answers to that one yet.
| Posted at 3:34 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (2)
But see IRC § 2702(e) (well, only if you have gobs of money, that is).
Posted by Erik | March 5, 2004 6:59 AM
Now that you got me thinking about it, I would also want to look at §§ 267, 318, 1031(f), and others that aren't coming directly to mind. Of course, most taxpayers likely aren't in a position to worry about these provisions, but it goes to show that marriage is not necessarily a taxpayer paradise.
It is a very interesting question how Oregon will/would deal with this issue, seeing as how they use federal adjusted gross income as a starting point for determining state income tax liability. It would seem to me that if Oregon was ready to recognize same-sex marriage (and the feds not), the Department of Revenue would have some work to do.
Posted by Erik | March 5, 2004 9:31 AM