Domestic partnership NY and state taxes

[brandonng2]

I am currently in a domestic (opposite sex, if it matters) partnership. We registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late December of 2012.

I understand that we have to file separate federal returns because the federal government doesn't recognize registered domestic partnerships.

Can we also file our NY state returns separately? Or those returns have to be together.

Thank you!

 

[Don Priebe]

I am currently in a domestic (opposite sex, if it matters) partnership. We registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late December of 2012.

I understand that we have to file separate federal returns because the federal government doesn't recognize registered domestic partnerships.

Can we also file our NY state returns separately? Or those returns have to be together.

Thank you!

From

http://www.cityclerk.nyc.gov/html/marriage/domestic_partnership_reg.shtml

*Rights Not Extended to Registered Domestic Partners
*Because they cannot be considered spouses, domestic partners do not
benefit from state income tax advantages, the spousal privilege and
confidential marital communications, the ability to take out insurance
policies on the other spouse, and other benefits of marriage. A
surviving domestic partner does not have any inheritance or life
insurance rights absent an explicit bequest in a will.

I would take "do not benefit from state income tax advantages" as
meaning you cannot file MFJ [not that that is always beneficial.]

Don EA in Upstate NY

 

[remove ps]

I am currently in a domestic (opposite sex, if it matters)
partnership. We registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late
December of 2012.

I understand that we have to file separate federal returns because
the federal government doesn't recognize registered domestic
partnerships.

You file Single, which is better than MFS and often better than MFJ
because you don't get hit with the marriage penalty.

Can we also file our NY state returns separately? Or those returns
have to be together.

No idea about NY.

 

[Alan]

I am currently in a domestic (opposite sex, if it matters) partnership. We registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late December of 2012.

I understand that we have to file separate federal returns because the federal government doesn't recognize registered domestic partnerships. Neither does NY.

Can we also file our NY state returns separately? Or those returns have to be together. Separate. You are not married.

Thank you!

 

[Don Priebe]

I am currently in a domestic (opposite sex, if it matters) partnership.
We registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late December of 2012.

Neither does NY.

Apparently NY does, or did, at least NY City did, for limited purposes
not including tax returns. Things like being covered by your partner's
civil service insurance, etc. There is a whole section on domestic
partners at the NYC clerk's website. (or Google is your friend.)

 

[remove ps]

I am currently in a domestic (opposite sex, if it matters)
partnership. We registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late
December of 2012.

Apparently NY does, or did, at least NY City did, for limited
purposes not including tax returns. Things like being covered by
your partner's civil service insurance, etc. There is a whole section
on domestic partners at the NYC clerk's website. (or Google is your
friend.)

NY started to recognize same-sex marriages some time ago. Maybe that's
when they stopped recognizing domestic partnerships. Not sure.

 

[Don Priebe]

NY started to recognize same-sex marriages some time ago. Maybe
that's when they stopped recognizing domestic partnerships. Not sure.
Why do we think that NY stopped recognizing domestic partnerships to the
same extent that it used to? {No references to tax filing status -
domestic partnerships were never recognized for that by NYS.]

The Ithaca town clerk website on domestic partners [
http://www.ci.ithaca.ny.us/departments/clerk/partnership.cfm ] has a
2012 date on it, after the Marriage Equality Act of 2011.

 

[Dick Adams]

State returns for also filed separately because this is an NYC statute.

http://www.cityclerk.nyc.gov/html/marriage/domestic_partnership_reg.shtml

*Rights Not Extended to Registered Domestic Partners
*Because they cannot be considered spouses, domestic partners do not
benefit from state income tax advantages, the spousal privilege and
confidential marital communications, the ability to take out insurance
policies on the other spouse, and other benefits of marriage. A
surviving domestic partner does not have any inheritance or life
insurance rights absent an explicit bequest in a will.
...

After reading the above, it appears to me that a domestic partner of an
NYC employee is treated as a spouse for health insurance purposes. In
general, it is very slanted in favor of NYC officials, employees, and
others the City can control.

Dick

 

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

After reading the above, it appears to me that a domestic
partner of an NYC employee is treated as a spouse for health
insurance purposes. In general, it is very slanted in favor of
NYC officials, employees, and others the City can control.

In California there is what appears to be an odd law. While being
domestic partners is generally limited to gay couples, heterosexual
couples can form domestic partnerships if one of the partners is 62
years or older.

Why do that? Well, Social Security is subject to a family cap. So
many married couples receive less SS together than they would
individually if they weren't married.

So California came to the rescue - those couples can switch from
married to domestic partners. Doing that they would continue to have
all the rights and responsibilities of married couples under state
law, but would not be married under federal law, so are not subject
to the SS cap.

Should that go in your forthcoming book, "Shacking Up for Fun and
Profit"?

 

[Alan]

(e-mail address removed) (Dick Adams) wrote:









In California there is what appears to be an odd law. While being

domestic partners is generally limited to gay couples, heterosexual

couples can form domestic partnerships if one of the partners is 62

years or older.



Why do that? Well, Social Security is subject to a family cap. So

many married couples receive less SS together than they would

individually if they weren't married.



So California came to the rescue - those couples can switch from

married to domestic partners. Doing that they would continue to have

all the rights and responsibilities of married couples under state

law, but would not be married under federal law, so are not subject

to the SS cap.



Should that go in your forthcoming book, "Shacking Up for Fun and

Profit"?

You lost me. The maximum family cap is used to determine the max amount that can be paid using one person's work record. There is no family cap for two workers collecting on their own work record. So... if two single people age 62 or over maximize benefits on their own records, that benefit does not change if they get married.

 

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

You lost me. The maximum family cap is used to determine the
max amount that can be paid using one person's work record.
There is no family cap for two workers collecting on their own
work record. So... if two single people age 62 or over maximize
benefits on their own records, that benefit does not change if
they get married.

That's not the way I understand it. And I have talked to married
couples who have said they would receive more Social Security if they
were single than they did married.

I could be wrong - I'm no Social Security expert. But that's what
has been explained to me.

 

[Alan]

That's not the way I understand it. And I have talked to married
couples who have said they would receive more Social Security if they
were single than they did married.

I could be wrong - I'm no Social Security expert. But that's what
has been explained to me.

What you heard is a myth. There is no marriage penalty. See "Is there a
maximum Social Security family amount?" at the below site. You can also
find the answer at ssa.gov.


http://socialsecurityinfo.areavoice...here-a-maximum-social-security-family-amount/

 

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

What you heard is a myth. There is no marriage penalty. See "Is
there a maximum Social Security family amount?" at the below
site. You can also find the answer at ssa.gov.


http://socialsecurityinfo.areavoices.com/2012/08/02/is-there-a-ma
ximum-social-security-family-amount/

Thanks. Good information to know.

 

[remove ps]

What you heard is a myth. There is no marriage penalty. See "Is there
a maximum Social Security family amount?" at the below site. You can
also find the answer at ssa.gov.

http://socialsecurityinfo.areavoice...here-a-maximum-social-security-family-amount/

I disagree with the claim that there is no social security marriage
penalty. While the amount each spouse receives is not reduced, there
amount of social security income that is taxable is in general more for
married people. For single people, if your income from other sources
is more than 25k, then your social security benefits are taxable. But
for married people, the limit is not 50k, but 32k. This means that
your social security income becomes taxable quicker when married, but
only as long as you have enough other income. This in effect reduces
your effective income after taxes.

It seems that article is saying that there is a family maximum for the
purposes of computing benefits to dependents. I didn't see how being
single makes this maximum higher.

 

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

I disagree with the claim that there is no social security
marriage penalty. While the amount each spouse receives is not
reduced, there amount of social security income that is taxable
is in general more for married people.

That's about paying more for income tax. It has nothing to do with
Social Security, which is what we were talking about.

And that income tax "marriage penalty" generally happens when spouses
earn about the same amount. When one spouse earns a lot more than
the other, the tax, married filing jointly, is generally less.

It seems that article is saying that there is a family maximum
for the purposes of computing benefits to dependents. I didn't
see how being single makes this maximum higher.

It doesn't. It is just explaining why people might think there is a
marital penalty when there really isn't.

___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

 

[Dick Adams]

(e-mail address removed) (Dick Adams) wrote:

In California there is what appears to be an odd law. While being
domestic partners is generally limited to gay couples, heterosexual
couples can form domestic partnerships if one of the partners is 62
years or older.

Why do that? Well, Social Security is subject to a family cap. So
many married couples receive less SS together than they would
Individually if they weren't married.

So California came to the rescue - those couples can switch from
married to domestic partners. Doing that they would continue to have
all the rights and responsibilities of married couples under state
law, but would not be married under federal law, so are not subject
to the SS cap.

Should that go in your forthcoming book, "Shacking Up for Fun and
Profit"?

The title is "Living in Sin for Fun and Profit". With the exception of health
and hazard insurance, I believe you can contract you way into almost all
of the legal benefits of marriage without even resorting to a domestic
partnership.

"Polygamous Cohabitation and Other Strategies for Social Security Recipients"
is the title of my next book. One strategy will be for those on SS Disability
to adopt orphans who will minimize back pain of Senior Citizens by picking up
stuff off the floor for them. Plus Seniors who have non-SS income will get
the benefit of filing as Unmarried Head of Household. One major benefit will
be to finally have children who listen to you!

Don't worry about the "Polygamous Cohabitation". Once you're old enough to
quality for SS, nobody should claim it's immoral. If someone does, just tell
them you're pro-choice across the board.

Dick

 

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

The title is "Living in Sin for Fun and Profit". With the
exception of health and hazard insurance, I believe you can
contract you way into almost all of the legal benefits of
marriage without even resorting to a domestic partnership.

Almost. You can't get rights to inherit without a will, a probate
homestead or to visit your partner in the hospital without either
marriage or qualified domestic partnership.

"Polygamous Cohabitation and Other Strategies for Social
Security Recipients" is the title of my next book. One strategy
will be for those on SS Disability to adopt orphans who will
minimize back pain of Senior Citizens by picking up stuff off
the floor for them. Plus Seniors who have non-SS income will
get the benefit of filing as Unmarried Head of Household. One
major benefit will be to finally have children who listen to
you!

How about foster kids? When you do that you get a bit of money on
the side to help support them.

Don't worry about the "Polygamous Cohabitation". Once you're
old enough to quality for SS, nobody should claim it's immoral.

Perhaps they'd forget they'd thought it's immoral.

If someone does, just tell them you're pro-choice across the
board.

Good point.

___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com