J
JHaydenEA
So, is the Andover Service Center going to get MFJ 1040's
from Tom and Fred Smith?
from Tom and Fred Smith?
R
Rich Carreiro
They might, but under the Federal "Defense of Marriage Act",
the IRS will have to ignore them and require Tom and Fred
to each file a return as a single.
F
Frederick Jorden
That depends if the owe a balance or not and if they file aJHaydenEA said:
1040, 1040A or 1040ez. Perhaps eye color will determine the
filling address next year.
M
MTW
Not until the federal "defense of marriage act" (DOMA) isJHaydenEA said:
declared unconstitutional. Said act instructs federal
agencies (like the IRS) to ignore any marriage that doesn't
consist of one man and one woman.
(Side issue: Has anyone ever seen a definitive definition of
"man" and "woman?" From things I've read, there is much
debate in the scientific community on this point.)
MTW
P
Phil Marti
So, is the Andover Service Center going to get MFJ 1040's
Mass residents file in Fresno.
There's an article in today's Washington Post about some of
the issues, including income and estate taxes, that are
going to be keeping the courts busy for a while.
Phil Marti
Topeka, KS
Surely the IRS has things well enough organized now that
Mass residents file in Fresno.
There's an article in today's Washington Post about some of
the issues, including income and estate taxes, that are
going to be keeping the courts busy for a while.
Phil Marti
Topeka, KS
S
Sassy Baskets
Maybe. There's a big discussion of this elsewhere in this
group. I think that federal law defines marriage as being
between a man and a woman, which would prohibit joint filing
of returns by same-sex couples. But I don't think that the
IRS has any way of knowing a taxpayer's sex, outside of an
audit, so I bet a lot of people will get away with it.
D
Dick Adams
When those tax returns start arriving at the Service
Centers, the IRS is going to bounce them and that is
going to cause a real resource drain because the issue
is almost certainly going to be heard by Willie and the
Supremes.
D
Dan Evans
Not any valid ones. Federal law still defines "marriage" in
terms of one man and one woman.
Nor is any other state required to honor a same-sex marriage
from another state, because of the federal "Defense of
Marriage" act that declares that no state is required to
give "full faith and credit" to any such marriage.
However, another state *may* honor the MA same-sex marriage
if it wants, and there have been reports on the news that
some other states might.
I'm pretty sure that Pennsylvania, where I practice, will
*not* honor any same-sex marriages from other states,
because PA has its own "defense of marriage act" that
defines "marriage" as a civil contract between one man and
one woman.
*Dan Evans
*Author of the Tax Protester FAQ
*http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
P
Phil Marti
(Side issue: Has anyone ever seen a definitive definition of
Phil Marti
Topeka, KS
Pour a large drink and Google "intersexual" for a fun evening.
Phil Marti
Topeka, KS
P
Phil Marti
Federal law still defines "marriage" in
under state law. In effect DOMA says "unless..." From the
day DOMA was signed (actually, the middle of the night) I've
figured this one was headed for the courts eventually.
the limb that says that if the full faith and credit clause
of the Constitution applies, Congress can't override it with
a simple Act.
Phil Marti
Topeka, KS
Yes and no. The IRC says that marital status is determined
under state law. In effect DOMA says "unless..." From the
day DOMA was signed (actually, the middle of the night) I've
figured this one was headed for the courts eventually.
Although I'm not a constitutional scholar, I'll stake out
the limb that says that if the full faith and credit clause
of the Constitution applies, Congress can't override it with
a simple Act.
I read that one (Rhode Island?) has said it will.
Phil Marti
Topeka, KS
F
Frederick Jorden
Dick said:
How will the IRS know the sex of the taxpayer and spouse.
Is it encoded in the social security number? What if
someone had a sex change operation?
S
Sassy Baskets
Dick Adams said:
How will the IRS bounce them? Will the 1040 have a space
for each spouse's sex?
============================================================
Moderator: Expect to see a check box on the 1040!
============================================================
H
Herb Smith
They might get them, and process them also. How does the IRS
know the sex of the individuals filing? Surely they can't
rely on name alone. At one time, I was married to a lady
with the name of "Michael" (and pronounced that way).
Although she received several letter from the armed forces
recruiting offices, we never had any problem filing joint
What about a marriage between a man and a post-operational
tranny? Is that going to upset your precious DOMA?
H
Harlan Lunsford
maybe in the (so called) scientific community, but certainly
NOT down here.
A man is a man. And if "he" aint' a man, it's a woman.
nuff said.
Cheer$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA
H
Harlan Lunsford
Sassy said:
Remember Sassy, that IRS has access to Social Security
records, and I KNOW they record sex.
duh.. "and I KNOW they record sex of the
participant/annuitant."
Cheer$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA
D
D. Stussy
Rich said:
Now you know why I made that "random suggestion" of a 1065
for a domestic partnership! In such a case, the two
taxpayers ARE combining their income and presumedly
splitting it 50/50 so as to simulate what happens for each
spouse of a married-joint, but without any declaration as to
their "marriage." Since MA isn't also a "community
property" state, I'm not saying that there aren't problems
with this approach....
D
D. Stussy
I thought that I heard somewhere (perhaps this was from the
prison systems) that the states (and perhaps the federal
government) go by what a person is GENETICALLY, even after
gender-reassignment surgery. That will solve the normal
conditions of "XX" and "XY", but not necessarily "XXY" which
does sometimes occur (and so does "XXX" but that's not as
interesting ...).
D
D. Stussy
Sassy said:
[Getting silly:]
I expect to see more than a check-box!
If I were still at the IRS, I would also expect to see entries
such as "often," "indiscriminately," and "how much?"
D
Dick Adams
Keeping mind that the appropriate responses to sexDick Adams said:
are Yes and No. The proper variable for inquiry is
gender as in Female or Male.
This is a political issue and Massachusetts is a
battlefield. The proponents have already won in the
State Supreme Court. My take is that this is that Willie
and the Supremes will not hear an appeal since marriage
is a State defined issue. (Since I'm not a Constitutional
Scholar, I could be wrong.)
So the opponents will look to the federal government to
enforce the Defense of Marriage Act and the immediately
convenient place for that is federal tax returns.
It would not surprise me if proponents already living
near the State line were to move into an adjacent State
to create litigation under the "full faith and credit"
clause.
My prophecy is that Willie and the Supremes will side with
the proponents, a Constitutional Amendment to side with the
opponents will not get sent to the States for ratification,
the Internal Revenue Code will experience significant
revisions in the area of filing status.
Dick
"When ever someone says 'tax simplification', I reach under
my pillow and click off the safety catch on my Uzi."
P
Phil Marti
What if someone had a sex change operation?
It depends on where (s)he lives. In MO a male to female
post-op transsexual is legally considered a woman and gets a
new birth certificate. In KS no go. This came up in a KS
estate case. The couple were married in MO but lived in KS
when he died. The KS court ruled that she wasn't his widow
since they couldn't legally marry in KS.
I don't know whether this is going to the Federal courts
under full faith and credit or not.
Phil Marti
Topeka, KS
It depends on where (s)he lives. In MO a male to female
post-op transsexual is legally considered a woman and gets a
new birth certificate. In KS no go. This came up in a KS
estate case. The couple were married in MO but lived in KS
when he died. The KS court ruled that she wasn't his widow
since they couldn't legally marry in KS.
I don't know whether this is going to the Federal courts
under full faith and credit or not.
Phil Marti
Topeka, KS