Tax Returns To Be Amended By IRS To Reflect Same-Sex Marital Status Changes
In 2013, in United States v, Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court found Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. Section 3 defined “marriage” as a legal union between one man and one woman and “spouse” as only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife. The Court’s decision meant that married same-sex couples must be treated under federal law as married opposite-sex couples.
The IRS followed up with Revenue Ruling 2013-17. The IRS concluded that, for federal tax purposes, the terms ” husband and wife”, “Husband” and “wife” should be interpreted to include same-sex spouses. The IRS further concluded that, for federal tax purposes, recognition should be given to a same-sex marriage that was valid in the state where it was entered into, regardless of the married couple’s place of domicile.
IRS Issues Final Rules For Same-Sex Marriage Couples
On September 2, 2016, the IRS has issued final rules consistent with United States v. Windsor and Revenue Ruling 2013-17. Under these rules, the terms “spouse”, “husband” and “wife” shall apply to same-sex marriages for federal tax purposes. These … Read More... “Gay Marriage Alert: The IRS Finalizes Rules Recognizing Same-Sex Marriages”
The Supreme Court of New Hampshire recently held that courts may consider premarital cohabitation when considering the division of a same-sex couple’s assets. In the Matter of Deborah Munson and Coral Beal, the New Hampshire court was faced with a divorce and division of assets of a same-sex couple who lived together for 15 years before a civil union was held, followed by a marriage three years later. During the 15 years before the marriage, the couple essentially acted and functioned as a married couple, both socially and financially. However, the trial court awarded Beal limited alimony and a small percent of the marital estate based upon the short duration of the marriage. Upon appeal, her attorneys argued that the district court should have considered the 15 years the couple cohabitated prior to the marriage.
Now that the institution of marriage has been sanctioned for same-sex couples, estate planning options and benefits that have not been available before can now be utilized to protect and provide for spouses in same-sex marriages.
No doubt, in the last few weeks or so, you’ve encountered the name Kim Davis in conversation around the water cooler or dinner table. It is also of little doubt that you’ve confronted staunch opinions regarding the Kentucky clerk of court who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court held that an individual’s right to marry a person of his or her choice to be a fundamental right under the United States Constitution. This ruling, highly publicized and long-anticipated, sparked expansive debate regarding Same-Sex Marriages across the country as citizens struggled to adapt their personal and professional lives in accordance with the Court’s intent to equally expand the rights of marriage to same-sex couples. Not long after, small businesses engaged in the “wedding industry” – perhaps, most notably a bakery in Colorado – announced that due to personal beliefs, they would not extend their services to same-sex couples that wished to marry. Debate and litigation continues to develop as courts begin to unearth whether the personal beliefs of business owners to essentially engage in discrimination violate the Supreme Court’s holding.
Now that the United States Supreme Court has deemed the refusal of states to allow same sex marriages unconstitutional,