Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IRS Increases 'Marriage Penalty,' Unmarried Cohabitants To Get Twice The Mortgage Interest Deduction
forbes ^ | AUGUST 1, 2016 | Tony Nitti , contributor

Posted on 08/05/2016 9:46:56 PM PDT by Rabin

IRS Increases 'Marriage Penalty,' Designated Cohabitants To Get 2 X 3, Prior Mortgage Interest Deduction rates

Significant tax hits that come with getting hitched, or as they’ve collectively been coined, the “marriage penalty.” For example, the 28% tax bracket kicks in at $45,577 each income for single, but at only $75,595 for taxpayers declared gander married pairs. In addition, single taxpayers to lose 3% of itemized deductions.

In updated, AOD 2016-02, the IRS acquiesced in the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Sophy v. Commissioner, allowed a same-sex, unmarried, co-habiting singel and multi gender couple to each deduct the mortgage interest on $1.1 million of acquisition and home equity debt. The AOD issued by the IRS confirms that the Service will follow this treatment.

Let’s take a look at what this means:

Mortgage Interest Deductions, In General, wedded multi gendered gathering could exceed the mortgage obligation reducing all debt

Bi Partisan support is trending toward adding animal friends and beneficial vegetables to the wed-ables

(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Society
KEYWORDS: business; irs; marriage; marriagepenalty; society; taxes; weird
Could be the bi-partisav solution we have long awaited

R

1 posted on 08/05/2016 9:46:56 PM PDT by Rabin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rabin

First few paragraphs incomprehensible. Terrible writing.


2 posted on 08/05/2016 10:03:27 PM PDT by mumblypeg (Make America Sane Again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabin
Bi Partisan support is trending toward adding animal friends and beneficial vegetables to the wed-ables

??????

3 posted on 08/05/2016 10:04:57 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Proud Infidel, Gun Nut, Religious Fanatic and Freedom Fiend)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabin
So I can write off as deductions my 5 dogs and 1 cat, along with the 50 cucumbers I keep stocked in the fridge?

Kewl!!!

4 posted on 08/05/2016 10:36:17 PM PDT by Robert DeLong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mumblypeg

Not only incomprehensible, but bearing very little resemblance to the Forbes article now on the website. Either the author reposted it after sobering up or what we see above is a mishmash of cut & paste and added editorial comment.


5 posted on 08/05/2016 10:39:07 PM PDT by dorothy ( "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty." - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Rabin
In General, wedded multi gendered gathering could exceed the mortgage obligation reducing all debt

Bi Partisan support is trending toward adding animal friends and beneficial vegetables to the wed-ables

Either Forbes edited their page after you exerpted it or you just made this section up.

The basis of the article is that the IRS used to limit home interest deduction to a house value of $1.1 million with married couples filing separately explicitly limited to $550,000 each (you have to split the allocation equally even if it would be better for you to give it all to one spouse). The 9th Circuit Court said that cohabiting gay couples could each take the $1.1 million maximum deduction stating that the $550,000 for each spouse was an explicitly special case. In my opinion, they ignored the obvious that the special case was only that it had to be split evenly rather than allowing a different split.

It is unclear from the article how this would affect non-homosexual people buying a house together, such as siblings or parent & child.

In an illustration of how multiple smart people can look at the same set of facts and reach a different conclusion, late last year the Ninth Circuit reversed the Tax Court’s holding, deciding instead that the $1,100,000 limitation on qualified debt is determined on a per-taxpayer, rather than a per-residence basis.

But where are the smart people? I only see a reference to the Ninth Circus.

6 posted on 08/05/2016 10:42:19 PM PDT by KarlInOhio (Shut up, Bob Costas. Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabin

The speiling in dis are tickle es feck end whore eye bell....


7 posted on 08/05/2016 10:48:13 PM PDT by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously-you won't live through it anyway - "Enjoy Yourself" ala Louis Prima)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabin; All
Thank you for referencing that article Rabin. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

From related threads …

Regarding the so-called “IRS” marriage penalty, the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specifc power to regulate marriage. So the feds have no constitutional authority to effectively regulate marriage with taxes imo.

Also, note that the Founding States had made the first numbered clauses in the Constitution, Sections 1-3 of Article I, evidently a good place to hide these clauses from Congress, to clarify that all federal legislative / regulatory powers are vested in the elected members of Congress, not in the executive or judicial branches, or in non-elected federal bureaucrats like those running the constitutionally undefined IRS, EPA, EEOC, etc.. So Congress has a constitutional “monopoly” on federal regulatory / legislative powers whether it wants it or not.

But by unconstitutionally delegating legislative branch powers to the IRS, powers that the post-17th Amendment ratification Congress doesn’t have in this case, such powers actually 10th Amendment-protected state powers which the corrupt feds have stolen from the states, Congress is wrongly protecting such powers from the wrath of the voters in blatant defiance of Sections 1-3 referenced above imo.

Note that lawmakers are wrongly letting federal officials outside the legislative branch get away with stealing legislative branch powers, 10th Amendment-protected state powers with respect to the IRS marriage tax. Consider that by letting officials outside the legislative branch do their unconstitutonal, unpopular dirty work for them that corrupt lawmakers are able to keep their voting records clean, probably to try to fool low-information patriots into reelecting them.

Remember in November !

Patriots need to support Trump / Pence by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision for making America great again for everybody, but will put a stop to unconstitutonal federal taxes and likewise unconstitutional inteference in state affairs.

Note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices.

8 posted on 08/05/2016 10:50:20 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabin

This thing is practically unreadable.

Gander married pairs? What the heck is that? Are we talking geese here?


9 posted on 08/06/2016 2:27:49 AM PDT by Boomer (liberalism is a mental disease with no cure but a frontal lobotomy will make them less of a jerk.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mumblypeg; Rabin

OK, this also is gibberish:

“Bi Partisan support is trending toward adding animal friends and beneficial vegetables to the wed-ables”

And, it’s NOT in the original article.

Rabin,

How did this get in the excerpt????


10 posted on 08/06/2016 3:56:51 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57, returning after lurking since 2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KarlInOhio; Rabin

Karl, I just checked, and this

Bi Partisan support is trending toward adding animal friends and beneficial vegetables to the wed-ables

Is NOT in the article.

Rabin, what happened????


11 posted on 08/06/2016 3:58:21 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57, returning after lurking since 2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57

“beneficial vegetables”

A sneeky way for the IRS to include Democrats in the calculation.


12 posted on 08/06/2016 4:19:58 AM PDT by bytesmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rabin

Really? My crippled dog has better command of the keyboard and English language.


13 posted on 08/06/2016 4:29:30 AM PDT by RouxStir (No peein' allowed in the gene pool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabin
Bought our house within our means and never were able to itemize enough for mortgage deductions. We literally own everything now and only have standard bills each month (groceries/gas/electric/water/sewer/TV/Internet/insurances/house taxes/and credit card to pay off each month) so most of this no longer has an effect.

Just more attempt to destroy marriage even as they strive to pollute/pervert it in the short run. Will try to discourage all folks from getting married because it has a stabilizing effect on society.

14 posted on 08/06/2016 5:42:21 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert DeLong
So I can write off as deductions my 5 dogs and 1 cat, along with the 50 cucumbers I keep stocked in the fridge?

The bad news is you may not. The good news, at least from a careful reading of the article, is that your 5 dogs, 1 cat and 50 cucumbers may each write off the full amount of your mortgage.

15 posted on 08/06/2016 6:28:49 AM PDT by frog in a pot (When will come the time to question if a "religion" with totalitarian ambitions is a 1stA religion?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rabin

I wonder if couples will return the religious rite of marriage to churches alone, and not even bother to get a secular marriage certificate? For more orthodox churches I doubt there would be a problem, but liberal churches play so fast and loose they would likely only care if it meant they would lose money.


16 posted on 08/06/2016 9:23:14 AM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WildHighlander57

Can I mambo dogface to the banana patch.


17 posted on 08/06/2016 9:25:18 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson