Posted on 02/28/2006 10:16:20 AM PST by NormsRevenge
California's registered domestic partners should report their pay on federal tax forms the way single people do, rather than using methods available to married couples, according to an internal memo the Internal Revenue Service released Monday.
The clarification is the first guidance from the IRS in the wake of a sweeping state law that took effect in 2005, giving gays and lesbians many of the rights of married couples.
The news should ease the confusion facing the state's 71,000 partners with the April 17 tax-filing deadline just weeks away. But the federal agency's response wasn't the answer that gay and lesbian activists wanted to hear, because it does not recognize the property rights California's domestic partners have under state law.
In short, IRS lawyers determined that a 1930 Supreme Court decision that entitles married couples to divide their incomes cannot be extended to the state's domestic partners because they're not married. For example, if one partner earns $100,000 but a stay-at-home partner earns nothing, that's what they'd report on their respective federal returns -- rather than $50,000 each.
``The good news here is we actually have instructions on what to do. That alone is better than no response at all,'' said Frederick Hertz, an Oakland tax attorney and co-author of ``A Legal Guide for Lesbian and Gay Couples.'' ``What is bad news is it signals a lack of recognition for the community property rights of domestic partners.''
The memo was dated Friday, the day after a Mercury News report described how tax experts were divided over the basic question of how to report income since California's Domestic Partner Rights and Responsibilities Act took effect in 2005.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
was anyone surprised?
Bush's fault.
Now every gay maggot who gets a pay check from the MSM will be attacking GW with increased bs.
No, the federal government has left their status the same - it was the State that created a special exception. If the IRS had obliged by allowing them to file the same as married couples do, it would have been tantamount to Federal recognition of homosexual "marriage" and would have opened the door for them to have their way in all states. If the States want to give them a break, that doesn't mean the rest of us should be forced to follow suit.
HA! Who says it makes no difference that Arnold vetoed gay marriage.
Angelides or Westly will grant it in a heartbeat.
:::shudder:::
"was anyone surprised?"
--- Actually, yes, pleasantly.
On the other hand, even an IRS opinion or advice is not a defense in an audit. Not sure if this opinion will stand up.
On the third hand, this situation should trigger mass audits of those who watched Bareback Mountain. Maybe that will tie up all of the IRS auditors so that the other 99% of us can get on with life.
Polygamists can't file "Married, filing joint-joint-joint-joint-joint-joint" either...
If the IRS gives an official bum steer, you may end up owing more tax but they will not charge interest or penalties on it.
Just in case the DL account though everyone was dumb enough to buy into the nonsense, this thread is about the Wilsonegger gang, who signed California's Domestic Partner sham into law, not about any Democrat.
It's the Wilsonegger gang's advancement of liberalism that's being showcased, and embarrassed, by reiteration of common sense and federal law.
• SB 565 by Senator Carole Migden (D-San Francisco) - Property tax reappraisal exclusion: domestic partners.
Prior to this bill, there was no domestic partner exclusion that equates to the interspousal exclusion. This bill establishes an exclusion from reassessment for transfers of real property between registered domestic partners. The author indicated that the bill is intended "to guarantee equality for all Californians, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, and to further the state's interests in protecting Californians from the potentially severe economic and social consequences of abandonment, separation, the death of a partner, and other life crises."• SB 973 by Senator Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) - Public employees' retirement: domestic partners.
Bill amends the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), the State Teachers Retirement System (STRS), and the County Employees Retirement Act of 1937 to entitle retired members to elect to change optional retirement allowances to provide for their domestic partners.• AB 228 by Assemblymember Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) - Transplantation services: human immunodeficiency virus.
Prohibits health care service plans (health plans) and health insurers from denying coverage for organ or tissue transplantation services on the basis that an enrollee, subscriber, insured, or policyholder is infected with HIV.• AB 1142 by Assemblymember Marvyn Dymally (D-Compton) - HIV/AIDS: African-Americans: statewide initiative.
This bill establishes the Statewide African-American Initiative to address the disproportionate impact of HIV/AIDS on the health of African-Americans by coordinating prevention and service networks around the state in an effort to increase the capacity of core service providers.• AB 1586 by Assemblymember Paul Koretz (D-West Hollywood) - Insurers: health care service plans: discrimination.
This bill adds additional language to existing anti-discrimination provisions under the Health and Safety Code and the Insurance Code to clarify that state law prohibits insurance companies and health care service plans from discriminating on the basis of gender in the creation or maintenance of service contracts or the provision of benefits or coverage. Defines the term "sex," in existing law that prohibits health care service plans (health plans) and insurers from specified discriminatory acts, to have the same meaning as "gender," as defined under the Penal Code, as specified.• AB 1400 by Assemblymember John Laird (D-Santa Cruz) - Unruh Civil Rights Act: marital status and sexual orientation [See this article]
The Unruh Civil Rights Act (Act) provides that all persons, regardless of their sex, race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, disability, or medical condition are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges and services in all business establishments of every kind. This bill clarifies that marital status and sexual orientation are among the characteristics that are protected against discrimination by business establishments under the Act. This bill also imports into the Act definitions of the terms "disability," "religion," "sex," and "sexual orientation" from the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and includes, in enumerating the above characteristics, the perception of those characteristics and association with a person who has or is perceived to have those characteristics as being within the protected categories. These definitions will be integrated into other related provisions of the Act.
Arnold vetoed the gay marriage bill.
A Democrat governor most certainly would not have.
That's why gay activists are not satisfied with mere domestic parter legislation and this thread is proof.
The Austrian signed the domestic partner legislation into law which is the crux of this article.
One of the many reasons that conservatives aren't going to vote for Schwarzenegger in November unless he confesses, repents and turns away from liberalism.
The title to this embarrassment for the Wilsonegger gang: Liberals, Please Meet Reality.
The "crux" of this thread is the fact that gays in CA cannot marry and receive IRS benefits.
Thank you Arnold.
We are losing the chess game. All you need to do is look ahead a few moves. But you and all the other pro-GLBT freepers already know that, don't you?
But other significant legislation was signed into law by the Austrian with great fanfare and this legislation will be used by the homosexual community to challenge common sense and federal regulation.
You are very sick if you think I am pro GLBT.
Very sick and desperate to make this debate personal.
Arnold vetoed the gay marriage bill, the one that counts.
Gays have no IRS validation without it.
Thanks for showing your new disgusting tactic. Tom let you down, so into the gutter you go.
Typical.
Only to CRP operatives blindly promoting Austrian liberals in an altered reality.
Here's the view from the homosexual community according to the article:
`If there's no difference between the legal rights that spouses have in their community property and the legal rights that domestic partners have in their community property, then how can they be taxed differently?'' said Donald H. Read, a Berkeley attorney who also practices at Lakin-Spears in Palo Alto.
You mean Tom McC?
You sure turned on him fast...so much for principles.
LOL!!
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.