merle_: let the lawsuits begin!

Merle (

merle_) wrote,
@ 2008-05-15 14:00:00

Current mood:	potential heat stroke victim
Current music:	Ska-P, "Intifada"

let the lawsuits begin!
Suppose you were one of the same-sex couples married in San Francisco several years ago, when Gavin Newsom had just been elected mayor. Said marriages have been contested in courts for years, but today the marriages were declared good to go.

Do you think the government will punitively demand refiling of income tax forms, just to get the funds from the marriage tax penalty?

In completely unrelated news, it sometimes scares me when I look up the lyrics to a song I just decided I really love, only to find that the lyrics say something I would agree with. It happens the other way around, too, but to pick one song out of seventy in a language I do not speak and choose it, then to consciously interpret the lyrics.. creepy. Way cool, but creepy.

Rugby, it's now ~~969798~~99?!°F outside. I can feel roils of heat coming off the windows. And I'm one of the lucky ones to be in a place with air conditioning today...

(Post a new comment)

	28bytes 2008-05-15 09:09 pm UTC (link)
	As far as I know, the marriage penalty doesn't apply if you file separately, which you always have the option to do. I've been told this is one reason John McCain and his billionaire wife file separately. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	merle_ 2008-05-15 09:15 pm UTC (link)
	It may also be unlikely that any of the people married filed as married couples, given how quickly the marriages were struck down. But it would be an interesting legal point, especially since most laws cannot be applied retroactively (unless they're against terrorism, of course). (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	28bytes 2008-05-15 09:30 pm UTC (link)
	Now that I think more about it, I don't believe they can file a federal joint return, because even though they're legal in California, Clinton's DOMA act specifically forbids the feds from recognizing same-sex marriages. That's why, IIRC, gay couples can file their Massachusetts tax forms jointly but have to file their 1040s separately. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	eryn_ 2008-05-15 09:47 pm UTC (link)
	There isn't a marriage penalty currently. It's one of W's tax cuts. But no, actually when there was one, it did apply. Each married person was only about 80% of a person. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	28bytes 2008-05-15 10:10 pm UTC (link)
	For some reason I forgot that filing as "single" and filing as "married, filing separately" had different rates, but you're right, they do. (Reply to this)(Parent)

lexica510
2008-05-15 09:39 pm UTC (link)

According to SFGate, Today's ruling set off a celebration at San Francisco City Hall, where nearly 4,000 same-sex weddings were performed in 2004 before the state high court put a halt to the marriages while challenges to the California law worked their way through the courts. The decision today has no effect on those annulments.

So it sounds like even if they wanted to, they can't. Gee, Sacto politicos, if you wanted people's tax money for being married maybe you shouldn't have annulled their marriages against their wills.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	merle_ 2008-05-16 02:25 am UTC (link)
	Our politicians aren't the brightest bulbs on the block.. and sometimes, that works out nicely. Sometimes. (Reply to this)(Parent)

	melted_snowball 2008-05-16 01:00 am UTC (link)
	Same-gender marriages are irrelevant to federal taxation in the US, due to the Defense of Marriage Act. (Reply to this)(Thread)

	merle_ 2008-05-16 02:27 am UTC (link)
	I did not know about that. sigh, and thanks. (Reply to this)(Parent)

cellio
2008-05-16 02:12 am UTC (link)

Do you think the government will punitively demand refiling of income tax forms, just to get the funds from the marriage tax penalty?

If they do, does that open the door for suits against the government for depriving those couples of marriage rights (e.g. inheritance, medical power of attorney, etc) for the last four years? (Well, yeah, you can always sue for anything. But I don't think the government will grok that going for the taxes legitimizes the suits. They'll find a way to squash the suits; the government is willing to live with self-serving inconsistency.)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	merle_ 2008-05-16 02:31 am UTC (link)
	That's what makes it interesting: if precedence is set indicating retroactive culpability, then clearly retroactive rights also exist, meaning if you were denied the right to see your spouse in a hospital, you could legitimately sue. It'll never happen, but a four year window would seem to open up a huge can of worms. (Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…