«

»

Jul 05

Print this Post

SCOTUS Rulings on Same-Sex Marriages Create Tax Refund Opportunities

00006709-150x150The decision in United States vs. Windsor (No. 12-301, June 26, 2013) by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to strike down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) creates important tax issues and opportunities. These include potential refunds for same-sex married couples and their employers for years not closed by the statute of limitations. Those who have state-recognized same-sex marriages should determine if it pays to file amended tax returns to obtain refunds of open tax years before any additional years become covered/moot by the statute of limitations.

DOMA was enacted in 1996 and barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages for the purpose of any federal laws, rules or regulations. The IRS therefore has not recognized the status of same-sex couples for federal tax purposes. But because of DOMA’s invalidation by the SCOTUS, same-sex couples with a marriage recognized by state law will now be treated by the IRS as spouses for both income tax and estate & gift taxes.

Income Taxes

Most importantly, affected couples are now required to file their income taxes on either married filing jointly or married filing separately status. Single and head of household filing statuses are no longer available for affected couples, just as occurs for heterosexual married couples. Whether a couple pays less tax by recognizing the marriage depend on many factors that are unique that couple’s income and available credits. Each couple needs to run the numbers assuming a married tax status versus the prior income tax filing to determine the more favorable position.

The IRS has not yet announced whether it would require same-sex married taxpayers to start recognizing their unions for income taxes, including any requirement to amend past returns. Heterosexual couples certainly do not get an election to disregard their legal status and there is no longer a legal basis for treating heterosexual and same-sex married couples differently. A time-sensitive question exists for those same-sex couples whose 2012 income tax returns have been extended to October 15, 2013 (i.e., not yet filed with the IRS).

Because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional, it effectively held that DOMA was never valid. Consequently, same-sex marriages should be valid for federal tax purposes retroactively to the date the marriages were recognized under state law. Although the IRS may not require retroactive married treatment for income tax purposes, there seems no basis for the IRS to deny marital tax treatment. Consequently, a refund opportunity exists for past taxes.

Other Taxes

Although the SCOTUS ruling does not directly affect state laws, state income taxes may also be less with the invalidation of DOMA. This occurs because many states base their state tax liability on the federal tax, so a federal tax reduction could reduce one’s state income tax liability.

Estate taxes are easier to predict. The decision in United States vs. Windsor directly involved the estate tax, and specifically the existence of the marital deduction for inheritances received by one’s spouse. With DOMA invalidated, same-sex couples married under state law can make unlimited gifts to each other, all of which are exempt from estate and gift taxes. Taxpayers can file refund claims for estate and gift taxes paid if their same-sex spouse was not previously recognized because of DOMA.

Two additional matters are altered by the SCOTUS’s DOMA invalidation, as follows:

1. Employers must extend certain features of pension, health and welfare benefits to state-recognized same-sex spouses, if such benefits are required to be granted to spouses under either the Internal Revenue Code, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), or any other federal law.

2. Affected same-sex couples and their employers can exclude the value of spousal health care benefits for payroll and income tax purposes, just as occurs for heterosexual married couples. However, the administrative effort of doing so will likely discourage all but the largest of employers from doing so, particularly if the employers do not have automated systems that allow such calculations to occur cost-effectively.

Who is Affected?

As of this writing, same-sex marriage is permitted (or soon will be) in the following jurisdictions:

1. California

2. Connecticut

3. Delaware

4. Iowa

5. Maine

6. Maryland

7. Massachusetts

8. Minnesota

9. New Hampshire

10. New York

11. Rhode Island

12. Vermont

13. Washington

14. Washington DC

Eight states allow civil unions, which are generally meant to provide couples with the same treatment under the law as married couples have. The SCOTUS decision does not address civil unions. Therefore, it will be up to the IRS and/or future litigation to address whether civil unions will be treated as marriages for federal tax purposes.

Some opposing same-sex marriage argue that California should not be on the above list, but that is only a technical argument. From a practical perspective, California became the thirteenth state to recognize gay marriages, based on a combination of the same-day ruling in Hollingsworth vs. Perry and the immediate application of that ruling by California’s Governor. In Hollingsworth vs. Perry (No. 12-144, June 26, 2013), two gay couples attacked the constitutionality of California’s Proposition 8, which had been approved by California’s voters. Proposition 8 amended the California Constitution to provide that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California”. Released on the same day as United States vs. Windsor, the SCOTUS’s decision in Hollingsworth vs. Perry allows the trial court’s decision of unconstitutionality to stand. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

“Because petitioners have not satisfied their burden to demonstrate standing to appeal the judgment of the District Court, the Ninth Circuit was without jurisdiction to consider the appeal. The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”

Although the SCOTUS did not directly address the constitutionality of Proposition 8, from a practical viewpoint, their decision allows a change in California law, since California’s Governor Jerry Brown refused to uphold the voter-approved law. On the same day as the SCOTUS ruling, Governor Brown directed all counties to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. In a prepared statement, Governor Brown said:

“After years of struggle, the U.S. Supreme Court today has made same-sex marriage a reality in California. In light of the decision, I have directed the California Department of Public Health to advise the state’s counties that they must begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in California as soon as the Ninth Circuit confirms the stay is lifted,”

 

About the author

David Nolte

I am a founding principal of Fulcrum Inquiry, an accounting and economic consulting firm that performs damage analysis for commercial litigation, forensic accountings, financial investigations, and business valuations. I am a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and an Accredited Senior Appraiser (ASA), as well as having other professional credentials. I regularly serve as an expert witness involving damages measurement. My litigation-oriented resume is on Fulcrum's website.

Permanent link to this article: http://betweenthenumbers.net/2013/07/scotus-rulings-on-same-sex-marriages-create-tax-refund-opportunities/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*