deathbed marriage

Taxes General Forum - Tax professionals meeting place and answers to queries. (Moderated) 

Yahoo!   Google   Windows Live   del.icio.us   digg   Netscape

Subject Author Date deathbed marriage Wallace 06-28-2009  Re: deathbed marriage Dick Adams 06-28-2009  Re: deathbed marriage Mark Bole 06-30-2009  Re: deathbed marriage AES 06-30-2009  Re: deathbed marriage Arthur Kamlet 06-30-2009  Re: deathbed marriage Mark Bole 06-30-2009  Re: deathbed marriage D. Stussy 06-30-2009  Re: deathbed marriage Katie 06-30-2009  Re: deathbed marriage D. Stussy 07-01-2009  Re: deathbed marriage Katie 07-01-2009  Re: deathbed marriage Seth 07-02-2009
Posted by Mark Bole on June 30, 2009, 7:30 pm Please log in for more thread options Arthur Kamlet wrote: >> Do state tax offices do so? Does state A >> (gay marriage illegal) recognize gay marriages from state B (where it's >> legal) (or maybe once was legal)? Regarding the converse situation, California FTB states the following: "If you entered into a same sex legal union in another state, other than a marriage, and that union has been determined to be substantially equivalent to a California registered domestic partnership, you are required to file a California income tax return using either the married/RDP filing jointly or married/RDP filing separately filing status." From what I can find, the state attorney general is still in the process of publishing a list of what other states meet this requirement. -Mark Bole -- << ------------------------------------------------------- >> << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >> << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >> << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >> << >> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >> << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >> << are at www.asktax.org. >> << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >> << ------------------------------------------------------- >> Posted by D. Stussy on June 30, 2009, 9:46 pm Please log in for more thread options > > > >> Dick Adams wrote: > >> > >> > [...] the ability to consummate [is a] general > >> > requirement for entering into a marriage. > >> > >> How exactly is that enforced? I don't want to hijack this into a legal > >> thread, but are you saying a quadriplegic cannot get legally married? > > > >Had that question myself. > > > >And when one pulls out a dictionary and starts digging into the > >definition of consummate, things get -- umm -- interesting. > > > >And even more so if you start thinking about gay marriages. > > > >And branching back toward tax issues, could someone remind those of us > >who never thought to ask: Does the IRS recognize gay marriages as > >marriages for tax purposes? > > No. The IRS follows the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" which > prohibits any federal agency from rcognizing gay marriages. > > > > Do state tax offices do so? Does state A > >(gay marriage illegal) recognize gay marriages from state B (where it's > >legal) (or maybe once was legal)? > > > Depends on the state. California's Supreme Court said that it recognizes gay marriages before Prop 8's election (November 2008) and after their prior ruling that such was not forbidden (May? 2008). However, I'm not certain that this position is not in conflict with the plain reading of the "revision" that Prop 8 introduced - as the language said "... shall be recognized only between a man and a woman." Therefore, the marriages may have been valid at the time they occurred but as to whether they should be recognized today is unclear. Only once that's resolved will the issue of gay marriage from other states be applicable. -- << ------------------------------------------------------- >> << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >> << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >> << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >> << >> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >> << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >> << are at www.asktax.org. >> << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >> << ------------------------------------------------------- >> Posted by Katie on June 30, 2009, 11:34 pm Please log in for more thread options > > California's Supreme Court said that it recognizes gay marriages before > Prop 8's election (November 2008) and after their prior ruling that such > was not forbidden (May? 2008).  However, I'm not certain that this position > is not in conflict with the plain reading of the "revision" that Prop 8 > introduced - as the language said "... shall be recognized only between a > man and a woman."  Therefore, the marriages may have been valid at the time > they occurred but as to whether they should be recognized today is unclear. > Only once that's resolved will the issue of gay marriage from other states > be applicable. > Oh, nonsense. The California Supreme Court has ruled that those marriages are valid. End of story. Prop 8 did not become effective until November 8, 2008. Marriages legally contracted prior to that date remain valid; the court ruled that Prop 8 did not have retroactive effect. And the court also ruled that Prop 8 was NOT a "revision" of the state constitution. If it had been, it would have been invalid, because the California constitution can be revised only by a constitutional convention, and not by the initiative process. Katie in San Diego -- << ------------------------------------------------------- >> << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >> << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >> << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >> << >> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >> << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >> << are at www.asktax.org. >> << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >> << ------------------------------------------------------- >> Posted by D. Stussy on July 1, 2009, 9:09 am Please log in for more thread options > > California's Supreme Court said that it recognizes gay marriages before > > Prop 8's election (November 2008) and after their prior ruling that such > > was not forbidden (May? 2008). However, I'm not certain that this position > > is not in conflict with the plain reading of the "revision" that Prop 8 > > introduced - as the language said "... shall be recognized only between a > > man and a woman." Therefore, the marriages may have been valid at the time > > they occurred but as to whether they should be recognized today is unclear. > > Only once that's resolved will the issue of gay marriage from other states > > be applicable. > > > > Oh, nonsense. The California Supreme Court has ruled that those > marriages are valid. End of story. Prop 8 did not become effective > until November 8, 2008. Marriages legally contracted prior to that > date remain valid; the court ruled that Prop 8 did not have > retroactive effect. As I said, the common language meaning of "... shall be recognized only ..." contradicts what the court actually said, because they do in fact recognize marriages that DON'T have the restriction (namely those prior to the change). > And the court also ruled that Prop 8 was NOT a "revision" of the state > constitution. If it had been, it would have been invalid, because the > California constitution can be revised only by a constitutional > convention, and not by the initiative process. I didn't mean revision in the constitutional sense (such as amendment or replacement). I meant it in its common sense simply meaning change. -- << ------------------------------------------------------- >> << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >> << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >> << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >> << >> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >> << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >> << are at www.asktax.org. >> << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >> << ------------------------------------------------------- >> Posted by Katie on July 1, 2009, 5:39 pm Please log in for more thread options > > > > > > > California's Supreme Court said that it recognizes gay marriages before > > > Prop 8's election (November 2008) and after their prior ruling that > such > > > was not forbidden (May? 2008). However, I'm not certain that this > position > > > is not in conflict with the plain reading of the "revision" that Prop 8 > > > introduced - as the language said "... shall be recognized only between > a > > > man and a woman." Therefore, the marriages may have been valid at the > time > > > they occurred but as to whether they should be recognized today is > unclear. > > > Only once that's resolved will the issue of gay marriage from other > states > > > be applicable. > > > Oh, nonsense.  The California Supreme Court has ruled that those > > marriages are valid.  End of story.  Prop 8 did not become effective > > until November 8, 2008.  Marriages legally contracted prior to that > > date remain valid; the court ruled that Prop 8 did not have > > retroactive effect. > > As I said, the common language meaning of "... shall be recognized only > ..." contradicts what the court actually said, because they do in fact > recognize marriages that DON'T have the restriction (namely those prior to > the change). > > > And the court also ruled that Prop 8 was NOT a "revision" of the state > > constitution.  If it had been, it would have been invalid, because the > > California constitution can be revised only by a constitutional > > convention, and not by the initiative process. > > I didn't mean revision in the constitutional sense (such as amendment or > replacement).  I meant it in its common sense simply meaning change. > Well, my point, Dieter, was that the validity (under state law) of the pre-Nov. 8 same-sex marriages is a done deal. What forum beyond the California Supreme Court is going to decide that issue? That forum has made its ruling and explained its reasoning in a published decision. The ruling may not make sense to you or others based on the "common language meaning" of the initiative, but it is the law in California. There is a pending petition for rehearing, but it was filed by the plaintiffs asking the court to revise its decision on a technical point having nothing to do with the pre-Nov. 8 marriages. Katie in San Diego -- << ------------------------------------------------------- >> << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >> << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >> << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >> << >> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >> << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >> << are at www.asktax.org. >> << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >> << ------------------------------------------------------- >> Similar Threads Posted Re: Marriage License March 12, 2007, 4:54 am house jointly owned after marriage April 29, 2009, 6:58 pm Social Security Survivors Benefits - Minimum Length of Marriage to Qualify? January 3, 2007, 10:49 pm