RBF News header
Rucci Bardaro & Falzone PC
The Right Size Accounting Firm
919 Eastern Avenue
Malden, MA 02148
303 Wyman Street
Suite 300
Waltham, MA 02451
7 Main Street
Atkinson, NH 03811
T: 1-781-321-6065
F: 1-781-321-7747
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: In compliance with IRS requirements, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer or in connection with marketing or promotional materials.


Special Bulletins bring you important tax, business and financial news in between regularly-scheduled issues of RBF News.  We hope you find the information useful. 


The Tax Implications of DOMA


On June 26, 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in U.S. v. Windsor. The decision has broad tax implications.


For one, same-sex couples can now file joint federal tax returns if the couple lives in a state that recognizes their marriage. It should be noted, however, that joint returns aren't always beneficial. If both partners in a same-sex marriage have high taxable incomes, filing a joint return could result in more taxes being paid.


For example, the modified adjusted gross income threshold amounts for calculating the net investment income tax, which applies for tax years after 2012, is $200,000 for taxpayers filing as single, $250,000 for couples filing joint returns, and $125,000 in the case of a married taxpayer filing a separate return.


If these considerations apply to your particular situation, we need to to assess the impact of filing a joint return for 2013. We should also review whether it would be beneficial for you to file amended returns for prior tax years for which you were married and for which the statute of limitations remains open.


Another result of the Supreme Court decision is that

tax-free employer provided benefits to married same-sex partners that were previously includible in income under federal law are now excludible from income, so refunds can be claimed on this basis.


Also, the estate of a partner in a same-sex marriage is entitled to the marital deduction, which means the partner's estate passes tax-free to his or her spouse.


Other benefits of the Court's decision include married same-sex partners now being eligible to receive federal benefits if their partner is a federal employee, as well as partners now being eligible for social security survivor benefits upon the death of a partner.


The DOMA ruling has also opened a Pandora's box of tax questions which will be answered by future IRS guidance and court decisions:


(1) It is uncertain whether a same-sex couple that lives in a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriages but travels to a state that does recognize such marriages and gets married, will be treated as married for federal tax purposes.


(2) If an individual is married to a same-sex partner in a state like New York that recognizes such marriages, the fair market value of employee benefits received as a result of such marriage are excludible from the non-employee spouse's income. But, it's unclear what happens if the employee is transferred to a state that doesn't recognize same-sex marriages. For example, could previously tax-free spousal benefits be converted to taxable non-spouse benefits?


(3) For the current year, it's not clear what happens if one partner in a same-sex marriage has already filed his or her 2012 Form 1040 as single while the other partner is on a valid extension, with the expectation of filing by the October 15 deadline. Assuming they don't choose to amend both to married filing jointly (MFJ) (which presumably would be allowed), can the spouse on extension file as single or is the spouse required to file as married filing separately (MFS)?


(4) If one partner in a same-sex marriage amends his or her return from single to MFS (e.g. to reclaim imputed income from a spouse's employment benefits), it's unclear whether the other is also forced to amend his or her return.


(5) It's unclear what happens in a situation where a same-sex couple has a child and one spouse filed as head of household in prior years and received child tax credits and earned income credits. For example, is the couple now required to amend as MFJ or MFS and could the spouse who took the credits be forced to return such credits?


(6) From an employer's perspective, it's uncertain how the Windsor decision will affect employment benefit plans for employers in different states. For example, will private companies need to consider providing spousal benefits to same-sex married employees regardless of which state the employee lives in?


We expect there will be a lot of future guidance on these and other issues.


While the full impact of the Supreme Court's decision will not be known for a while, there are important and time-sensitive planning opportunities available now with respect to your taxes.


Please call us at your earliest convenience so we can discuss the impact this decision has on your particular situation. 781-321-6065.


Rucci, Bardaro & Falzone | lever@rbfpc.com | http://www.rbfpc.com
919 Eastern Avenue Malden, MA 02148

Copyright 2013. All Rights Reserved.