Search

The article discusses the possible legal implications of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear same-sex marriage cases, focusing on financial planning considerations for gay married couples. The article highlights the financial planning situation of financial planner and Brian Thompson and teacher Benjamin Rogers, a gay married couple in Illinois, including considerations of taxation and the complexity of financial laws regarding gay couples.

Same-sex couples raising children must stand ready to prove to the world they are a family, just one that happens to have two mothers or two fathers. This constant burden of proof is especially difficult for families like the Muzingos, who live in a state that doesn't allow them to establish legal ties to each other. Michelle Muzingo was in the delivery room when her wife, Katrina, gave birth to each of their three children, who are now 7, 4 and 1. She cut their umbilical cords and was the first to hold the children, who call her ''mommy.'' Yet because they live in Ohio, a state that does not allow gay couples to adopt, she is unable to make that title official. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

And though a recent federal appeals court ruling has provided some hope to gays and lesbians that their unions could potentially be recognized by the federal government, nothing has changed just yet. That means that same-sex couples, including those who live in states that recognize their unions, should take extra care when setting up their financial life with a partner or spouse. You can find some basic tool kits and resources on Web sites like Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign. But if you want more tailored advice, you should try to seek out a professional who is well-versed in these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While President Obama's support for same-sex marriage is symbolic, his words have little power to erase the long list of extra costs and legal hurdles that same-sex couples face. For a more realistic chance at change, gay couples are probably better off looking to the courts. Several cases are winding their way through the judicial system, most of which challenge the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 and defines marriage as between one man and one woman. The myriad indignities that gay couples and their families regularly encounter are one reason many of them say they are fighting to dismantle the law. But the financial burden they also bear can be measured. And several court cases put that into stark focus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

That's because they need to prepare multiple sets of tax returns: each partner needs to file a separate federal tax return since the federal government defines marriage as between a man and a woman (though some couples refuse to comply, but that's another story). So same-sex couples also need to prepare a dummy tax return as if they were filing jointly so that they can transfer that information onto their state returns, which they must file as a couple. The situation becomes ridiculously more complex for gay couples living in the three states that have both community property laws and recognize same-sex unions. In that case, officially partnered gay couples need to follow their state's community property laws on their federal returns -- even though they need to file separately. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Teach for America is the latest organization to ensure that its employees with same-sex partners get the same treatment as opposite-sex married couples when it comes to health care costs. Gay people who are fortunate enough to work for employers that extend health benefits to their same-sex partners are still at a disadvantage: they must pay an extra tax on the value of those benefits that heterosexual married couples do not pay. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Tax season often delivers more than the usual set of headaches for same-sex couples. But it's about to get incredibly more complicated for couples living in California, Nevada and Washington. There is an upside, though. Many of them will save thousands of dollars in federal income taxes. Here's what's happening: Same-sex couples who are living in the three states that have both community property laws and recognize registered domestic partnerships or same-sex marriage must now follow their state's community property laws on their federal tax returns (if they're officially partnered). In community property states, generally all income and property acquired during a partnership or marriage is treated as equally owned by both individuals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On Wednesday, President Obama directed the Justice Department to stop defending the law that bans federal recognition of same-sex marriages. And while the decision will -- and should -- be celebrated by gay couples across the country, practically speaking, their lives won't change much for some time. After all, the move doesn't actually repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. So same-sex couples will still remain strangers, for the most part, in the eyes of the federal government. Couples will still be unable to jointly file their federal tax returns, and they won't be eligible to receive Social Security benefits based on their spouse's earnings record. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Imagine that your employer sent you a letter just before Christmas informing you that it failed to withhold the proper amount of income to cover your 2010 tax bill, and would begin deducting that extra amount from your paycheck right after New Year's. That's what happened to 61 employees with same-sex partners at Yale University, in New Haven, Conn., which made an inadvertent payroll error that will mean thousands of dollars in extra taxes withdrawn from paychecks of many of these workers this year. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Updated chart Dec. 16 A growing number of companies are covering the extra costs that same-sex couples pay for domestic partner benefits -- and even more companies are thinking about it. So we've decided to keep track of who is doing what in a chart at the bottom of this post. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The movement to equalize health benefits among gay employees with domestic partners continues to pick up speed. As it stands now, gay workers who are fortunate enough to work for employers that extend health insurance to domestic partners are still at a disadvantage because they are taxed on the value of that coverage -- a tax that is not paid by the heterosexual married person in the next cubicle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much of the debate over legalizing gay marriage has focused on God and Scripture, the Constitution and equal protection. But we see the world through the prism of money. And for years, we've heard from gay couples about all the extra health, legal and other costs they bear. So we set out to determine what they were and to come up with a round number -- a couple's lifetime cost of being gay. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Massachusetts, California and Connecticut -- have legalized same-sex marriage. And now, three states, California among them, have proposals on their ballots this month to ban gay marriage. But given that the federal government views same-sex married couples as perfect strangers, ineligible for the many federal rights given to opposite-sex married couples, the question for gay couples is this: Is it worth it to tie the knot? [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]