Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits

Taxation of Domestic Partner Benefits

Author: Patricia A. Cain

Publisher:

Published: 2011

Total Pages: 0

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

Many employers provide domestic partner benefits to their employees, especially in the form of health care plans. Domestic partners are not considered spouses under the Internal Revenue Code. Nor, of course, are same-sex spouses so long as DOMA is in effect. Many employers assume that this means all domestic partner (or same-sex spouse) benefits are taxable under the federal tax law. But this is not true. A partner (or same-sex spouse) can qualify as a dependent and benefits paid to dependents are also tax-exempt. A person can qualify as a dependent for purposes of excluding the value of health care plans from income even if the person cannot be claimed as a dependent on the employee taxpayer's return. This essay describes the applicable rules in some detail. It also provides a survey of colleges and universities that provide such benefits and analyzes how many of such employers are applying the wrong tax law to their employees.


Federal Benefits and the Same-Sex Partners of Federal Employees

Federal Benefits and the Same-Sex Partners of Federal Employees

Author: Wendy Ginsberg

Publisher: Createspace Independent Pub

Published: 2013-01-06

Total Pages: 32

ISBN-13: 9781481923569

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

The federal government provides a variety of benefits to its 4.4 million civilian and military employees and 4.7 million civilian and military retirees. Among these benefits are health insurance; enhanced dental and vision benefits; survivor benefits; retirement and disability benefits; family, medical, and emergency leave; and reimbursement of relocation costs. Pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C. Chapters 89, 89A, 89B, and other statutes, federal employees may extend these benefits to eligible spouses and children. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA, P.L. 104-199; 1 U.S.C §7) “[t]o define and protect the institution of marriage.” DOMA contains two provisions. The first provision allows all states, territories, possessions, and Indian tribes to refuse to recognize an act of any other jurisdiction that designates a relationship between individuals of the same sex as a marriage. The second provision prohibits federal recognition of these unions for purposes of federal enactments. Pursuant to DOMA, the same-sex partners of federal employees are not eligible to receive federal benefits that are extended to the spouses of federal employees. An estimated 34,000 federal employees are in same-sex relationships—including state-recognized marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. The Obama Administration has extended certain benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees and annuitants—and argued that it has done so within the parameters of existing federal statutes. On June 2, 2010, President Obama released a memorandum that extended specific benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees, including coverage of travel, relocation, and subsistence payments. Some Members of Congress argue that same-sex partners of federal employees should have access to benefits afforded married, opposite-sex couples in order to attract the most efficient and effective employees to federal service. Other Members of Congress argue that the law prohibits the extension of such benefits, and, therefore, actions to distribute any spousal benefits to same sex couples is contrary to both the text and spirit of DOMA. Congress has had a long-standing interest in overseeing the benefits provided to federal employees. When DOMA was enacted, the House report that accompanied the legislation stated that a primary goal of the law was to “preserve scarce government resources.” The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that extending benefits to the partners of employees in same-sex relationships pursuant to S. 1910 would cost the federal government $144 million in discretionary spending between 2013 and 2022. CBO also estimated, however, that extending the benefits could “limit future rate increases” in federal health care costs because health care providers would be required to recover certain health care costs that previously went unrecovered. These recovered costs could lower the federal government's health care premiums. In the 112th Congress, two bills have been introduced that, if enacted, would permit federal employees to extend insurance, long-term care, and other benefits to same-sex partners. On November 18, 2011, Senator Joseph Lieberman introduced S. 1910, the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2011. That same day, Representative Tammy Baldwin introduced a companion bill, H.R. 3485, also called the Domestic Partnership Benefits and Obligations Act of 2011, in the House. On May 16, 2012, S. 1910 was ordered to be reported favorably from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. H.R. 3485 was referred to multiple committees, but no further action has been taken on the bill. This publication examines current policies on the application of benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees and reviews certain policy debates about the extension or removal of these benefits; it also presents data on the prevalence of same-sex partner benefits in the private and public sector.


Defending Same-Sex Marriage

Defending Same-Sex Marriage

Author: Martin Dupuis

Publisher: Bloomsbury Publishing USA

Published: 2006-12-30

Total Pages: 887

ISBN-13: 0313054215

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

Today we find ourselves at a crossroads of two powerful, unrelenting currents that are completely at odds with one another. The movement for legal recognition of same-sex unions has gone beyond the separate but equal status of civil unions to demand equality in marriage for all couples. Progress is being made on many fronts: mayoral action, clergy officiating at same-sex marriage and union ceremonies, state legislative responses, and street protests, to name a few. Meanwhile, opposition to same-sex marriage has also been gathering strength. The struggle is sure to continue unabated for some time to come, pitting those who believe in the traditional definition of marriage as a union between a man and a woman—and who seek to codify this belief in the U.S. Constitution—against those who find the basis for marriage between two loving, committed individuals not only in the history of our civil rights legislation and court decisions, but also in scripture and sacred religious traditions. Those who believe in extending to same-sex couples the 1,049 rights conferred by marriage as well as the supportive embrace of religious communities seek to strengthen the institution of marriage by making it inclusive and by passing laws and broadening doctrines to uphold marriage rights for all couples. This three-volume set clarifies the legal, political, religious, cultural, and social ramifications of same-sex marriage for gay and lesbian couples and their families and friends, and for the general public interested in the future of civil rights in the United States.