 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Tax law can be really exciting! I suspect you think so too. by Commander Tansin A. Darcos 06/26/2013, 2:07pm PDT | ||||
 |
 |
|||
| The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided a tax case that got lots of news coverage and a lot of people were excited about the decision. A woman, Thea Spyer, left her spouse everything when she died, but the IRS said they didn't qualify as married. When you give your spouse your stuff and your money when you die, there's no tax; otherwise there's a tax on anything over 3.2 millkion. So the estate owed 362 grand. There are two options, refuse to pay and appeal to the tax court, or pay and sue. The spouse - Spyer's executor - paid the tax and sued. The IRS decided that they weren't really married for tax purposes because of federal law. The trial court decided otherwise and ordered a refund. The government appealed. The Court of Appeals agreed with defendant and ordered a refund plus interest. The government appealed again. The Supreme Court found the IRS to be in error, that they did qualify as married, so the unlimited estate gift exemption does apply, and ordered the tax refunded plus interest.
Dry stuff, right? Well, that what the case was Technically about. Now, if you follow the news, I'm referring to the case of United States v. Windsor, one of the so-called "Same-Sex marriage" cases, because Windsor was Spyer's female spouse. The Defense of Marriage act defined, for federal purposes, marriage as a woman and a man. Thus, as the law was written, the IRS was correct; two women can't be married, thus the estate tax exemption doesn't apply. The courts all found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. Since the law is unconstitutional, it means they are married, since New York recogized Ms. Spyer and Ms. Windsor's marriage, the IRS's decision was incorrect. So Ms. Windsor gets her tax refunded, and gays and lesbians have a right to have their marriages recognized by the Federal government in states where the state does grant or recognize Same-Sex Marriages. But most people who hear about the case will never realize or know, that in the end, if it hadn't been for this twist, it would have been nothing but just another Federal Tax case involving an esoteric principle of tax law. |
||||
 |
 |
|||
|
Tax law can be really exciting! I suspect you think so too. by 06/26/2013, 2:07pm PDT  So... you're gay? That IS a startling twist by 06/26/2013, 3:36pm PDT Re: So... you're gay? That IS a startling twist by 06/29/2013, 10:08am PDT So you won't admit it? That's okay. Whenever you're ready, we're here for you by 06/29/2013, 1:36pm PDT Keep it in Alter Ego, you monster NT by 06/26/2013, 3:43pm PDT Re: Keep it in Alter Ego, you monster by 06/29/2013, 10:13am PDT |
