- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #1
Supreme Court gay marriage decision Tax law requires marriage equality.
For years people have been trying to predict what the Supreme Court will do about same-sex marriage. That speculation has intensified now that the Supreme Court has decided to hear marriage cases originating in the 6thCircuit that upheld the state-level bans against same-sex marriage and recognition. How will the Supreme Court decide this crucial issue? In fact, it has already tipped its hand on the outcome. To understand why, you have to understand tax law.
Back in June of 2013, the Supreme Court held that for federal purposes it was impermissible to limit the term marriage to a man and a woman. In response, several circuit courts issued decisions recognizing same-sex marriage in the states under their jurisdictions. (The 6th Circuit was the only exception.) Some states sought review of these decisions, but the Supreme Court denied stays, which would have allowed the states to refuse to recognize the marriages until the Supreme Court made a final decision. Because the Supreme Court failed to issue stays, the states must perform and recognize same-sex marriages. In turn, this means the federal government will recognize couples living in those states as married for federal tax purposes. Being married also means that employers can provide certain benefits governed under tax laws to the employees who are now considered married. If the Supreme Court holds that the 6th Circuit is correct and states can both ban same-sex marriage and refuse to recognize out-of-state marriages, there will be large-scale tax problems for tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of taxpayers.
Justice Antonin Scalia articulated this exact tax problem as the next area of controversy in his dissent on same-sex marriage in Windsor. Yet when this controversy came before the Supreme Court this past October and November, the dissenting justices in Windsor did not dissent from the refusal to grant stays of Circuit Court decisions. Since the Supreme Court refused to address this issue several times, why has it now set itself up to punish taxpayers and employers who have been complying with the federal tax laws?
This is interesting. Who knows anything about tax law in this context?
For years people have been trying to predict what the Supreme Court will do about same-sex marriage. That speculation has intensified now that the Supreme Court has decided to hear marriage cases originating in the 6thCircuit that upheld the state-level bans against same-sex marriage and recognition. How will the Supreme Court decide this crucial issue? In fact, it has already tipped its hand on the outcome. To understand why, you have to understand tax law.
Back in June of 2013, the Supreme Court held that for federal purposes it was impermissible to limit the term marriage to a man and a woman. In response, several circuit courts issued decisions recognizing same-sex marriage in the states under their jurisdictions. (The 6th Circuit was the only exception.) Some states sought review of these decisions, but the Supreme Court denied stays, which would have allowed the states to refuse to recognize the marriages until the Supreme Court made a final decision. Because the Supreme Court failed to issue stays, the states must perform and recognize same-sex marriages. In turn, this means the federal government will recognize couples living in those states as married for federal tax purposes. Being married also means that employers can provide certain benefits governed under tax laws to the employees who are now considered married. If the Supreme Court holds that the 6th Circuit is correct and states can both ban same-sex marriage and refuse to recognize out-of-state marriages, there will be large-scale tax problems for tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of taxpayers.
Justice Antonin Scalia articulated this exact tax problem as the next area of controversy in his dissent on same-sex marriage in Windsor. Yet when this controversy came before the Supreme Court this past October and November, the dissenting justices in Windsor did not dissent from the refusal to grant stays of Circuit Court decisions. Since the Supreme Court refused to address this issue several times, why has it now set itself up to punish taxpayers and employers who have been complying with the federal tax laws?
This is interesting. Who knows anything about tax law in this context?
