- quote -

SAN FRANCISCO!!! (and maybe West Hollywood too -- they're
the ones who outlawed declawing cats). Life is NEVER dull
out here!

Jan Zobel EA
tax offices in Oakland and San Francisco
--
Jan Zobel EA, author of 'Minding Her Own Business:
The Self-Employed Woman's Guide To Taxes and Recordkeeping'

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

D. Stussy wrote:
- quote -

True it might be considered off topic, except that what I
was really referring to was that many cities, not just in
California, have declared that people are not now pet
OWNERS, but pet Guardians! Imagine now, someone trying to
deducting guardianship costs of their tax return?

see: http://www.unclematty.com/woofpub/ar...ardianship.htm

Cheer$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA and not in that LA.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Harlan Lunsford wrote:
- quote -

I'd really like to know which city said that. (Perhaps you
should e-mail me since this is now off topic....)

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

IRS Confirms it is Unlawful for Same-Sex Married Couples to
File Jointly

AccountingWEB.com - June 16, 2004 - In response to an
inquiry about tax filings, the Public Advocate of the United
States, Inc. received a letter from the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) confirming that it is unlawful for same-sex
couples to file their taxes under any married status, even
if the jurisdiction in which the couple lives, recognizes
such a union. The text of the letter is as follows:

Mr. Eugene A. Delgaudio
President
Public Advocate of the United States, Inc.
5613 Leesburg Pike, Suite 17
Falls Church, VA 22041-2912

Dear Mr. Delgaudio:

"Thank you for your letter of April 13, 2004, on potential
tax issues related to same sex marriages. The Defense of
Marriage Act (P.L. 104-199) defines "marriage" for purposes
of administering federal law - including federal tax laws -
as the "legal union between one man and one woman as husband
and wife." It further defines "spouse" as "a person of the
opposite sex who is a husband or wife."

"Because of this statute, only married individuals under
this definition could elect to file a joint tax return. Even
though a state may recognize a union of two people of the
same sex as a legal marriage for the purposes within that
state's authority, that recognition has no effect for
purposes of federal law. A taxpayer in such a relationship
may not claim the status of a married person on the federal
income tax return.

"The law is clear on this issue, and we point out the
federal definition of marriage when explaining "filing
status" in IRS Publications 17, "Your Federal Income Tax,"
and 501, "Exemptions, Standard Deduction, and Filing
Information." In both publications, we introduce the subject
of marital status with this paragraph: "In general, your
filing status on whether you are considered unmarried or
married. A marriage means only a legal union between a man
and a woman as husband and wife."

"I appreciate your letter and the questions you raised."

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Dave Woods wrote:

- quote -

Well guess what! In some city/town/borough out in
Kawhl-ee-fornicatia the city council considered a resolution
or law that would reclassify pet owners as "pet companions."
Something about the term "owner" implied pet slavery.

(Shaking my head now)

Cheer$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Dave Woods <davidwoods[at]verizon.net> wrote:

- quote -

No, it isn't, or somebody is in serious trouble. It might
be on public record that you CLAIM to have voted in a
particular way.

Seth

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:

- quote -

If pets weren't considered property and actually had legal
rights.......I heard an off color joke about a person
recently who got married stating that the same sex marriage
decision had been expanded. Referring to the woman's husband,
it was said that now it wasn't just man and man, but man and
man's best friend (the bride).

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Boston, MA 02109

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

D. Stussy wrote:
- quote -

But the legislation did not, either by its terms or the way
it legislated, appear to attempt to preempt every other
attempt to legislation with regard to marriage, whether
consistent or inconsistent with that law. Unless they do
that, the states retain the right to legislate in any way
that is not inconsistent with the federal law (assuming the
law is constitutional).

When they want to preempt state law, they generally
explicitly say so. For example, in ERISA, 29 USC §1144(a),
the statute says,

"Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the provisions
of this subchapter and subchapter III of this chapter shall supersede
any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to
any employee benefit plan described in section 1003(a) of this title
and not exempt under section 1003(b) of this title."

- quote -

It's reserving some power, but not all the power.

Stu

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Dave Woods wrote:
- quote -

Of course. And up to this point I'd never heard of a law
that prohibited step-relatives from marrying. Woody Allen
notwithstanding, I think the restriction is silly.

Stu

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Stuart Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

I think that it is clear that is exactly what the U.S.
Congress is doing - by preventing the states from
legislating same-sex unions as marriages.

- quote -

Isn't that the same as "reserving some power to itself?" :-)

[Snipped]

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

A friend of mine sent me a joke, which is probably
circulating across the Internet about this whole marriage
thing. The gist of it was that the following parties were
going to sue - because they were being discriminated against
by not being included in the same-sex union laws and
rulings:

1) Brother and sister - discriminated against because of
their relationship!
2) A schitzophrenic person to himself - on the grounds
that he is really two (or more) personalities - see "ADA."
3) A group of 6 people (in a community property state),
because A likes B, but B likes C, etc., a closed circle
- and a new definition of "community."

My point in going into this: It shows how silly our legal
system is getting. I'm surprised that there wasn't a case of
some person wanting to marry his PET in the joke.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Stuart Bronstein" <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -

People related by step are only related by law, not by
biology. Therefore there is no rational basis for that
anymore than for your analogy applying to gays.

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Boston, MA 02109

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"Phil Marti" <philmarti[at]aol.com> wrote:
- quote -

Just because I live in Massachusetts doesn't mean I agree
with most of the backwards thinking around here. It's on
public record that I've voted AGAINST every national level
politician we've sent to Washington since I stated
voting........(and you know which party that is)

--
David M. Woods, EA, ChFC, CLU
Woods Financial Services
Boston, MA 02109

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Phil Marti wrote:
- quote -

They may have mentioned the 10th Amendment, but as I recall,
the basis of their ruling was that the Constitution grants
Congress rights to legislate only on certain topics, and
that was beyond the power of Congress.

Stu

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

MTW wrote:
- quote -

Since when do the courts actually read the constitution when
they rule on it?

--
Frederick E. Jorden http://Tax-Accounting-Payroll.com
7825 Midlothian Tpk - 207 Richmond, VA 23235-5247
EMAIL knowtax[at]bigfoot.com
(804) 320-6210 FAX (804) 320-6211

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Dave Woods wrote:
- quote -

There's a rational basis for prohibiting close relatives
from marrying - at least if there is a chance of them having
children. On the other hand, the Bible seemed to have
approved incest in many situations, so perhaps it should be
ok after all.

But there is no rational basis for prohibiting gays from
marrying other than the vague feeling that it isn't right.
That's just not good enough to pass constitutional muster.

Stu

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Dave Woods <davidwoods[at]verizon.net> writes:

- quote -

Not that I'm from West Virginia or anything, but why does
the state care if two adults who aren't blood related are
having sex? I put this one with the
fornication/sodomy/adultery laws in the category of "the
state has better things to worry about."

Phil Marti
Topeka, KS

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> writes:

- quote -

I would doubt it. I sat through enough form development
meetings in my day to recognize two keystrokes when I see
them. It took years for the compliance functions to get a
phone number on the return. Besides, absent political
pressure, I doubt this is high on IRS's list of compliance
concerns.

Phil Marti
Topeka, KS

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Stuart Bronstein <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> writes:

- quote -

That may be conventional wisdom, but IIRC the Supremes
struck down a Federal law about guns and schools, mentioning
the 10th Amendment.

Phil Marti
Topeka, KS

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

"D. Stussy" <kd6lvw[at]bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

You're right, Massachusetts is obviously not a community
property state.

And in a community property state, a partnership isn't
needed, because the income is divided by law.

- quote -

And I was trying to keep it correct.

*Dan Evans
*Author of the Tax Protester FAQ
*http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->