"Tyler Franks" <tyler919[at]comcast.net> wrote:

- quote -

I love all the twists and turns this conversation took while I was basking
in the Carribean sun, but a couple of thoughts on the original.

Offspring are not evidence of cohabitation. I'm given to believe they can
come directly from actions in the back seat of a '57 Chevy while the parents
reside separately.

You're a family law expert? I can't believe the Florida statute is so
broadly drawn that any two people of the opposite sex unrelated by blood or
marriage violate it just by sharing a residence. There must be other
activities involved. I will admit, though, states can come up with some
weird stuff. A few years ago, in a panic over a nudist camp, Kansas almost
passed a law that would have outlawed locker rooms and physicals.

It seems to me that if you keep your nose where it belongs in a tax prep
relationship, you'll have no knowledge of whether they're violating local
law or not. Thus, I don't see a problem ethically or legally with claiming
the dependents that the facts support. OTOH, if they proudly announce
"We're violating local law by living together," you have no choice but to
hear them.

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Arthur Kamlet" <kamlet[at]panix.com> wrote:

- quote -

....or marriage. However, until they changed the definition of a foster
child (2003?) to require an official placement, it was allowed as long as
you cared for the child as your own.

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Dick Adams" <rdadams[at]panix.com> wrote:

- quote -

Unless, of course, you're that worst kind of terrorist: a same-sex couple
legally wed in Massachusetts. In that case you're unmarried for all Federal
purposes.
--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 13, 1:20*pm, Harlan Lunsford <hnslunsf...[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

I would have to review in depth the disclosure requirements for taking
a position the IRS doesn't like and I would have to have a fully
informed client who was also willing to sign such a return. But, yeah,
if the client agreed and any applicable disclosure requirements were
met, I'd probably sign it.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bill Brown wrote:
- quote -

YOU had to sign the return, could you do that in good conscience?

ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 12, 3:59*pm, Alan <sfcnm-...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

Maybe. However, I disagree.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bill Brown wrote:
- quote -

reluctant to overrule states that have laws that relate to child
protection and defense of marriage. The ACLU tried to get the
Michigan cohabitation law overruled in the MI Supreme Court and
lost. Michigan enforces the law in family court. If you were a
tax preparer in Michigan, I don't think that you could prepare a
tax return and take a deduction for a live-in girl/boy friend
because you have a personal belief that the MI law is
unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, without you
violating 31 CFR Part 10.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 11, 4:49*pm, Alan <sfcnm-...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

It is not at all unusual for their to be resistance to complying with
clear rulings made by the Supreme Court. That doesn't change my
opinion of the effect of Lawrence v Texas on the IRC 'not a violation
of local law' requirement regarding claiming a live-in girl or boy
friend as a dependent.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 11, 3:49*pm, dpb <n...[at]non.net> wrote:
- quote -

No, it is not specious. It is the problem with the Texas law
identified by the Supremes. The same problem likely exists with all
anti-cohabitation laws. That is why many people believe that Lawrence
v Texas had the effect of making most, if not all, anti-cohabitation
laws to be unconstitutional.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bill Brown wrote:
- quote -

stupid and may disagree with them, the facts are that for the
remaining states that still have those laws on their books, there
has not been any federal court decision that has determined that
they are unconstitutional. That is why, the ACLU continues to
file challenges in the remaining states. That is why it took a
state court decision in NC to throw out the law. And that is why
ND decriminalized it in 2007. All of those actions occurring
long after Lawrence v. Texas.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Bill Brown" <brownwp[at]longwood.edu> wrote
- quote -



So......going way off-topic.....heterosexuals have to <AHEM> in public - as
we're not allowed to <AHEM> in private (at least in Texas)?





--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bill Brown wrote:
....

- quote -

It's somewhat difficult to find any behaviorial-controlling statute that
doesn't have a morality concern as its basis so that's pretty much a
specious argument imo.

--

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 11, 12:28*pm, Alan <sfcnm-...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

I disagree that the effect of Lawrence vs Texas was only to allow
homosexuals to have sex in private. I agree with those who opine that
this decision made unconstitutional all laws, including cohabitation
statutes, that limit or ban private sexual conduct between/among
consenting adults based on morality concerns.

If you can find an anti-cohabitation statute that is really based on
something other than morality concerns I'd be glad to hear about it.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bill Brown wrote:
- quote -

in violation of the US Constitution. Lawrence vs. Texas involved
the conviction of two men for deviate sexual intercourse in
violation of a Texas statute forbidding two persons of the same
sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct. The Supreme
Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for two
persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual
conduct violates the Due Process Clause.

This had nothing to do with state cohabitation laws.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 10, 11:04*am, "Tyler Franks" <tyler...[at]comcast.net> wrote:
- quote -

I agree with those who argue that state and local anti-cohabitation
laws were declared unconstitutional several years ago in a case
involving a couple of men from Texas.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <fm699r$j79$1[at]reader2.panix.com> ,
Dick Adams <rdadams[at]panix.com> wrote:
- quote -



HoH is not allowed for dependents not related to you by blood.

--


ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <cc0fac49-bdb7-4aee-8f3e-9e7b5d67818e[at]s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com> ,
<ebetts3[at]msn.com> wrote:
- quote -


Sure, and that was a much needed decision, though it still does
not solve all situations.


But while it opens the door for BF to claim dependency exemptions
for GF and GF's child if they all lived together for the entire
year, it does not grant BF the right to claim either HoH or EIC
based on these non-blood-related dependents.
--


ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jan 10, 6:49*pm, rdad...[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
- quote -

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Dick Adams wrote:
- quote -

You lost me on your comment about HOH. An unrelated person
living in your household does not qualify you for HOH even if
that person is your dependent. Are you saying we shouldn't allow
HOH for parents, grandparents, brothers or sisters when you say
"your own".

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Dick Adams wrote:
- quote -

the Land of Enchantment, decriminalized it. ND decriminalized in
2007. As to Utah... I am not sure. I think their cohabitation
provision is part of their bigamy law and does not apply to two
single persons. It only applies to a married person who
cohabitates with another person.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >