On Jun 28, 12:31 pm, "Bob" <b...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Good point. I think I understand now. While the California tax
tables don't have a marriage penalty (ie. tax, phaseout, etc) on two
single people is exactly the same as one married couple with the same
income, there is still a penalty because the AGI and itemized
deductions carry over from federal state. That is you start with the
federal AGI, and to get the California AGI subtract out things like
social security, treasury interest, CA unemployment compensation, and
add other things if necessary. Same concept for itemized deductions.
But the federal AGI already has some marriage penalty in it: such as
the rental loss is still 25k for a couple (the 50k for two single
people), and the phaseout is still 100k (and it would have been 100k
for each of two single people). Similarly, the 7.5% for medical
expenses, 2% for misc expenses is harder to satisfy for joint income,
so the federal itemized deduction is less, so the California itemized
deduction (often the same as federal), is less.

Though regarding your rental losses, the disallowed losses are carried
over, so they are not lost forever.

Hope moderator approves this post -- it does not mention political
names, opinions, etc.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

This thread has become too political. I and others
have let it get too far. Only the tax issues belong
on Misc.Taxes.Moderated. The constitutionality of
the DOMA belongs in Misc.Legal.Moderated and the
social issues belong in an alt.politics.* newsgroups.

This thread is now closed.

Dick
---
Richard D. Adams, CPA
Moderator: Misc.Taxes.Moderated

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Alan <sfcnm-mtm[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

As Moderator of MTM, it has been my policy that
derogatory remarks may not include names or titles.
So #536 is the person who failed to veto it. But
the veto would have been easily overridden by the
other 535 gutless wonders.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Katie" <katiej_1958[at]yahoo.com> wrote
- quote -

else, is getting Alito and Roberts on the Court.

- quote -

I think you're right that this is more likely.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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
<2433255b-641b-45c5-a5c0-41682f3ca83c[at]z32g2000prh.googlegroups.com> ,
Katie <katiej_1958[at]yahoo.com> wrote:


- quote -

also argue against it. Clinton signed the bill after it was passed by
Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate[1] and a vote of 342-67 in the
House of Representatives[2], and was signed by President Bill Clinton on
September 21, 1996.
The Dems supported it rather fiercely.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 Jun 28, 12:31*pm, "Bob" <b...[at]yahoo.com> 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Jun 28, 2:53*pm, "Elle" <honda.lion...[at]spamnocox.net> wrote:
- quote -


I certainly agree with you about the composition of the Court, Elle.
It will be even longer if a Republican gets to appoint the next
Supreme Court justice.

I think it is more likely that at some point, Congress and the
President will repeal DOMA because most Americans think it is silly.

Katie in San Diego

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 -

I can appreciate people's interest in leaving people's
bedroom choices out of taxes, for one, but I think the
battle has a ways to go. Many make the argument you do. Yet
the Court for a few decades now has considered only some
statuses (race, age, gender and religion, where gender does
not include sexual orientation) to be constitutionally
protected classes.

snip
- quote -

The full faith and credit clause is also said to permit
Congress some leeway in regulating full faith and credit.

I do think a court where we had moderates replacing Roberts,
Alito, Scalia, and Thomas might very well find more
protections for gays or even do something really radical,
like accept challenges to DOMA. With the youth (and
extremism) of Roberts, Alito, and Thomas, and Mr. Scalia's
tenacity, I think it will be a good ten years before the
high court en masse starts speaking of gays as a
constitutionally protected class. It will happen, because,
as you and others indicate it's just stupid to judge people
because they found a way to happiness in their private
lives, a way that does no harm to anyone and arguably serves
society through the reduction of suicide and depression and
so an increase in productivity.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

<removeps-groups[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a7343e9b-8d24-4935-a9b5-a42317e5ec3c[at]u36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

result of
converting money from traditional to Roth IRAs (which we've been doing for
the past couple of years). Our combined income was such that we were unable
to
take deductions for passive loss, medical, etc. Individually we were below
that threshold (or at
least my partner was, since I converted more than he did). If I remember
correctly, the
year before I lost the itemized deductions but still had some passive losses
from rental
property. He had both. This year accountant had to figure it both
ways so we could file separately at the Federal level and jointly at the
state level. So it
was fairly easy for him to see the impact of the joint filing.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

kamlet[at]panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) wrote:
- quote -

That's why I like to call it the shack-up encouragement law. If
someone with a home lives with a person who is not the owner, and if
they marry on the last day of the year the property is sold, they will
get the double exemption amount.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Alan <sfcnm-mtm[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

I guess that would be the Vice President.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 <g43lk4$h87$1[at]reader2.panix.com> ,
Dick Adams <rdadams[at]panix.com> wrote:
- quote -

Well, a few year ago when they lowered the foster child
rule from one year to most of the year, they could have
lowered the unrelated friend to 6 months too, but didn't.


My big gripe, since I file so many MFS returns, is all the
tax benefits that you lose because you are married but not
willing to file a joint return. Most unnatuiral. Gotta
pay for that sin. :-(


- quote -

Since I'm not a constitutional lawyer, I'll give you my
view on full faith and credit anyway.


It says each state shall give FF&C to each other state.

And that Congress can make laws about this.

Well, Congress sure made some sort of law. And the US Govt is
not a state.

So while it's possible DOMA will one day be overturned,
as written I do not see it as outlawed by the contitution.

--


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 Jun 27, 2:13 pm, "Bob" <b...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

What are the sources of the state of California marriage penalty? I
remember that the tax table for two single people results in same tax
as for one married couple with the same combined income. Even the
phaseouts of the exemption, itemized deduction, etc were double that
of single people. So I'm wondering how California has a marriage
penalty.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Bob <bob[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

So besides getting mothers-in-law, you also got hit
with the infamous marriage penalty. It is usually
less expense to live in sin.

Maybe I finally should get around to writing my book
"Living in Sin for Fun and Profit".

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 <Euc9k.13198$mh5.9708[at]nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com> ,
Bob <bob[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

Not exactly.


In the case of MFJ, both must meet the Occupied rule but only one
has to meet the Owned rule. If not in a federally recognized
marriage, each has to meet both rules.
--


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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

joetaxpayer <joetaxpayer[at]nospam.com> Katie wrote:

- quote -

I am compelled by common sense to agree with Katie
and Joe. The social problem is that people who hate
people do not need a god - they only need a devil.

One constitutional issue here is the deliberate
discrimination against a group because of their
declared status. Would the overwhelming majority
of the 536 gutless-wonders Congress have denied
someone living in unmarried cohabitation the right
to claim her or his unemployed cohabitant (who has
lived with them for the full tax year) as a
dependent? Maybe they would have in 50's.

The tax issue here is the IRS has historically used
State law to determine whether or not someone is
married. Now in violation of the full faith and
credit guarantee to the States, Congress has
conjured up the notion that they are superior to
the Constitution. But then again, they do that a
few times a year anyway. <insert humorous smiley
Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

- quote -

That is already the case in California, where last year for the first time
registered domestic partners
had to file state income tax jointly. My partner and I got hit with a
$2000+ state tax "marriage penalty" and our
accountant said if we had been allowed to file federal tax jointly, we would
have paid $10,000 more. I guess
the inability to file jointly at the Federal level is one of those "special
privileges" I keep hearing about


On the other hand, they would get the benefit of transferring
- quote -

AND postponing estate tax until the death of the surviving spouse. That's
a biggie, especially in California where housing prices are (still) high and
a
big part of an estate.


- quote -

That already is in effect (and has been for quite a while) if two people,
regardless of marital status, own jointly.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 Jun 27, 1:24*pm, Stuart Bronstein <spamt...[at]lexregia.com> wrote:
- quote -


Anti-miscegenation laws were declared unconstitutional in 1967 by the
U.S. Supreme Court (a case styled, delightfully, "Loving v.
Virginia"). According to Wikipedia there were 16 such laws on states'
books at the time. Some of those laws went back to the 18th century;
Virginia's originated in the 17th century. I wouldn't be surprised if
some of them were still on the books, though obviously not enforced,
until recently. Could be still some out there, for all I know.

Katie in San Diego

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

joetaxpayer <joetaxpayer[at]nospam.com> wrote:

- quote -

There used to be lots of law prohibiting interracial marriage. Those
were only found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1967 - not
really all that long ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

In fact some of those laws were still on the books until just the last
year or two, if I recall correctly.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >