rdadams[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
- quote -

That's not the only requirement, but it is an important one.

- quote -

Based on my research (of Texas law - this may vary by state) the rule
is not quite that exacting. As long as both parties, at the same time,
have the intent to be married at some point, when the other
requirements are there (cohabiting and holding out) it's sufficient to
create a common law marriage even if they don't specifically intend or
even know that their actions actually cause them to be married.

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

rdadams[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
- quote -

True. However that element can often be inferred from the element of
"holding out" as husband and wife. That is to say that if they tell
people they are married (signing into a hotel as Mr. & Mrs. can be
enough) the courts may conclude from that fact alone that there is an
agreement to be married.

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

Mark Bole <makbo[at]pacbell.net> wrote:
- quote -

Present-tense means that once-upon-a-time they agree to live
together as though they were married and proceeded to hold
themselves out as such. This is opposed to deciding it is
now covenient for us to be married.

- quote -

Of course, you wouldn't. It's subourning perjury on a tax
return.

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

On Sep 21, 3:28 pm, rdad...[at]panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

- quote -

But if both members are working and each making a bit of money, then
the marriage penalty kicks in and they pay more tax. The tax rates
are higher, phaseout of itemized deductions, exemption, AMT exemption
are higher, stock loss is same as for single, etc. The Bush tax cut
eliminated the penalty for those at lower incomes. So surely the IRS
would not object to MFJ for these people.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 in message
news:gb6rf2$e72$1[at]reader1.panix.com...
- quote -

This makes me glad I live in a statutory marriage state. However,
unfortunately, the state is California where (for the moment) we have
same-sex marriages.

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


I'm a little puzzled by the "present-tense" part. What if they
indicated their clear agreement a long time ago in front of someone else
(not necessarily a tax preparer), and also met all of their state's
other CLM requirements? Why wouldn't they be married in that case too?

As a tax preparer, I would *never* ask a client if they *want* to be
married. Really, think about it... ;-)

I would ask them if they *are* married (as of Dec 31), and if they
couldn't give me a straight answer, I would not be able to help them
complete their tax return. (I might try to explain my very limited
non-legal understanding of CLM, consisting mostly of the fact that my
state does not recognize the creation of such in my state).

-Mark Bole

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

D. Stussy <replies[at]newsgroups.kd6lvw.ampr.org> wrote:
- quote -

Ageeed.

- quote -

There MUST be a clear present-tense agreement to create a
common-law marriage. If the preparer asked each of them
"Do you want to be married" and they both answered "Yes",
then they have created a CLM. Without that agreement,
there is no marriage according to the Tax Court.

However, as I pointed out in another post, signing an MFJ
tax return may create a CLM for the purposes of divorce.
Think about someone with $150,000 income who shacks up
with someone with a $15,000 and then files MFJ for 3-5
years. The low income person could clean clock in divorce.
court. If the high income person claims the CLM was only
for tax purpose, he/she is admitting to tax fraud.

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

"John D. Goulden" <jgoulden[at]yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:gb4ffg0u2b[at]news7.newsguy.com...
- quote -

Statutory marriage state: Fraud..

Common-law marriage state: The preparer is correct. Once you choose to
hold yourselves out as a couple, you're married.

However, there is no common-law divorce (at least without the use of
firearms!). ;-)

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

John D. Goulden <jgoulden[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Of course, the answer is "It depends".

As a strong advocate of "Living in Sin for Fun and
Profit", I can tell you there are some problems in
common-law marriages. In order for there to be a
common-law, there MUST be a clear present-tense
agreement to be married

The IRS is prone to attack CLM's because they
represent unpaid taxes plus interest, and penalties.
In the case of a Utah couple, the IRS successfully
attacked the CLM.

One the other hand, a CLM may be valid for the
purposes of divorce. Look at the Palimony cases.
The New York Supreme Court validated a CLM of a
couple who had lived together for 25 or some
years, owned property in PA as H&W, had registered
as H&W in hotels in other CLM jurisdictions.

IMRHO (the R stands for rarely), a couple living
in unmarried cohabition is somewhere between
ignorant and stupid to file MFJ. It's not Pandora's
Box. It's more like a raising an infant tiger
who may take a big bite of in a few years.

Rule #1: Never willfully and knowingly sign your
name to a false statement.

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

"John D. Goulden" wrote:

- quote -

You're asking the wrong question.

For Federal tax purposes your marital status is determined on the last day
of the tax year. Except for legally married same-sex couples if you are
married on 12/31 under state law, you are married for the entire year for
Federal tax purposes.

Some states recognize common law marriage; some do not. If you establish a
common law marriage in a state where that is possible you remain married
even if you move to a state where you couldn't establish such a marriage.

For legal purposes a common law marriage is the same as one with a license
and a ceremony. You're married until you divorce or the marriage is
anulled. IOW, it's not a "I think we'll be married this year" proposition.

For certain in no case would you become married simply by filing a joint tax
return. Remember that your marital status was determined the prior December
31.

Married people file either Married, Filing Jointly or Married, Filing
Separately. (Same-sex married couples file Federal returns as Single or
Unmarried Head of Household.) Under certain circumstances a person legally
married may be "considered unmarried" for Federal tax purposes. See IRS
Publication 501.
--
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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

What are the consequences if an unmarried couple (living together as husband
and wife) in a common-law-marriage state file MFJ? One of our preparers
claims that we just "married them at our desk;" others disagree. What if
they're NOT in a common-law marriage state? I've browsed around irs.gov but
found nothing specific there; references would be appreciated.

Thanks,

--
John D. Goulden

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