honda.lioness[at]gmail.com wrote:

- quote -

Actually the misegenation statutes I've read don't prohibit marriage
between people of other races in general, just marriages between whites
and non-whites. Any other races could do whatever they wanted.

- quote -

I doubt it. Traditionally the status of marriage has been governed by
local law, even for federal law purposes.

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

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

? Miscegenation is marriage between a man and woman of different
races. It was illegal in some states some decades ago. My question is
whether back when it was illegal in some states these couples
attempted to take MFJ status on tax returns. (Though I am not sure if
there was potentially any advantgage way back when for two people to
file MFJ.)

- quote -

DOMA could as easily be thrown out via Congress and the President. But
I do not see this happening before four years or more elapse, for the
aforementioned reason.

- quote -

I would only be concerned with how the lack of critical thinking
skills among the lesser educated (generally speaking) can translate
more readily to a herd mentality and yields vulnerability to religious
fundamentalism of the holier than thou type.

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

<honda.lioness[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

Until the enactment of DOMA in 1996, whether or not you
were married was a function of recognition of your marriage
by the State in which you resided. So there was no
discrimination tax-wise for miscegenation.

- quote -

Keep in mind that there is both a marriage benefit and a
marriage penalty in the tax code. Which one you get is
a function of individual incomes of a couple. So to
bring suit against DOMA, a couple would have to be denied
a marriage benefit.

If and when someone does bring a suit to overturn DOMA, it
will eventually be heard before Johnny and the Supremes do
not run for reelection.

- quote -

How does that rank with other countries?

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 Apr 6, 4:44 pm, joeu2004 <joeu2...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
- quote -

I wonder if there is any history on the IRS treatment of miscegenist
(sp.) marriages, illegal in some states some decades ago.

- quote -

ISTM no politician who wants to be viable as President or VP could
have or can now take a stand in support of gay marriage. Yet I am
betting most major politicians wished they could support gay marriage
and be viable. Remember, the U.S. is not particularly well-educated,
with only about 27% of the age-eligible population holding 4-year
college degrees.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 Apr 6, 11:42*am, bill-d...[at]weacca.com wrote:
- quote -

Fascinating! Can anyone comment on whether or not
this is a "recent" change -- for example, due to
the enactment of DOMA? (So "recent" means: since
1996.)

I coulda sworn that some time ago -- perhaps very
long ago -- all that the IRS 1040 instructions said
about the "married" filing statuses is: it depended
on whether or not the state recognized the "union"
as a marriage.

(Wow! Such a reactionary law, and it was signed into
law by Clinton!)

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 Apr 6, 9:43*am, NadCixelsyd <nadcixel...[at]aol.com> wrote:
- quote -

No. The Defense of Marriage Act includes the following text "In
determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus
and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a
legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the
word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a
husband or a wife." IRS publications reflect this. For example, on
page 15 of the instructions for form 1040, the second paragraph of
instructions for line 2 starts "For federal tax purposes, a marriage
means only a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and
wife."

Bill.

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

Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
- quote -

For California, yes, if they are RDP's under California Family Code
Section 297. Federal, no.


- quote -

For California state income tax purposes, RDP status is not ignored.

http://ftb.ca.gov/forms/2008/08_737.pdf

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

NadCixelsyd <nadcixelsyd[at]aol.com> wrote:

- quote -

Simply, no. Several years ago the federal government passed a law
(which may be unconstitutional but hasn't been challenged yet) saying
that no marriage would be recognized in any federal situation other
than those between one man and one woman.

Under community property laws in California, say for registered
domestic partners, the result would be that each person is considered
to have earned half the income of the couple. But as I recall CA law
states that for income tax purposes, a domestic partnership is ignored.

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 those states where same-sex marriages are legal, does the tax code
(read: IRS) allow marriage benefits? Can Ellen Degeneres and Portia
de Rossi file a joing tax return????

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