Domestic partnership NY and state taxes

[brand...@gmail.com]

I am currently in a domestic (opposite sex, if it matters) partnership. We registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late December of 2012.

I understand that we have to file separate federal returns because the federal government doesn't recognize registered domestic partnerships.

Can we also file our NY state returns separately? Or those returns have to be together.

Thank you!

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< 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 (2011) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>

[Don Priebe]

On 1/29/2013 8:53 AM, brand...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am currently in a domestic (opposite sex, if it matters) partnership. We registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late December of 2012.
>
> I understand that we have to file separate federal returns because the federal government doesn't recognize registered domestic partnerships.
>
> Can we also file our NY state returns separately? Or those returns have to be together.
>
> Thank you!
>

>From
http://www.cityclerk.nyc.gov/html/marriage/domestic_partnership_reg.shtml

*Rights Not Extended to Registered Domestic Partners
*Because they cannot be considered spouses, domestic partners do not
benefit from state income tax advantages, the spousal privilege and
confidential marital communications, the ability to take out insurance
policies on the other spouse, and other benefits of marriage. A
surviving domestic partner does not have any inheritance or life
insurance rights absent an explicit bequest in a will.

I would take "do not benefit from state income tax advantages" as
meaning you cannot file MFJ [not that that is always beneficial.]

Don EA in Upstate NY

[remove ps]

brand...@gmail.com wrote:

> I am currently in a domestic (opposite sex, if it matters)
> partnership. We registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late
> December of 2012.
>
> I understand that we have to file separate federal returns because
> the federal government doesn't recognize registered domestic
> partnerships.

You file Single, which is better than MFS and often better than MFJ
because you don't get hit with the marriage penalty.

> Can we also file our NY state returns separately? Or those returns
> have to be together.

No idea about NY.

[Alan]

On 1/29/13 6:53 AM, brand...@gmail.com wrote:
> I am currently in a domestic (opposite sex, if it matters) partnership. We registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late December of 2012.
>
> I understand that we have to file separate federal returns because the federal government doesn't recognize registered domestic partnerships.

Neither does NY.

>
> Can we also file our NY state returns separately? Or those returns have to be together.

Separate. You are not married.
>
> Thank you!
>


--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

[Don Priebe]

I am currently in a domestic (opposite sex, if it matters) partnership.
We registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late December of 2012.
>>
>> I understand that we have to file separate federal returns because
>> the federal government doesn't recognize registered domestic
>> partnerships.
> Neither does NY.
>

Apparently NY does, or did, at least NY City did, for limited purposes
not including tax returns. Things like being covered by your partner's
civil service insurance, etc. There is a whole section on domestic
partners at the NYC clerk's website. (or Google is your friend.)

[remove ps]

Don Priebe wrote:

> I am currently in a domestic (opposite sex, if it matters)
> partnership. We registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late
> December of 2012.
> > >
> > > I understand that we have to file separate federal returns
> > > because the federal government doesn't recognize registered
> > > domestic partnerships.
> > Neither does NY.
> >
>
> Apparently NY does, or did, at least NY City did, for limited
> purposes not including tax returns. Things like being covered by
> your partner's civil service insurance, etc. There is a whole section
> on domestic partners at the NYC clerk's website. (or Google is your
> friend.)

NY started to recognize same-sex marriages some time ago. Maybe that's
when they stopped recognizing domestic partnerships. Not sure.

[Don Priebe]

> NY started to recognize same-sex marriages some time ago. Maybe
that's when they stopped recognizing domestic partnerships. Not sure.

Why do we think that NY stopped recognizing domestic partnerships to the
same extent that it used to? {No references to tax filing status -
domestic partnerships were never recognized for that by NYS.]

The Ithaca town clerk website on domestic partners [
http://www.ci.ithaca.ny.us/departments/clerk/partnership.cfm ] has a
2012 date on it, after the Marriage Equality Act of 2011.

[Dick Adams]

Don Priebe <don.an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> brand...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I am currently in a domestic (opposite sex, if it matters) partnership.
>> We registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late December of 2012.
>>
>> I understand that we have to file separate federal returns because the
>> federal government doesn't recognize registered domestic partnerships.
>>
>> Can we also file our NY state returns separately? Or those returns have
>> to be together.

State returns for also filed separately because this is an NYC statute.

> http://www.cityclerk.nyc.gov/html/marriage/domestic_partnership_reg.shtml
>
> *Rights Not Extended to Registered Domestic Partners
> *Because they cannot be considered spouses, domestic partners do not
> benefit from state income tax advantages, the spousal privilege and
> confidential marital communications, the ability to take out insurance
> policies on the other spouse, and other benefits of marriage. A
> surviving domestic partner does not have any inheritance or life
> insurance rights absent an explicit bequest in a will.

> ...

After reading the above, it appears to me that a domestic partner of an
NYC employee is treated as a spouse for health insurance purposes. In
general, it is very slanted in favor of NYC officials, employees, and
others the City can control.

Dick

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

rda...@panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

> After reading the above, it appears to me that a domestic
> partner of an NYC employee is treated as a spouse for health
> insurance purposes. In general, it is very slanted in favor of
> NYC officials, employees, and others the City can control.

In California there is what appears to be an odd law. While being
domestic partners is generally limited to gay couples, heterosexual
couples can form domestic partnerships if one of the partners is 62
years or older.

Why do that? Well, Social Security is subject to a family cap. So
many married couples receive less SS together than they would
individually if they weren't married.

So California came to the rescue - those couples can switch from
married to domestic partners. Doing that they would continue to have
all the rights and responsibilities of married couples under state
law, but would not be married under federal law, so are not subject
to the SS cap.

Should that go in your forthcoming book, "Shacking Up for Fun and
Profit"?

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Alan]

On Friday, February 1, 2013 8:00:56 PM UTC-7, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> rda...@panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
>
>
>
> > After reading the above, it appears to me that a domestic
>
> > partner of an NYC employee is treated as a spouse for health
>
> > insurance purposes. In general, it is very slanted in favor of
>
> > NYC officials, employees, and others the City can control.
>
>
>
> In California there is what appears to be an odd law. While being
>
> domestic partners is generally limited to gay couples, heterosexual
>
> couples can form domestic partnerships if one of the partners is 62
>
> years or older.
>
>
>
> Why do that? Well, Social Security is subject to a family cap. So
>
> many married couples receive less SS together than they would
>
> individually if they weren't married.
>
>
>
> So California came to the rescue - those couples can switch from
>
> married to domestic partners. Doing that they would continue to have
>
> all the rights and responsibilities of married couples under state
>
> law, but would not be married under federal law, so are not subject
>
> to the SS cap.
>
>
>
> Should that go in your forthcoming book, "Shacking Up for Fun and
>
> Profit"?

You lost me. The maximum family cap is used to determine the max amount that can be paid using one person's work record. There is no family cap for two workers collecting on their own work record. So... if two single people age 62 or over maximize benefits on their own records, that benefit does not change if they get married.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Alan <temp...@vacationmail.com> wrote:

> You lost me. The maximum family cap is used to determine the
> max amount that can be paid using one person's work record.
> There is no family cap for two workers collecting on their own
> work record. So... if two single people age 62 or over maximize
> benefits on their own records, that benefit does not change if
> they get married.

That's not the way I understand it. And I have talked to married
couples who have said they would receive more Social Security if they
were single than they did married.

I could be wrong - I'm no Social Security expert. But that's what
has been explained to me.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Alan]

On 2/2/13 10:20 AM, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> Alan <temp...@vacationmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You lost me. The maximum family cap is used to determine the
>> max amount that can be paid using one person's work record.
>> There is no family cap for two workers collecting on their own
>> work record. So... if two single people age 62 or over maximize
>> benefits on their own records, that benefit does not change if
>> they get married.
>
> That's not the way I understand it. And I have talked to married
> couples who have said they would receive more Social Security if they
> were single than they did married.
>
> I could be wrong - I'm no Social Security expert. But that's what
> has been explained to me.
>

What you heard is a myth. There is no marriage penalty. See "Is there a
maximum Social Security family amount?" at the below site. You can also
find the answer at ssa.gov.


http://socialsecurityinfo.areavoices.com/2012/08/02/is-there-a-maximum-social-security-family-amount/

--
Alan
http://taxtopics.net

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

Alan <temp...@vacationmail.com> wrote:

> What you heard is a myth. There is no marriage penalty. See "Is
> there a maximum Social Security family amount?" at the below
> site. You can also find the answer at ssa.gov.
>
>
> http://socialsecurityinfo.areavoices.com/2012/08/02/is-there-a-ma
> ximum-social-security-family-amount/

Thanks. Good information to know.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[remove ps]

Alan wrote:

> On 2/2/13 10:20 AM, Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
> >Alan <temp...@vacationmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You lost me. The maximum family cap is used to determine the
> > > max amount that can be paid using one person's work record.
> > > There is no family cap for two workers collecting on their own
> > > work record. So... if two single people age 62 or over maximize
> > > benefits on their own records, that benefit does not change if
> > > they get married.
> >
> > That's not the way I understand it. And I have talked to married
> > couples who have said they would receive more Social Security if
> > they were single than they did married.
> >
> > I could be wrong - I'm no Social Security expert. But that's what
> > has been explained to me.
> >
> What you heard is a myth. There is no marriage penalty. See "Is there
> a maximum Social Security family amount?" at the below site. You can
> also find the answer at ssa.gov.
>
>
>
http://socialsecurityinfo.areavoices.com/2012/08/02/is-there-a-maximum-social-security-family-amount/

I disagree with the claim that there is no social security marriage
penalty. While the amount each spouse receives is not reduced, there
amount of social security income that is taxable is in general more for
married people. For single people, if your income from other sources
is more than 25k, then your social security benefits are taxable. But
for married people, the limit is not 50k, but 32k. This means that
your social security income becomes taxable quicker when married, but
only as long as you have enough other income. This in effect reduces
your effective income after taxes.

It seems that article is saying that there is a family maximum for the
purposes of computing benefits to dependents. I didn't see how being
single makes this maximum higher.

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

"remove ps" <removeps...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I disagree with the claim that there is no social security
> marriage penalty. While the amount each spouse receives is not
> reduced, there amount of social security income that is taxable
> is in general more for married people.

That's about paying more for income tax. It has nothing to do with
Social Security, which is what we were talking about.

And that income tax "marriage penalty" generally happens when spouses
earn about the same amount. When one spouse earns a lot more than
the other, the tax, married filing jointly, is generally less.

> It seems that article is saying that there is a family maximum
> for the purposes of computing benefits to dependents. I didn't
> see how being single makes this maximum higher.

It doesn't. It is just explaining why people might think there is a
marital penalty when there really isn't.

___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Dick Adams]

Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
> rda...@panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:

>> After reading the above, it appears to me that a domestic
>> partner of an NYC employee is treated as a spouse for health
>> insurance purposes. In general, it is very slanted in favor of
>> NYC officials, employees, and others the City can control.

> In California there is what appears to be an odd law. While being
> domestic partners is generally limited to gay couples, heterosexual
> couples can form domestic partnerships if one of the partners is 62
> years or older.
>
> Why do that? Well, Social Security is subject to a family cap. So
> many married couples receive less SS together than they would

> Individually if they weren't married.

>
> So California came to the rescue - those couples can switch from
> married to domestic partners. Doing that they would continue to have
> all the rights and responsibilities of married couples under state
> law, but would not be married under federal law, so are not subject
> to the SS cap.
>
> Should that go in your forthcoming book, "Shacking Up for Fun and
> Profit"?

The title is "Living in Sin for Fun and Profit". With the exception of health
and hazard insurance, I believe you can contract you way into almost all
of the legal benefits of marriage without even resorting to a domestic
partnership.

"Polygamous Cohabitation and Other Strategies for Social Security Recipients"
is the title of my next book. One strategy will be for those on SS Disability
to adopt orphans who will minimize back pain of Senior Citizens by picking up
stuff off the floor for them. Plus Seniors who have non-SS income will get
the benefit of filing as Unmarried Head of Household. One major benefit will
be to finally have children who listen to you!

Don't worry about the "Polygamous Cohabitation". Once you're old enough to
quality for SS, nobody should claim it's immoral. If someone does, just tell
them you're pro-choice across the board.

Dick

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

rda...@panix.com (Dick Adams) wrote:
> Stuart A. Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Should that go in your forthcoming book, "Shacking Up for Fun
>> and Profit"?
>
> The title is "Living in Sin for Fun and Profit". With the
> exception of health and hazard insurance, I believe you can
> contract you way into almost all of the legal benefits of
> marriage without even resorting to a domestic partnership.

Almost. You can't get rights to inherit without a will, a probate
homestead or to visit your partner in the hospital without either
marriage or qualified domestic partnership.

> "Polygamous Cohabitation and Other Strategies for Social
> Security Recipients" is the title of my next book. One strategy
> will be for those on SS Disability to adopt orphans who will
> minimize back pain of Senior Citizens by picking up stuff off
> the floor for them. Plus Seniors who have non-SS income will
> get the benefit of filing as Unmarried Head of Household. One
> major benefit will be to finally have children who listen to
> you!

How about foster kids? When you do that you get a bit of money on
the side to help support them.

> Don't worry about the "Polygamous Cohabitation". Once you're
> old enough to quality for SS, nobody should claim it's immoral.

Perhaps they'd forget they'd thought it's immoral.

> If someone does, just tell them you're pro-choice across the
> board.

Good point.

___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com