Your browser is currently set to block JavaScript.

For full functionality of this site it is necessary to enable JavaScript. Here are the instructions how to enable JavaScript in your web browser.

After enabling javascript, please refresh the page to go back to site with full functionality

Would you turn off/on JavaScript?

It's a widely used language that makes the web what it is today, allowing for websites to be more responsive, dynamic, and interactive. Disabling JavaScript takes websites back to a time when they were simple documents without any other features.

What are the advantages of using JavaScript?

Speed. Since JavaScript is an 'interpreted' language, it reduces the time required by other programming languages like Java for compilation. JavaScript is also a client-side script, speeding up the execution of the program as it saves the time required to connect to the server.

banner ad
Experts Logo


SCOTUS Rulings On Same-Sex Marriages Create Tax Refund Opportunities

Originally Published in Financial Complexity Made Clear, July 2013

By: David Nolte
Tel: (213) 787-4100
Email Mr. Nolte


View Profile on

The decision in United States vs. Windsor (No. 12-301, June 26, 2013) by the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to strike down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) creates important tax issues and opportunities. These include potential refunds for same-sex married couples and their employers for years not closed by the statute of limitations. Those who have state-recognized same-sex marriages should determine if it pays to file amended federal tax returns to obtain refunds of open tax years before any additional years become subject to the statute of limitations.

DOMA was enacted in 1996 and barred the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages for the purpose of any federal laws, rules or regulations. The IRS therefore has not recognized the status of same-sex couples for federal tax purposes. But because of DOMA's invalidation by the SCOTUS, same-sex couples with a marriage recognized by state law will now be treated by the IRS as spouses for both income tax and estate & gift taxes.

Federal Income Taxes

Most importantly, affected couples are now required to file their income taxes on either married filing jointly or married filing separately status. Single and head of household filing statuses are no longer available for affected couples, just as occurs for heterosexual married couples. Whether a couple pays less tax by recognizing the marriage depend on many factors that are unique to that couple's income and available credits. Each couple needs to run the numbers assuming a married tax status versus the prior income tax filing to determine the more favorable position.

The IRS has not yet announced whether it would require same-sex married taxpayers to start recognizing their unions for income taxes, including any requirement to amend past returns. Heterosexual couples certainly do not get an election to disregard their legal status and there is no longer a legal basis for treating heterosexual and same-sex married couples differently. A time-sensitive question exists for those same-sex couples whose 2012 income tax returns have been extended to October 15, 2013 (i.e., not yet filed with the IRS).

Because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled DOMA unconstitutional, it effectively held that DOMA was never valid. Consequently, same-sex marriages should be valid for federal tax purposes retroactively to the date the marriages were recognized under state law. Although the IRS may not require retroactive married treatment for income tax purposes, there seems no basis for the IRS to deny marital tax treatment. Consequently, a refund opportunity exists for past taxes.

Other Taxes

Although the SCOTUS ruling does not directly affect state laws, state income taxes may also be less with the invalidation of DOMA. This occurs because many states base their state tax liability on the federal tax, so a federal tax reduction could reduce one's state income tax liability.

Estate taxes are easier to predict. The decision in United States vs. Windsor directly involved the estate tax, and specifically the existence of the marital deduction for inheritances received by one's spouse. With DOMA invalidated, same-sex couples married under state law can make unlimited gifts to each other, all of which are exempt from estate and gift taxes. Taxpayers can file refund claims for estate and gift taxes paid if their same-sex spouse was not previously recognized because of DOMA.

Two additional matters are altered by the SCOTUS's DOMA invalidation, as follows:

  1. Employers must extend certain features of pension, health and welfare benefits to state-recognized same-sex spouses, if such benefits are required to be granted to spouses under either the Internal Revenue Code, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), or any other federal law.
  2. Affected same-sex couples and their employers can exclude the value of spousal health care benefits for payroll and income tax purposes, just as now occurs for heterosexual married couples. However, the administrative effort of doing so will likely discourage all but the largest of employers from implementing this change, particularly if the employers do not have automated systems that allow such calculations to occur cost-effectively.

Who is Affected?

As of this writing, same-sex marriage is permitted (or soon will be) in the following jurisdictions:

  1. California
  2. Connecticut
  3. Delaware
  4. Iowa
  5. Maine
  6. Maryland
  7. Massachusetts
  8. Minnesota
  9. New Hampshire
  10. New York
  11. Rhode Island
  12. Vermont
  13. Washington
  14. Washington DC

Eight states allow civil unions, which are generally meant to provide couples with the same treatment under the law as married couples have. The SCOTUS decision does not address civil unions. Therefore, it will be up to the IRS and/or future litigation to address whether civil unions will be treated as marriages for federal tax purposes.

Some opposing same-sex marriage argue that California should not be on the above list, but that is only a technical argument. From a practical perspective, California became the thirteenth state to recognize gay marriages, based on a combination of the same-day ruling in Hollingsworth vs. Perry, the near-immediate related ruling the Ninth Circuit made to implement the Hollingsworth vs. Perry SCOTUS ruling, and the immediate application of those rulings by California's Governor. On the same day as the SCOTUS ruling, Governor Brown directed all counties to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

David Nolte is a principal at Fulcrum Financial Inquiry LLP with over 30 years experience performing forensic accounting, auditing, business appraisals, and related financial consulting. He regularly serves as an expert witness.

©Copyright - All Rights Reserved


Related articles


7/24/2018· Legal Issues

Court Clarifies Notice Requirements for 20-Day Preliminary Notice

By: Darryl Horowitt

It has long been a requirement that any subcontractor or material supplier seeking to enforce a mechanic's lien must first file a 20-day preliminary notice. The requirement existed before the California legislature revised laws relating to mechanic's liens and stop notices in 2012, and similar requirements exist after 2012.


7/25/2014· Legal Issues

Court Determines Failure to Disclose Deferred Down Payment is a Rees-Levering Violation

By: Darryl Horowitt

Many consumer lawyers have argued that the failure to disclose a deferred down payment constitutes a Rees-Levering violation even if the amount of the down payment is accurately stated. An issue did, however, exist as to whether or not the inadvertent exclusion of a deferred down payment on the line for a down payment constitutes a Rees-Levering violation. This question has been answered by the court in Rojas v. Platinum Auto Group, Inc. (January 15, 2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 997.


7/13/2016· Legal Issues

The Expert Witness In Real Estate Litigation - A User's Guide

By: Lawrence Jacobson

Although many articles have been written about the use of the expert witness in litigation, almost all are written by lawyers and rarely by an expert witness who is also a lawyer. Having practiced law since 1968 in the area of real estate and business transactions with a real estate broker's license since 1978, I have testified frequently as an expert witness in litigation involving the interpretation of real estate documents, the standard of care of real estate brokers, in legal malpractice actions involving real estate and business transactions and in legal fee disputes. As such, I thought it would be helpful to litigators handling real estate litigation matters to have the perspective of an expert witness on issues affecting the choice, usage and cross-examination of an expert witness in such litigation.

; broker Movie Ad

Follow us

linkedin logo youtube logo rss feed logo