Various states now recognize relationships between people of the same sex, but due to the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal government does not. In the context of income taxes, this combination of state recognition and federal non-recognition of same-sex relationships produces a significant problem for many same-sex couples and some state taxing authorities. Most states have income tax and, typically, state income tax laws “piggyback” on federal income tax laws. Depending on the state, same-sex couples in legally-recognized relationships must file their state income tax returns as married (either “filing jointly” or “filing separately”), as domestic partners, or as parties to a civil union. Such same-sex couples cannot, however,-file their federal-income tax returns as a couple. For same-sex couples, this situation creates uncertainty and complications and probably increases the risk of audit. It is also an unfair affront to the dignity of lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. The Article examines this problem by surveying the guidance from thirteen states and the District of Columbia with respect to the taxation of same-sex relationships and by considering each jurisdiction’s actual income tax practices. The Article also recommends best practices for state taxing authorities, including: (1) amending state tax laws to specifically allow joint filing by same-sex couples; (2) issuing more guidance to same-sex couples on specific relevant issues; (3) adding boxes to state tax returns to indicate that these returns will involve nonconformity with federal filing status; and (4) not requiring same-sex couples who file state joint income tax returns to also complete “pro forma” federal “married” income tax returns.
First published in 1991, the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law is a law journal edited and published entirely by students at the Columbia University School of Law. The Journal publishes interdisciplinary works related to feminism and gender-related issues with the aim of promoting dialogue, debate, and awareness around an expansive view of feminism embracing women and men of different colors, classes, sexual orientations, and cultures.
For over twenty years, the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law has been the spacious home of cutting-edge legal scholarship on sex, gender, and sexual orientation. We’re proud to launch a new website to match. Welcome, and enjoy.
This Article posits that when an unmarried same-sex couple is denied a housing opportunity, the discriminator’s motivation is not always clear. The discriminator may simply deny discriminating altogether, or alternatively may justify his or her actions in one of two ways: either he or she discriminated because the couple was unmarried or because they were presumably not heterosexual. Where state law provides protections for only one of these classes (either unmarried persons or non-heterosexuals) or for neither, unmarried same-sex couples are subject to the whims of discriminatory pretext. Because the Fair Housing Act does not protect against either sexual orientation housing discrimination or marital status housing discrimination, state law governs these cases. Thus, housing providers in the thirty-five states that protect only one or neither of these statuses avoid legal consequences for their discrimination by recharacterizing the facts to fit the permissible form of discrimination.
When and if federal marriage equality is enacted, having dual protections for sexual orientation and marital status will reduce or negate the disparate impact created by many courts’ narrow-view analysis of marital status discrimination. The logic is fairly simple: as more LGBT couples get married, the percentage of total unmarried couples that are LGBT should decrease. But as long as sexual orientation discrimination and marital status discrimination are thought of as separate and distinct vectors of discrimination, such as they are in the current drafting of the Housing Opportunities Made Equal (HOME) Act, courts will continue to miss the various contexts in which the two operate simultaneously to freeze the status quo—a society which treats unmarried homosexual couples worse than their married and heterosexual counterparts. To achieve real progress, federal legislators first must pass federal marriage equality, and second must define marital status discrimination to comport with the “broad view” taken by many state courts. Otherwise, housing providers will be free to deny unmarried couples housing, and that practice will continue to have a disparate negative impact on LGBT couples in jurisdictions where they are not allowed to marry.