April, 15 2010, 08:13am EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Sean Eldridge
Director of Communications, Freedom to Marry
sean@freedomtomarry.org
Federal Marriage Discrimination Hurts Families on Tax Day
"How to Make Tax Day a Little Less Tough"
NEW YORK
April
15th marks a deadline that few Americans look
forward to - and same-sex couples in particular have reason to dread.
This
year, same-sex couples will file joint tax returns in more states than
ever before: in the five states where gay couples have the freedom to
marry, as well as in a handful of other jurisdictions that provide some
relationship recognition, including California, Oregon, and New Jersey.
However, because of the federal discrimination enacted under the
so-called "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996, no same-sex couples will be
permitted to file their taxes with the IRS as what they are: married.
DOMA excludes same-sex couples from the more than a thousand federal
responsibilities and protections of marriage and from the common
practice and expectation that a valid marriage in one state is generally
recognized by others.
Of course, every family is
different, and generalizations can only go so far, but there are a few
elements of federal marriage discrimination that consistently harm
same-sex couples and their families - glaringly so on Tax Day:
Health care: Because gay
couples still lack the freedom to marry in most states, many companies
are not obligated to provide health insurance for an employee's partner,
even if they offer health coverage to all married spouses of their
employees. So the cost of health insurance for same-sex couples is
often a lot higher than for heterosexual couples. What many people
don't know is that when companies do provide coverage for an employee's
same-sex partner, that partner's coverage is taxed as additional
income. Heterosexual couples, on the other hand, do not have to pay
taxes on spousal coverage.
Income
tax: As with non-gay
couples, filing as a married couple would affect same sex-couples in
various ways - for some taxes would decrease and for others they would
increase. What is clear, however, is that under current discriminatory
federal law, same-sex couples are treated differently. They are not
permitted to file as a couple, and in addition to the indignity of being
forced to falsely identify as "single," this often imposes financial
burdens on them and their family.
Financial planning and
estate taxes: Different-sex
married couples can share unlimited assets with one another during
their lives and upon death without paying estate taxes. In the eyes of
the federal government, however, for same sex-couples these day-to-day
transactions, as well as the transfer of earnings upon death, are
taxable "gifts," as if among strangers. Same-sex couples often end up
spending far more on financial planning to protect their families and
their assets. Navigating the complicated tax code as a gay couple is no
simple task, and because of federal marriage discrimination, gay
couples often spend thousands of dollars on professional advice and
coping strategies to protect their families.
And
needless to say, the harms and economic burdens that the denial of
marriage brings fall hardest on the most vulnerable, including people
who are ill or of lesser means.
Evan Wolfson,
Executive Director of Freedom to Marry stated that, "For gay couples, as
for non-gay couples, marriage is about much more than money and
financial security. Same-sex couples build lives based on love,
commitment, dedication, and self-sacrifice, and share the joys and, yes,
do the work of marriage. But at this time of year, the economic
injustice of exclusion from marriage is impossible to ignore. Especially
in these rough economic times, government has no business putting
obstacles in the paths of committed couples seeking to take care of
their loved ones and their families."
The White House
and the Department of Justice have conceded that "DOMA" is a discriminatory policy and should be
repealed. And a number of challenges to the federal
anti-marriage law are making their way through the courts, including
cases brought by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders and by the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. But Congress also has the authority to
repeal this infamous law, and according to Wolfson, "should heed
President Obama's call to dump DOMA and end federal marriage
discrimination now."
In September 2009, the Respect
for Marriage Act, which would repeal "DOMA," was introduced in the House
of Representatives, and already has more than 100 co-sponsors. Freedom to Marry is building support for the bill because,
Evan Wolfson stated, "it's time to end federal marriage discrimination
and make Tax Day a little less painful, and a whole lot fairer, for
American families."
Freedom to Marry is the gay and non-gay partnership working to win marriage equality nationwide. Headed by Evan Wolfson, one of America's leading civil rights advocates and lawyers, Freedom to Marry brings new resources and a renewed context of urgency and opportunity to this social justice movement.
LATEST NEWS
Listen Live: US Supreme Court Hears Outrageous Argument That Trump Is Above the Law
"The American people deserve a Supreme Court that does not hesitate to declare that no one is above the law, including a former president," said one campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
After months of delay, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday will hear oral arguments in a closely watched case on whether former President Donald Trump should be immune from criminal charges stemming from his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss—an argument that legal experts say is both absurd and dangerous.
Listen live to the oral arguments, which are set to begin at 10:00 am ET:
Thursday's proceedings mark the high court's final argument of its current term, and pro-democracy campaigners are calling on the justices to quickly reject the former president's sweeping immunity claim so he can face trial on federal election subversion charges before his November rematch with President Joe Biden.
As Bloomberg's Greg Stohr noted earlier this week, Thursday's oral arguments give "Special Counsel Jack Smith only a narrow window to put the former president in front of a Washington jury before voters go to the polls on November 5."
"With the trial on hold until the high court rules," Stohr added, "Smith needs a clear-cut victory, and he needs it quickly."
Sean Eldridge, founder and president of the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said in a statement Thursday that "the Supreme Court's right-wing majority has already handed Trump a temporary victory by stalling this case for months, allowing him to delay accountability for his criminal attempts to cling to power."
"With so much at stake for our democracy, the Supreme Court should rule swiftly and decisively in this case," said Eldridge. "Accountability delayed could mean accountability denied."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Grand Jury Indicts Top Trump Aides, 11 Arizona Republicans Over 'Fake Electors' Scheme
Had it succeeded, said the state's attorney general, the scheme would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
Apr 25, 2024
A grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday charged seven aides to Donald Trump and nearly a dozen Republican officials over a "fake electors" scheme in the state that aimed to keep the former president in power after his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.
Trump, who is currently facing nearly 90 charges across four criminal cases as he runs for another White House term, was described as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in the 58-page indictment, which was announced by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.
"The people of Arizona elected President Biden," Mayes, a Democrat, said Wednesday. "Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency. Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for."
The indictment names former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, sitting state Republican Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon, and seven others as the "fake electors" who sought to declare Trump the rightful winner of the state's presidential contest.
The names of other individuals indicted by the state grand jury are redacted, but the document's descriptions make clear that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and top Trump legal strategist Boris Epshteyn are among those facing felony charges—including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.
"In Arizona, defendants, unindicted coconspirators, and others pressured the three groups of election officials responsible for certifying election results to encourage them to change the election results," the document reads. "Discussions about using the Republican electors to change the outcome of the election began as early as November 4, 2020. Those plans evolved during November based on memos drafted by [an attorney for the Trump campaign, Kenneth Chesebro]."
Mayes said Wednesday that had the fake elector scheme succeeded, it would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
"It effectively would have made their right to vote meaningless," said Mayes.
A state grand jury, made up of everyday, regular Arizonans, has handed down felony indictments in the ongoing investigation into the fake elector scheme in Arizona. pic.twitter.com/Nu8GcD4ZqJ
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) April 24, 2024
Alex Gulotta, state director of All Voting Is Local Action Arizona, said Wednesday that "the indictment of the eleven fake electors is one of the first steps required in holding these election deniers accountable for their alleged attempts to take power away from voters by disrupting our free and fair elections."
"Arizonans deserve to trust the election officials responsible for administering our elections and preserving our democracy," said Gulotta, "and this is a positive step forward as we continue to strengthen the foundations of our democracy and restore faith in our elections."
The Arizona Republicreported Wednesday that "several of the Arizona electors have previously claimed they were merely offering Congress a backup plan, though nothing in the documents they sent to Congress and the National Archives backs up that assertion."
"The indictment includes several statements the false electors made on social media that contradict those claims," the newspaper observed.
Jenny Guzman, director of Common Cause's Arizona program, said the indictment "marks the start of a new chapter for the fake elector scheme that has plagued Arizona."
"Arizonans are still dealing with the fallout from the false electors and the Big Lie about the 2020 elections," said Guzman. "We are relieved that the investigation by Attorney General Mayes has concluded and Arizonans can now know that what comes next is accountability. These efforts by these fake electors to undermine the will of Arizona’s voters have had implications far beyond their failed attempt to overthrow the 2020 election."
"This indictment can reassure all Arizonans that if anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, attempts to undermine their vote, consequences will follow," Guzman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 88 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Correction: This article originally said Trump faces 91 federal and state felony charges. The correct number is 88.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular