An uncharacteristically quick turn-around time from the IRS and DOL brings us an update on the Windsor ruling, and how same-sex marriages will be treated for federal tax and qualified retirement plan purposes.
It's always nice when issues get resolved, or progress is made, sooner than expected. Especially when it comes from historically slow-moving entities, like the IRS and DOL. At times, the bureaucratic process seemingly required to make decisions within the two entities results in a decision made only after years of discussion or, often times, a decision that is never made at all. But maybe we should consider ourselves lucky, since at least the IRS is not as contradictory or inconsistent as say... the NCAA's Infractions Committee. Yes, I am a huge college football fan. And maybe I'm a little biased since I happen to be a life-long USC Trojan fan, and the NCAA Infractions Committee penalized USC exponentially worse than other schools with similar (if not worse) violations, then rejected USC's recent request for a reduction in the penalty after giving Penn State relief for "good behavior." I could go on for hours about that, but let's not digress (further than I have already). I'll just say that, luckily, the IRS and DOL seem to be motivated to keep things moving faster than usual on this particular issue, and are at least trying to be consistent between the two of them.
In August and September of 2013, some of the questions that were still lingering in my previous posting were addressed by the IRS and DOL at what seemed to be break-neck speed (relative to how long it takes to get anything else done by most government agencies). The clarification comes in the form of Revenue Ruling 2013-17 (Rev. Rul. 2013-17) addressing federal tax treatment and the DOL's Technical Release No. 2013-04 as it relates to ERISA and other related deparmental regulations. Below are the questions addressed by these items.
A question not initially answered by the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor was "How is a 'valid' same-sex marriage determined for federal tax purposes?" Specifically, it was asked whether the validity of a marriage is based on the state of celebration (where the marriage took place) regardless of whether the state of residence/domicile recognizes same-sex marriage OR do the spouses have to be married and currently reside in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage?
Rev. Rul. 2013-17 and Technical Release No. 2013-04 confirmed what most suspected would be the response by announcing that same-sex couples legally married in a state or jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriages, regardless of the state they currently reside, will be treated as being married for federal tax and qualified plan purposes.
In hindsight, the answer was inevitable, since the difficulty of tracking a couple's state of residence/domicile, which conceivably could change a number of times during a marriage, would be much more difficult than it would be to simply confirm at the outset that the same-sex couple was married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages.
The new guidance in Rev. Rul. 2013-17 also provides clarification on how registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, or other similar formal relationships recognized under state law that are not identified as marriage under the laws of the state will be treated.
The short answer is that these relationships will not be treated as being "married" under federal law, and therefore will not receive the benefits or treatment of married couples. The ruling specifically states that the terms "spouse," "husband," and "wife" do not include individuals (whether of the opposite sex or the same sex) who have entered into any of these formal relationships.
Lesson learned? If you want to be treated as a married couple by the federal government and its agencies, regardless of if you have a same-sex or opposite-sex relationship...then get married.
While Rev. Rul. 2013-17 and Technical Release No. 2013-04 provide clarification on the same-sex marriage issue in terms of federal tax treatment and certain qualified retirement plan issues, it does not touch on all of the issues, nor does it confirm how all federal agencies will look at the issue. It might be safe to assume that they will fall in line with these recent updates, but you should still keep an eye out for any other updates related to this matter...no matter how long it might take.
Pacific Life, its distributors, and respective representatives do not provide tax, accounting, or legal advice. Any taxpayer should seek advice based on the taxpayer's particular circumstances from an independent tax advisor or attorney.
Pacific Life is a product provider. It is not a fiduciary and therefore does not give advice or make recommendations regarding insurance or investment products.
Pacific Life refers to Pacific Life Insurance Company and its affiliates, including Pacific Life & Annuity Company. Insurance products are issued by Pacific Life Insurance Company in all states except New York and in New York by Pacific Life & Annuity Company. Product availability and features may vary by state. Each insurance company is solely responsible for the financial obligations accruing under the products it issues.
Variable insurance products are distributed by Pacific Select Distributors, LLC (member FINRA & SIPC), a subsidiary of Pacific Life Insurance Company (Newport Beach, CA) and an affiliate of Pacific Life & Annuity Company. Variable and fixed annuity products are available through licensed third parties.
No bank guarantee • Not a deposit • Not FDIC/NCUA insured • May lose value • Not insured by any federal government agency