Comments on: Court Rules on DOMA Challenge By Not Addressing DOMA

By: Gay Couples Law Blog

Gay Couples Law Blog — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 14:58:18 +0000

Gift Tax Consequenes of Adding Domsetic Partner to Property Title…

A friend of mine who lives in Atlanta asked about the tax implications of adding his domestic partner to the title on his house. He currently has sole ownership of the house, but thinks one day he might want to……

By: Lurena

Lurena — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:57:16 +0000

Is this the cousin of the Merrill who gave us Merrill v. Fahs, 324 U.S. 308 (1945)? If so, they sure like to litigate marriage issues…..

By: Kelly

Kelly — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:31:00 +0000

Chris, that’s exactly what perplexed me. If you want to be aggressive about the position, why not do so at full speed?

By: Chris Wright

Chris Wright — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:45:15 +0000

It seems the Court did not even consider Merrill’s marital status in making its decision. Because the IRS prepared Merrill’s return, Merrill is required to file a subsequent return claiming the MFJ status, which he did not do. “Accordingly, he is not eligible for the married filing joint status with respect to these years.”

By: Vinny

Vinny — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:21:19 +0000

Agree it’s a total non-case. The suit filed by Massachusetts last week, although not tax-related, has a bit more meat to it but only challenges limiting federal rights and benefits to married couples. But if it ever made it to the Supremes, my bet is that it would be tossed out on the basis that the state lacks standing to sue (how is the state injured by that provision of DOMA?)

I think the GLAD and California suits may have a better prospect of winning on their merits. The GLAD case involves Massachusetts gay married couples actually being denied federal benefits (including income tax benefits), while the California case challenges DOMA’s incongruity with the full faith and credit clause.