Taxpayer asks:
Can you file single if you are married? Short info I am still in school only have 1 more year then I am done. My insurance ran out so my husband and I got married for the insurance. We were engaged and already had a date. Just had to bump it up to get covered. So how many laws could I possible be breaking?
Thank you for your time,
Taxgirl says:
Easy answer: no. Your filing status is determined as of the last day of the tax year. So if you’re married on December 31 under the laws of your state, you’re married for tax purposes. Exceptions apply for same sex marriages (the feds don’t recognize these), widows and widowers, annulments and married persons who live apart but meet very tailored criteria.
But another question: why would you want to file single? Generally speaking, it tends to be more advantageous to file as married filing jointly.
If, however, you have concerns about filing with your spouse or if you have a financial situation that lends itself to not filing jointly, you can file as married filing separate. It’s similar to filing single with one enormous exception: both spouses must agree to itemize (or not) on their return. One spouse may not elect to itemize if the other spouse takes the standard deduction.
I’m not sure which laws you’re worried about breaking but if it’s financial aid related (which is what I’m guessing from your question), check with your school’s financial aid office. They should be able to help. If it’s tax related, I’m not terribly worried so long as you haven’t previously file a false return. If you have, it’s not the end of the world: it can be fixed. Contact a tax pro if this situation is trickier than you’ve indicated or if you still have questions.
Like any good lawyer, I need to add a disclaimer: Unfortunately, it is impossible to give comprehensive tax advice over the internet, no matter how well researched or written. Before relying on any information given on this site, contact a tax professional to discuss your particular situation.
Have a question? Ask the taxgirl! – Now on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/taxgirl
Taxpayer asks:
I read your blog everyday and find it enjoyable and knowledgeable.
My question to you today is about the First Time Home Buyers Credit. Last year my client filed MFJ. This year, they purchased a house but their combined incomes are over $170,000 so they are phased out and cannot get the $8,000 credit. Can they file MFS this year, as she makes less then $75,000, and qualify for the $4,000 credit?
Taxgirl says:
I say yes, so long as she otherwise qualifies. According to the IRS, “qualifying taxpayers who purchase a home before Dec. 1 receive up to $8,000, or $4,000 for married individuals filing separately.”
My only caution would be to run the numbers and make sure that qualifying for the credit doesn’t foul up anything else. Remember, with MFS, the tax rate will generally be higher than it would be on a joint return. More importantly, if one spouse chooses to itemize, the other must also itemize; this can be difficult if the primary reason for itemizing was the mortgage interest deduction. Other tax credits and items are affected, too, such as the AMT, child and dependent care expenses, EIC and IRA rollovers.
So yes, but run the numbers to make sure it remains a good idea.
Like any good lawyer, I need to add a disclaimer: Unfortunately, it is impossible to give comprehensive tax advice over the internet, no matter how well researched or written. Before relying on any information given on this site, contact a tax professional to discuss your particular situation.
Have a question? Ask the taxgirl! – Now on Facebook!
Technorati Tags:
homebuyer’s credit, tax, filing status, married filing separate
Last year, while Californians were in the midst of a heated debate on the merits of Prop 8, Charles Merrill took activism into his own hands: he filed papers in Tax Court challenging the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). On July 13, the Tax Court ruled that Merrill was not entitled to relief. (Merrill v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2009-166).
Merrill is legally married in the state of California to Kevin Boyle, one of nearly 18,000 same-sex unions in state which remained valid after Prop 8 was upheld by courts earlier this year. His court challenge, however, had nothing to do with his marriage.
The question, according to the court was “whether petitioner, who was unmarried but in a committed relationship with another man during the years at issue, is entitled to married filing joint status.” The court found that he was not.
So it feels like the law is settled. Or maybe not.
This case wasn’t really about DOMA even though it was painted as a DOMA challenge. Merrill did not get married until 2008. His case, however, focused on the tax years 2004 and 2005, when he was single. Merrill believes that he should have been able to file as married while a resident of North Carolina since North Carolina does not recognize same sex marriages; the IRS said that he could not because he was not married. Additionally, Merrill believes that he should have been able to file as married when he moved to California; again, the IRS said that he could not because he was not yet married. The court agreed on both counts. In other words, Merrill wasn’t married, so the court found that he couldn’t file as married. Not groundbreaking stuff.
It wasn’t surprising, then, that the court refused to address the bigger issue of the constitutionality of DOMA, claiming that it was not relevant to Merrill’s case. Had they addressed that piece, that would have been interesting. The court would have been required to address DOMA had Merrill filed a federal joint return for 2008 (for which he was legally married). The IRS does not follow state law for recognizing same-sex marriages despite the fact that state law determines marital status for federal filing purposes, including the recognition of common law marriages and legal separations. However, DOMA, which defined marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” requires that the IRS not recognize same sex marriages.
In other words, you want to talk DOMA? File a bona fide DOMA challenge.
The rest of Merrill’s case is likewise a bit puzzling. Merrill had actually not filed with the IRS for either of the years in question (2004 and 2005). He has refused to file or pay federal taxes for the past several years as a protest. While I note that constitutional law isn’t my forte, I might have approached this case a little differently. It would make sense to me that, rather than file a case protesting filing status that Merrill never actually claimed (meaning that he never filed as married), a better route from a procedural standpoint would have been to file joint tax returns with his partner and then make the claim if opposed by the Service (which it certainly would have been). Would he have had a different result this way? Probably not. But I think it would have been a better argument and made a bigger statement.
This case may get talked up a bit at cocktail parties (on both sides) but for tax purposes, in the end, it really didn’t offer anything new.
(Hat Tip: Tax Prof Blog)
