Domestic partners get same property tax break as surviving spouses

A step in the right direction in California. Now if we could just get those federal boys to follow...

__________________

This is definitely a good thing. It's nice to see California asserting its states rights in this issue.

I totally agree. But if states rights the ultimate, the federal government should have to follow the decisions of the states.

__________________

No. The states' rights are anything not specifically granted to the federal government. It would be nice to see the federal government adopt the same taxation policies as the state of california, but it is in no way required to do so.

But if it's the states right to determine who is legally married (mass.). The the federal government should abide by that determination in that state. Otherwise the federal government is basically saying "You have the right to determination, but we don't have to recognize your determination within your state.".

__________________

Full faith and credit per the 6th amendment applies only to contracts and legal bindings that are common to all the states. You can be married by common law in Georgia, but since California doesn't have common law marriage, it doesn't transfer under the 6th amendment.

I can see the federal government not adopting any taxation changes until the states working out the issue together.

I think we are talking past each other. I apologize. I understand what you are saying about the full faith and credit clause. It would be an applicable argument if I was making the claim that the marriage laws of Mass. should be recognized by Georgia, but that's not the claim I am making. The claim that I am making relates to a states rights and the federal responsibility to state.

Per our mutual understanding of the constitution the states have the right to determine the definition of marriage. In the case of Mass., the state has made the determination that the contract should be open to any two unrelated consenting adults. Since that is the legal definition of marriage within the state, and the state has the right to make that determination, the federal government should abide by that definition.

If the federal government does not recognize the right of the state to define marriage by implementing a federal definition (DOMA), then they have essentially violated the states rights as the federal government does not have the right to define marriage.

So either the state has the right to define marriage and the federal government must abide by that definition in relation to that state, or the state really doesn't have the right to define marriage and federal definition of marriage is the law of the land.

__________________

I understand what you are saying now. However, let me insert another conundrum about the whole thing. If Mass defines marriage in such a way that same sex couples are included. Louisianna defines marriage in a way that specifically denies same sex couples inclusion. After all, that is the right of each state.

Now say Rick and Steve, the happiest gay couple in all the world, have lived in Mass. and filed their taxes together for 5 years. Rick gets a job in Houma, LA and their marriage is now null and void (let's just leave the 6th Amendment issue out of this). How does the federal government view their marriage now? Are they now required to file separately? What happens in the event of an audit?

Yay! We get into the tax code... LOL

There are tons of different questions to ask.

1) Is the permanent residency of the couple changing? If yes, then they abide by Louisiana law and would accordingly have to file separately.

2) If they are not permanent residency then they continue to file in Mass.

Audit isn't difficult because each individual situation is different anyway.

__________________

Ok...so that settles tax code (but I do reserve the right to revisit if something relevant comes up). So now...lets look at inheritance rights. Rick and Steve are now begrudgingly filing their taxes separately in LA and do not have their marriage recognized by the evil swamp Republicans. However, they still own their rental property in Mass, which is in Rick's name. In an unfortunate alligator wrestling incident, Rick is killed.

Now you see the conundrum. LA is not going to recognize the right to transfer property. Mass will, so disposition of the physical property is not an issue. However, the feds still get their cut somehow. Steve lives in LA where his marriage is no longer recognized. He gets the property in Mass, but how do the feds tax him since the property is in Mass where his marriage is legal but he now lives in LA where his marriage is not recognized? How are the feds going to look at the inheritance? Do they have a case for overriding Mass law? What if Rick's family decides to contest and it makes it to a federal court? What standard is used by the federal judge?