It is not at all unusual for their to be resistance to complying with clear rulings made by the Supreme Court. That doesn't change my opinion of the effect of Lawrence v Texas on the IRC 'not a violation of local law' requirement regarding claiming a live-in girl or boy friend as a dependent.
Maybe I should be clearer. The US Supreme Court has been reluctant to overrule states that have laws that relate to child protection and defense of marriage. The ACLU tried to get the Michigan cohabitation law overruled in the MI Supreme Court and lost. Michigan enforces the law in family court. If you were a tax preparer in Michigan, I don't think that you could prepare a tax return and take a deduction for a live-in girl/boy friend because you have a personal belief that the MI law is unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, without you violating 31 CFR Part 10.
Maybe. However, I disagree.
You're free to disagree of course, but if YOU were the tax preparer, and YOU had to sign the return, could you do that in good conscience?
ChEAr$, Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA
I would have to review in depth the disclosure requirements for taking a position the IRS doesn't like and I would have to have a fully informed client who was also willing to sign such a return. But, yeah, if the client agreed and any applicable disclosure requirements were met, I'd probably sign it.
Unless, of course, you're that worst kind of terrorist: a same-sex couple legally wed in Massachusetts. In that case you're unmarried for all Federal purposes.
...or marriage. However, until they changed the definition of a foster child (2003?) to require an official placement, it was allowed as long as you cared for the child as your own.
I love all the twists and turns this conversation took while I was basking in the Carribean sun, but a couple of thoughts on the original.
Offspring are not evidence of cohabitation. I'm given to believe they can come directly from actions in the back seat of a '57 Chevy while the parents reside separately.
You're a family law expert? I can't believe the Florida statute is so broadly drawn that any two people of the opposite sex unrelated by blood or marriage violate it just by sharing a residence. There must be other activities involved. I will admit, though, states can come up with some weird stuff. A few years ago, in a panic over a nudist camp, Kansas almost passed a law that would have outlawed locker rooms and physicals.
It seems to me that if you keep your nose where it belongs in a tax prep relationship, you'll have no knowledge of whether they're violating local law or not. Thus, I don't see a problem ethically or legally with claiming the dependents that the facts support. OTOH, if they proudly announce "We're violating local law by living together," you have no choice but to hear them.
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required