Domestic partnership NY and state taxes

I am currently in a domestic (opposite sex, if it matters) partnership. We
registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late December of 2012.
I understand that we have to file separate federal returns because the federal
government doesn't recognize registered domestic partnerships.
Can we also file our NY state returns separately? Or those returns have to be
together.
Thank you!
Reply to
brandonng2
registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late December of 2012.
government doesn't recognize registered domestic partnerships.
formatting link
*Rights Not Extended to Registered Domestic Partners *Because they cannot be considered spouses, domestic partners do not benefit from state income tax advantages, the spousal privilege and confidential marital communications, the ability to take out insurance policies on the other spouse, and other benefits of marriage. A surviving domestic partner does not have any inheritance or life insurance rights absent an explicit bequest in a will.
I would take "do not benefit from state income tax advantages" as meaning you cannot file MFJ [not that that is always beneficial.]
Don EA in Upstate NY
Reply to
Don Priebe
You file Single, which is better than MFS and often better than MFJ because you don't get hit with the marriage penalty.
No idea about NY.
Reply to
remove ps
registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late December of 2012.
government doesn't recognize registered domestic partnerships. Neither does NY.
Separate. You are not married.
Reply to
Alan
I am currently in a domestic (opposite sex, if it matters) partnership. We registered with the NYC Clerk's office in late December of 2012.
Apparently NY does, or did, at least NY City did, for limited purposes not including tax returns. Things like being covered by your partner's civil service insurance, etc. There is a whole section on domestic partners at the NYC clerk's website. (or Google is your friend.)
Reply to
Don Priebe
NY started to recognize same-sex marriages some time ago. Maybe that's when they stopped recognizing domestic partnerships. Not sure.
Reply to
remove ps
that's when they stopped recognizing domestic partnerships. Not sure. Why do we think that NY stopped recognizing domestic partnerships to the same extent that it used to? {No references to tax filing status - domestic partnerships were never recognized for that by NYS.]
The Ithaca town clerk website on domestic partners [
formatting link
] has a 2012 date on it, after the Marriage Equality Act of 2011.
Reply to
Don Priebe
State returns for also filed separately because this is an NYC statute.
After reading the above, it appears to me that a domestic partner of an NYC employee is treated as a spouse for health insurance purposes. In general, it is very slanted in favor of NYC officials, employees, and others the City can control.
Dick
Reply to
Dick Adams
In California there is what appears to be an odd law. While being domestic partners is generally limited to gay couples, heterosexual couples can form domestic partnerships if one of the partners is 62 years or older.
Why do that? Well, Social Security is subject to a family cap. So many married couples receive less SS together than they would individually if they weren't married.
So California came to the rescue - those couples can switch from married to domestic partners. Doing that they would continue to have all the rights and responsibilities of married couples under state law, but would not be married under federal law, so are not subject to the SS cap.
Should that go in your forthcoming book, "Shacking Up for Fun and Profit"?
Reply to
Stuart A. Bronstein
You lost me. The maximum family cap is used to determine the max amount that can be paid using one person's work record. There is no family cap for two workers collecting on their own work record. So... if two single people age 62 or over maximize benefits on their own records, that benefit does not change if they get married.
Reply to
Alan
That's not the way I understand it. And I have talked to married couples who have said they would receive more Social Security if they were single than they did married.
I could be wrong - I'm no Social Security expert. But that's what has been explained to me.
Reply to
Stuart A. Bronstein
What you heard is a myth. There is no marriage penalty. See "Is there a maximum Social Security family amount?" at the below site. You can also find the answer at ssa.gov.
formatting link
Reply to
Alan
formatting link
I disagree with the claim that there is no social security marriage penalty. While the amount each spouse receives is not reduced, there amount of social security income that is taxable is in general more for married people. For single people, if your income from other sources is more than 25k, then your social security benefits are taxable. But for married people, the limit is not 50k, but 32k. This means that your social security income becomes taxable quicker when married, but only as long as you have enough other income. This in effect reduces your effective income after taxes.
It seems that article is saying that there is a family maximum for the purposes of computing benefits to dependents. I didn't see how being single makes this maximum higher.
Reply to
remove ps
That's about paying more for income tax. It has nothing to do with Social Security, which is what we were talking about.
And that income tax "marriage penalty" generally happens when spouses earn about the same amount. When one spouse earns a lot more than the other, the tax, married filing jointly, is generally less.
It doesn't. It is just explaining why people might think there is a marital penalty when there really isn't.
___ Stu
formatting link
Reply to
Stuart A. Bronstein
The title is "Living in Sin for Fun and Profit". With the exception of health and hazard insurance, I believe you can contract you way into almost all of the legal benefits of marriage without even resorting to a domestic partnership.
"Polygamous Cohabitation and Other Strategies for Social Security Recipients" is the title of my next book. One strategy will be for those on SS Disability to adopt orphans who will minimize back pain of Senior Citizens by picking up stuff off the floor for them. Plus Seniors who have non-SS income will get the benefit of filing as Unmarried Head of Household. One major benefit will be to finally have children who listen to you!
Don't worry about the "Polygamous Cohabitation". Once you're old enough to quality for SS, nobody should claim it's immoral. If someone does, just tell them you're pro-choice across the board.
Dick
Reply to
Dick Adams
Almost. You can't get rights to inherit without a will, a probate homestead or to visit your partner in the hospital without either marriage or qualified domestic partnership.
How about foster kids? When you do that you get a bit of money on the side to help support them.
Perhaps they'd forget they'd thought it's immoral.
Good point.
___ Stu
formatting link
Reply to
Stuart A. Bronstein

Site Timeline Threads

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.