when did CA RDP community rules begin?

You're missing the 2002 change that allowed the medical benefits to flow to the RDP who paid the expense or bought the insurance. E.g., the exclusions for employer provided medical and deducting medical expenses for a spouse now were allowed for an RDP.

Re Unemployment Benefits: Don't quote me on this but try Calhoun v. Commissioner 1992 (tax court). Unemployment was split 50 - 50.

I found the relevant writeup on the court case Calhoun v. Comm'r, TCM 1992-408: ============================================================1. ROBERT'S WAGES AND UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION RELATED TO HIS WORK IN CALIFORNIA. Petitioner and Robert were residents of California during the years in issue. California is a community property State, and, under California law, a wife generally has a present interest in one-half of any personal property that is acquired by her husband during the marriage. Cal. Civ. Code secs.

5105, 5110 (West 1983). Her one-half community property interest plainly extends at least to her husband's earnings. United States v. Malcolm, 282 U.S. 792 (1931); MacMurray v. Commissioner, 21 T.C. 15, 17-19 (1953); Simmons v. Cullen, 197 F. Supp. 179, 181 (N.D. Cal. 1961). See United States v. Mitchell, 403 U.S. 190, 194-197 (1971), revg. 430 F.2d 1 (5th Cir. 1970), which in turn had reversed Mitchell v. Commissioner, 51 T.C. 641 (1969). Unless an exception to this rule applies, then, petitioner is liable for income tax on one-half of the wages and unemployment compensation received by Robert during 1981, 1982, and 1983. ========================================================= =============================================================Petitioner has stressed the fact that the Commissioner has already assessed Robert for the full amount of tax, additions, and interest, in respect of his 1981-83 wages and unemployment compensation. However, as argued by respondent, neither the Government nor the taxpayer is bound by the manner in which either treats such income where only one-half of the community income is properly allocable to the spouse who earned it. Stanton v. Commissioner, 21 B.T.A. 1380 (1931) (husband's attempt to report all his community earnings in order to take advantage of a carryover loss held ineffective). We hold that petitioner is liable for tax on one-half of the wages and unemployment compensation received by Robert during the years at issue, 1981-83. ============================================================

Absent other authority, it may depend on who's paying the unemployment. If a state, then state law. If federal, then DOMA governs (it's not gone yet). Who pays is dependent on the status of the former employer.

Unfortunately, that's pre-RDP and pre-DOMA.

I don't see what that has to do with anything. This is not about recognizing marriage between a same-sex couple. It's about state law allocating income between them.

Are you saying that DOMA now prohibits allocation of income in a business partnership except when there are only two, opposite sex partners?

Thanx Alan, D. Stussy, and Stu for your comments. Another source also indicated that unemployment insurance compensation, being tied to earned income, would be considered community property if "earned" (benefit is based on income earned) during the period marital community.

When I mention "the period of marital community", there are times when it doesn't apply -- separate property agreements, divorce, separation with no intent to reconcile, etc.

As for how far back to apply community rules (I'm thinking, capital loss carryovers, NOL's, etc), I have also heard we should only go back to

2007 to determine the community portion. That would be simple and practical, so I somehow remain skeptical it could be that easy...