Phinney Estate Law
Follow Us or Like Us
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Profile of Jamie Clausen
    • Profile of Michael Ballnik
    • Holistic Approach
  • Practice Areas
    • Estate Planning & Disability Planning
    • Probate & Trust Administration
    • Guardianship & Elder Law
    • Mediation & Conflict Coaching
  • Blog
  • Fee Schedule
  • Free Classes
  • Client Reviews
  • Contact Us

Fed Court in NY rules Federal Estate Tax Rules Unfair to Same Sex Couples and Unconstitutional

6/29/2012

17 Comments

 
Picture
We don't normally report on cases outside of Washington State but the decision out of New York in Windsor v. United States has such important long term implications for our same sex couple clients, we had to make sure they got the news.

On June 6, 2012, in Windsor v. United States, U.S. District Judge Barbara Jones in the Southern District of New York granted summary judgment to Edith Windsor and created a precedent that is likely to positively affect same-sex married couples for years to come. Edith was awarded $353,053, plus interests and costs for the federal estate tax that she was wrongfully required to pay upon the death of her beloved wife.

Edith met her late spouse, Thea, nearly 50 years ago in New York City. Even though no state in the United States afforded legal recognition to same-sex couples, in 1967, Thea proposed to Edith. In 1977, Thea was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, which gradually debilitated her over the years and made her a quadriplegic. After being engaged for 40 years, in 2007, Thea and Edith decided to legally marry in Canada since same-sex couples were still not permitted to marry under New York law. Their marriage in Canada was recognized in New York because New York affords legal recognition to civil marriages that are lawful in the jurisdiction where they are performed. See Matter of the Estate of Ranftle, No. 4585-2008 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. Jan. 26, 2009). On February 5, 2009, Thea lost the fight against her health battles and passed away, leaving her entire estate to Edith. In June 2011, New York became the sixth state to allow same-sex couples to marry.

While Thea's estate slightly exceeded the applicable federal exclusion amount set forth in 26 U.S.C. 2010(c), under 26 U.S.C. § 2056(a), a decedent's estate is generally entitled to an unlimited marital deduction for the value of any property that passes from the decedent to his or her surviving spouse. Whether a couple is married for purposes of the estate-tax marital deduction hinges on whether the couple is considered validly married under the law of the state. See Eccles v. Comm'r, 19 T.C. 1049, 1051, 1053-54 (1953).

While on its face, the estate-tax marital deduction applies to all legally married couples, same-sex couples have been denied these benefits due to the plain language of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Section 7 of DOMA provides:

"[i]n determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife." 1 U.S.C. § 7." Due to DOMA, the Internal Revenue Service excluded same-sex spouses from the benefits of the estate-tax marital deduction. This consequently caused Thea's estate to owe $363,053 in federal estate tax, which is an amount that the estate would not have had to pay if she married a male.

In 2010, Edith challenged the federal government's refusal to recognize her marriage—that was deemed valid under New York law—for federal estate-tax purposes, and she won. In February 2011, President Obama's administration came to the conclusion that Section 3 of DOMA, which bars the federal government from recognizing the legal marriages of same-sex couples, is unconstitutional and decided that the U.S. Department of Justice would no longer defend such discrimination in court. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group of the U.S. House of Representatives (BLAG) intervened to defend the constitutionality of DOMA and argued that DOMA provides a federal definition of marriage and it is what is "universally accepted in American law." Windsor v. United States, 1:10-cv-08435 BSJ-JCF, p. 18. Judge Jones of the Southern District of New York disagreed with BLAG and held that DOMA's definition of marriage does not pass constitutional muster and is unconstitutional as applied to Edith. As a result of this groundbreaking case, couples living in states that license or respect same-sex marriages are now entitled to equal treatment for federal estate-tax purposes. This case also suggests that executors of estates involving a same-sex surviving spouse may be entitled to a refund of federal estate taxes that they may have been wrongfully required to paid.

Washington's Estate tax, which applies to many more couples in Washington because it has a personal exemption of $2 million, already grants the unlimited exemption to registered domestic partners.  This case, if upheld by Supreme Court could extend that same equality to the federal level. 

If you are in a same sex relationship and would more information on issues that might affect your estate plan, contact us for a free 1/2 hour consultation at info@phinneyestatelaw.com or (206) 459-1908.



17 Comments

Case Law Update: Robin v. Rice

6/26/2012

6 Comments

 
Picture
Earlier this month, the Washington State Court of Appeals for Division One, issued a new opinion on the Slayer Rule.  In Robin v. Rice, the court held that someone who acts in self-defense is not precluded from inheriting under the slayer rule.  It further held that a victim of domestic violence can introduce evidence of an aggressor's prior bad acts of domestic violence in order to show the victim's state of mind, an element of self-defense. 

The slayer rule in Washington State and Federal Law holds that someone who willfully and unlawfully caused the death of another cannot inherit under a will, trust, or as the beneficiary under a life insurance policy or other non-probate asset.   In this case the deceased had a long history of committing domestic violence against her partner and the jury found that her death resulted from hitting her head after being pushed by her partner.  The jury also found that the push was an act of self-defense.  The court distinguished self-defense from a finding of not-guilty by reason of insanity which it found did not protect a killer from the affects of the slayer rule.  The court held the an act of self-defense is not illegal and therefore the slayer rule does not apply.

If you have questions about the slayer rule or other issues in a probate or transfer of non-probate assets, contact us at info@phinneyestatelaw.com or (206) 459-1908.

6 Comments

Phinney Estate Law Endorses Ref 74.

6/25/2012

23 Comments

 
Picture
Phinney Estate Law is proud to endorse Ref. 74 to confirm the right of same sex couples to marry.    We work with many same sex couples on estate planning, probate, and family law cases. 

Working with these couples will never be exactly like planning for opposite sex married couples until Federal Law changes to eliminate the discrimination in benefits and tax rights but we were so proud of the Washington State Legislature for passing the same sex marriage bill in Washington to make things in this state no longer "separate but equal" but just equal. 

We were disappointed that the opponents of equality were able to get enough signatures to require the matter to go before voters.  We hope it will turn out to be a chance for all voters to show they support equality just as much as their representatives.  What we hope will not happen is that people will be confused about earlier messages not to sign the petitions and think that voting no is the right way to vote.  So this will the be first of many reminders from us that if you, like us, support marriage equality to you want to vote YES on Ref. 74 this fall.  Want get more involved, learn how at Washington United for Marriage.

23 Comments

    PEL Blog

    This Blog is written by Seattle Attorneys Jamie Clausen & Michael Ballnik.
    It is made available for educational purposes only. Its purpose is to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. Reading this blog does not create an attorney client relationship between you and Phinney Estate Law. Because each individual and family is unique, the Blog should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

    Archives

    March 2022
    April 2020
    January 2020
    April 2018
    December 2017
    October 2017
    March 2016
    November 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    December 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    March 2014
    January 2014
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    January 2012
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011

    Categories

    All
    Abatement
    Admemption
    Administrator
    Advance Health Care Directive
    Collaborative Law
    Community
    Community Classes
    Debt
    Disability Planning
    Discounts
    Downsizing
    End Of Life Planning
    Estate Planning
    Events
    Guardianship
    Health Care Agent
    Health Care Planning
    Holistic Law
    Immigration
    Informed Consent
    Intestate Administration
    Last Will And Testament
    Legacy
    Legacy Planning
    Legacy Statement
    Lgbt
    Living Will
    Mediation
    Organ Donation
    PEPS
    Posthumous Heirs
    Power Of Attorney
    Probate
    Probate Litigation
    Quasi-community Property
    Science Alerts
    Slayer Rule
    Social Security
    Tax
    Trust Administration
    Undue Influence
    Unmarried Partners
    Will Contest
    Word Of The Week

    RSS Feed