Talk:LGBT rights in Washington (state)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / Washington (Rated Stub-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject LGBT studies (Rated Stub-class)
WikiProject icon This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.
Stub-Class article Stub  This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
 

Federal income tax[edit]

I just modified this paragraph. I'm an experienced tax preparer but I missed the first season to which the IRS's community property ruling applied. I'm working primarily in an office in Seattle's gayest neighbourhood, and most of my customers are unfamiliar with this ruling; I know it wasn't applied to a high-end client last year whose returns for the previous three years I'd done, and whose high income would probably have meant community property would've helped.

The sentence about how people in same-sex marriages are now subject to the community property rules is a logical deduction from the April 2011 law previously described (based on a news report) and the IRS publication (a reference I added). However, the statement that most WA couples are ignoring the IRS ruling amounts to original, well, anecdote, not even research. The conservative fallback would retain the fact that the IRS allows the rules to be disregarded (though not everyone disregarding them has the right to!), and the IRS reference, but not the claim about most couples disregarding them. The claim that community property precludes e-filing actually comes partly from internal company material I can't cite, but is corroborated by a prominent story in USA Today on, um, Wednesday, February 15, 2012, which I guess I should now try to cite properly.

Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com not a registered Wikipedian, but you can see work of mine in "Judiciary Act of 1793" and in "State income tax". 70.97.20.190 (talk) 07:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, OK, I tried to clean it up myself. I suppose the reference to error code 0139 is still original research - I dug it up myself. I didn't look for the other obviously relevant error code - the one that says the wages in the W-2s should add up to the wages in the 1040 itself (and not twice as much, as in a community property return). Anyway, I have no idea why not, but the IRS ***NOWHERE*** admits that community property and e-filing don't go together, not in Pub 555, where they should, nor in all their press releases ballyhooing the 2010 ruling, nor anywhere else I can find.

Joe Bernstein again 70.97.20.190 (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)