Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Employers, Employees Still Confused Over DOMA Rules
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: September 2, 2013
Key Contacts
Back
Nearly two months after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional, employers and employees alike are still confused about how the court’s decree will affect them.
Employee Benefit News recently reported that many employers are unsure about whether they need to change their policies for same-sex couples immediately, and which policies need to be altered. Employees have some confusion as well about whether the Internal Revenue Service will consider where same-sex couples live when making benefit determinations or where they were married. This question could have large implications on health insurance costs.
For instance, Kaiser Health News recently noted that some employers offered health insurance to same-sex couples prior to the DOMA strike down. In these cases, employees who utilized this health insurance benefit were required to pay federal income tax on the value of that coverage, which is considered imputed income. Following the court’s ruling, same-sex couples who live in states that allow marriage will no longer be required to pay this income. However, the issue gets more complex for couples who live outside these states.
“If the IRS decides to follow its standard practice and recognize marriages based on where a couple lives, these couples could still be responsible for paying income tax on the value of a spouse’s health insurance,” the analysis read. “But if the IRS goes with the place of celebration standard, couples living in states that don’t recognize their marriages could avoid paying federal income tax on the spouse’s health insurance.”
Non-health related financial issues are also up in the air, with employers confused about whether they must provide benefits to same-sex workers retroactively. Couples are also on the fence about whether they can legally seek out refunds from prior returns if it falls within the three-year statute of limitations for amending returns. As these tax law issues remain unresolved, employers are being urged to seek legal advice and proceed with caution.
- Practices: Tax and Trusts & Estates, Sophisticated Estate Planning & Wealth Preservation
- Locations: Red Bank, NJ, New York City, Little Falls, NJ
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
How to Protect Your New Jersey Business When Going through a Divorce
The most effective ways to protect your business in a divorce are put in place before one begins: a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement, clean separation of business and personal finances, and divorce contingencies built into your operating or buy-sell agreements. If divorce is already underway, the priorities shift to establishing how the business is classified […]
Author: Jay McDaniel
10 Common Issues in Franchise Disputes
The most common franchise disputes involve breach of contract, franchise termination and non-renewal, intellectual property rights, territorial encroachment, royalty and fee payments, franchisor support obligations, and violations of state franchise laws such as the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act. Franchisors and franchisees can often resolve these conflicts by providing written notice detailing the dispute and […]
Author: Paul Grossman
Reputational Risk and Legal Exposure: Why New Jersey Businesses Must Manage Them Together
New Jersey businesses must manage legal and reputational risk together because modern disputes play out on two fronts at once: the legal proceeding itself and the court of public opinion, where customers, employees, investors, and business partners often reach conclusions long before a judge or jury has had the opportunity to evaluate the facts. Success […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
Eviction Is Not Always the End: Understanding Post-Possession Rent Claims in New Jersey and New York
No. An eviction does not automatically end a tenant’s obligation to pay rent. Post-eviction rent claims are common because recovering possession resolves who has the right to occupy the premises, but it does not extinguish the tenant’s contractual obligations under the lease. Whether unpaid or future rent remains owed depends on three factors: the lease’s […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe
Company Dissolved? Legal and Financial Consequences to Expect
A company is dissolved; legally, it ceases to exist. Accordingly, dissolution results in significant legal and financial consequences. It is a process that must be properly managed to avoid continuing liability. The Corporate Dissolution Process Corporate dissolution is the legal process of formally closing a corporation, paying its debts and distributing the remaining assets. Most […]
Author: Jay McDaniel
The Legal Implications of Signing a Triple Net Lease
A triple net lease is a commercial lease in which the tenant pays the property’s real estate taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs, known as the three nets, in addition to base rent. They are most often used in freestanding retail and office buildings and in large single-tenant industrial properties, with terms that typically run 10 […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.