There’s an uproar sweeping the country over gay marriage, stemming in part from a Massachusetts court decision, a rush of ceremonies in San Francisco, and President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a state that can only be undertaken by a man and a woman. Beyond the political posturing, and regardless of your personal feelings on the topic, there are serious tax and financial planning issues that some of your “civil union” clients will face now and in the future.
For example, it is my understanding, as a practicing financial planner educated as an attorney, that “civil unions” would grant rights under state law to any couple recognized as such under that state’s law. Other states may not be bound by this recognition, nor may the federal government. “Marriage,” however, would grant not only state rights in each state passing a law granting such rights, but may be recognized by other states. Moreover, such a move may very well create federal rights.
For the most part, the federal government recognizes state law for a number of legal definitions. Business organizations such as corporations, partnerships, and LLCs, for example, are created under state law.
So, too, is marriage. Marriage is a union between consenting adults. While several states, including my state of Massachusetts, are debating whether the gender of those adults should be specified to make a marriage valid, you must recognize that individual states have always had the right to establish the criteria for marriage. Those criteria would include determining the age of consent; the degree of family relationship between the adults (i.e., laws against incest); how many adults can be involved in the union (i.e., laws against polygamy); and at one time, the separation of races in a marriage (i.e., laws of miscegenation). This is part of states’ rights unless specifically restricted by the United States Constitution.
What Your Peers Are Reading
As you know, personal financial planning is complex and needs to take place not in isolation, but within the context of an individual’s overall financial life.
In considering the ramifications of the debate over gay marriages and civil unions, remember that not only do individual decisions affect your client’s financial life, the decisions made by one state may affect the planning efforts of advisors within that state and others. Here are some planning issues that will be affected by the outcome of the debate.
Federal Programs and Benefits
If a state recognizes two men or two women as a married couple, then it seems to me that the federal government would be obligated to provide the following benefits:
Retirement Provisions. Under ERISA, the automatic retirement distribution for a married participant in a qualified retirement plan is at least a joint and 50% survivor income for the surviving spouse. Any other distribution–or naming any other beneficiary–requires the spouse’s consent. Under federal law, a spouse is defined as a party in a marriage. “Domestic partner,” “life partner,” or “significant other” is not a currently defined legal term under federal law, even if they are defined as such under state law.
A married spouse can take advantage of an IRA rollover that can provide a longer period of income tax deferral. Minimum required distributions for single participants are larger than they are for married participants, which also enables the couple to extend the tax deferral of these accounts.
Under Social Security, a spouse is entitled to receive survivor benefits. I doubt that the survivor of a civil union would be entitled to such benefits.
Estate and Gift Provisions. Under current tax rules, a decedent who was married at the time of death may pass 100% of his or her assets to the surviving spouse without incurring estate taxes under the unlimited marital deduction (instead of being limited to $1.5 million in 2004 and 2005, scheduled to increase to $2 million in 2006, 2007, and 2008, etc.). There is an “unlimited marital deduction” in the IRC, but nothing about a civil union deduction.
The married couple could pass up to $3 million (the limit in 2004 and 2005, increasing thereafter) in assets to their heirs instead of only $1.5 million before incurring taxes.
Joint survivor life insurance, which typically will cost less than insuring either individual separately, could then be used to fund any remaining estate taxes. This is a benefit for married couples using the marital deduction. Marriage also creates insurable interest for any life insurance. One person cannot purchase life insurance on another without insurable interest. Without recognizing same-gender couples, can domestic partners or significant others insure their life partner?
Lifetime transfers (gifts) to a spouse are also unlimited instead of being limited to $1 million in 2004 and beyond for non-spouse recipients of the gifts. Would that include a domestic partner in a civil union? There is also the benefit of gift splitting between spouses. This would allow $22,000 to be gifted annually to a child instead of $11,000/year.
And what if one of the spouses is not a U.S. citizen, but only resides in the country? One way to postpone estate taxes until the death of the second, non-citizen spouse is to use a qualified domestic trust (QDOT), which is set up before the death of the first spouse. Would QDOTs be allowed for the domestic partner in a civil union?