A Stitch in Haste

As in, “nothing is certain but”? We’ll see…

ITEM: California has figured out how to figure it out —

As in other states that have legalized gay marriage or civil unions, same-sex married couples in California will face added tax complexity. This is because they will be required to file as single for federal income tax purposes, but jointly (or married-filing-separately) for state income tax purposes. The California process will include determining a dummy joint federal Adjusted Gross Income, representing what the IRS would have deemed a couple’s AGI to be, had they been able to file jointly at the federal level.

MY TAKE: This pesky process is not only frustrating and offensive; it is also by itself grounds to insist, yet again, that New Jersey’s “separate but equal” civil union paradigm is by definition unequal and, under the dictates of the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Lewis v. Harris, must therefore give way to full and equal marriage rights for New Jersey gays. And it’s of course also an irrefutable talking point in every other relevant jurisdiction (e.g., New York), and especially in the nationwide debate over DOMA Section 3.

ITEM: All this added complexity leads of course to one inevitable conclusion — “Help!“

H&R Block has agreed to give $100 coupons or free TaxCut software to all gay couples who incurred additional costs because they were barred from using the company’s online tax service, TaxCut Online.
…
The ACLU sent a demand letter to H&R Block on March 25, 2008, demanding that it stop penalizing gay couples with civil unions who were barred from filing their taxes through the company’s online tax preparation service. The ACLU sent the letter on behalf of Jason Smith and Settimio Pisu, a Connecticut couple who attempted to use the company’s online service but were told through the website that “We Don’t Support Connecticut Civil Union Returns.” Connecticut law makes it illegal to discriminate based on civil union status.

MY TAKE: H&R Block is of course not required (or, more correctly, cannot be legitimately required) to accommodate Connecticut gay couples, or anyone else for that matter — especially if it would mean a costly reprogramming of its systems. This is still a libertarian blog, of course. No company should ever be required by law to produce a good or offer a service that it does not already provide (cf., this old post). But I’ll sidestep the question of Connecticut’s anti-discrimination law by noting that this case seems to be as much a simple incident of false advertising (i.e., that the online site would be available to Connecticut gay couples) as a case of anti-gay discrimination. That’s naughty, with or without any discriminatory intent.

(This post is dedicated to the now happily married Chuck and Randy.)