.
After road testing three leading Web sites that help you create your
own will, power of attorney, and other important legal documents,
Consumer Reports has concluded that none of the will-writing products is
likely to entirely meet your needs unless those needs are extremely
simple.
The independent non-profit testing agency evaluated three online
services: LegalZoom, Nolo, and Rocket Lawyer. Using online worksheets or
downloads, researchers created a will, a car bill of sale for a seller,
a home lease for a small landlord, and a promissory note. They then
asked three law professors -- including Gerry W. Beyer of
Texas Tech University School of Law, who specializes in estates and
trusts -- to review in a blind test the processes and resulting
documents.
In his evaluation of the will-making programs, Prof. Beyer said that
two of them could create good simple wills but he found deficiencies in
all three, including features that could lead a user to add clauses that
contradict other parts of the will.
Consumer Reports' verdict? “Using any of the three services is
generally better than drafting the documents yourself without legal
training or not having them at all. But unless your needs are
simple—say, you want to leave your entire estate to your spouse—none of
the will-writing products is likely to entirely meet your needs. And in
some cases, the other documents aren’t specific enough or contain
language that could lead to 'an unintended result,' in [a professor's]
words,"
An article on the study, titled “Legal DIY websites are no match for a pro,” appears in the September 2012 issue issue of Consumer Reports. To read it, click here.
Consumer Reports’ findings accord with ElderLawAnswers’ own
evaluation of online estate planning programs. For our White Paper on
these programs, click here.
Reprinted with the permission of ElderlawAnswers.
Friday, August 24, 2012
Thursday, August 16, 2012
IRS to Crack Down on IRA Tax Rules
.
If you have an individual retirement account (IRA), now is the time to make sure you have been complying with tax rules. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is going to start cracking down on individual retirement accounts in an effort to collect penalties from taxpayers who do not follow rules regarding maximum contributions and minimum distributions. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, the crackdown is part of an attempt to collect millions of dollars in previously uncollected penalties.
Individuals are only allowed to contribute a certain amount to regular and Roth IRAs each year. For 2012, you can contribute the lesser of $5,000 or your taxable compensation for the year, plus an addition $1,000 if you are over age 50. If you paid more than is allowed, you may have to pay a penalty of 6 percent of the excess amount.
In addition, once you reach age 70½, you are required to start taking distributions from your IRA. If you don't take the required minimum distribution, you can be subject to a 50 percent penalty on the amount you should have withdrawn. The same penalty applies to inherited IRAs. There is no statute of limitations on the penalties, so if errors are made over subsequent years, the penalties can add up quickly.
It is unclear how the IRS will step up enforcement of the penalties. The IRS will report to the Treasury Department on October 15th on its strategies, which could include more paperwork and audits. According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2006 and 2007, the IRS failed to collect $286 million in penalties for missed withdrawals and contributions.
Individuals and financial planners need to look over their IRAs to make sure contributions and withdrawals have been made properly. If you have any errors, you should correct them immediately because delaying further only increases penalty and interest charges.
For more information from the Wall Street Journal, click here.
Reprinted with the permission of ElderLawAnswers.
If you have an individual retirement account (IRA), now is the time to make sure you have been complying with tax rules. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is going to start cracking down on individual retirement accounts in an effort to collect penalties from taxpayers who do not follow rules regarding maximum contributions and minimum distributions. According to an article in the Wall Street Journal, the crackdown is part of an attempt to collect millions of dollars in previously uncollected penalties.
Individuals are only allowed to contribute a certain amount to regular and Roth IRAs each year. For 2012, you can contribute the lesser of $5,000 or your taxable compensation for the year, plus an addition $1,000 if you are over age 50. If you paid more than is allowed, you may have to pay a penalty of 6 percent of the excess amount.
In addition, once you reach age 70½, you are required to start taking distributions from your IRA. If you don't take the required minimum distribution, you can be subject to a 50 percent penalty on the amount you should have withdrawn. The same penalty applies to inherited IRAs. There is no statute of limitations on the penalties, so if errors are made over subsequent years, the penalties can add up quickly.
It is unclear how the IRS will step up enforcement of the penalties. The IRS will report to the Treasury Department on October 15th on its strategies, which could include more paperwork and audits. According to the Wall Street Journal, in 2006 and 2007, the IRS failed to collect $286 million in penalties for missed withdrawals and contributions.
Individuals and financial planners need to look over their IRAs to make sure contributions and withdrawals have been made properly. If you have any errors, you should correct them immediately because delaying further only increases penalty and interest charges.
For more information from the Wall Street Journal, click here.
Reprinted with the permission of ElderLawAnswers.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Medicaid Expansion: What If a State Opts Out?
.
One of the key provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the new health reform law, gives money to states to expand Medicaid to adults and families with low incomes – a total of about 17 million additional people.
However, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the federal government cannot effectively coerce states into accepting the Medicaid expansion by withdrawing all a state’s Medicaid funds if it refuses. Although elderly and disabled individuals who currently receive Medicaid aren't affected by the Court's ruling, it could leave millions of others without any options for health coverage -- and possibly cost lives.
The Affordable Care Act expands Medicaid eligibility starting in 2014 to individuals and families with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, which is $14,856 for an individual in 2012. (Most states currently limit Medicaid to certain categories of people at or below the poverty line, including children, pregnant women, parents of eligible children, people with disabilities and elderly needing long-term care.)
The federal government will pay the complete cost for the Medicaid expansion for three years for newly eligible beneficiaries, and 90 percent of a state’s costs thereafter.
Nevertheless, the governors of several states, including Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, have said they will not accept federal money in order to expand coverage. Although politics is undoubtedly playing a role in these pronouncements, some are worried about the costs associated with expanding Medicaid, despite the federal money.
On the other hand, some analysts predict that expanding Medicaid could actually lead to savings, in part because uninsured individuals already cost states billions of dollars. Arkansas officials estimated the expansion would save the state $372 million in the first six years. Another recent study found that when states have expanded their Medicaid programs in the past, fewer people have died.
If a state opts out of the expansion, then adults who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to qualify for tax subsidies to pay for private health insurance will be left without coverage. People in those states who earn less than 100 percent of the federal poverty limit ($11,170 for an individual) and are not eligible for Medicaid benefits would also not be eligible for tax credits to purchase otherwise unaffordable private insurance. If the state chooses to expand Medicaid, those people would be covered. For more information on this looming coverage gap, click here.
For more information about the debate taking place in states about whether to opt out of the health care expansion, click here and here.
For a Kaiser Commission brief titled "How will the Medicaid Expansion for Adults Impact Eligibility and Coverage?," which includes a state-by-state breakdown of current Medicaid eligibility, click here.
Reprinted with the permission of ElderLawAnswers.
One of the key provisions of the Affordable Care Act, the new health reform law, gives money to states to expand Medicaid to adults and families with low incomes – a total of about 17 million additional people.
However, the Supreme Court recently ruled that the federal government cannot effectively coerce states into accepting the Medicaid expansion by withdrawing all a state’s Medicaid funds if it refuses. Although elderly and disabled individuals who currently receive Medicaid aren't affected by the Court's ruling, it could leave millions of others without any options for health coverage -- and possibly cost lives.
The Affordable Care Act expands Medicaid eligibility starting in 2014 to individuals and families with incomes up to 133 percent of the poverty line, which is $14,856 for an individual in 2012. (Most states currently limit Medicaid to certain categories of people at or below the poverty line, including children, pregnant women, parents of eligible children, people with disabilities and elderly needing long-term care.)
The federal government will pay the complete cost for the Medicaid expansion for three years for newly eligible beneficiaries, and 90 percent of a state’s costs thereafter.
Nevertheless, the governors of several states, including Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, have said they will not accept federal money in order to expand coverage. Although politics is undoubtedly playing a role in these pronouncements, some are worried about the costs associated with expanding Medicaid, despite the federal money.
On the other hand, some analysts predict that expanding Medicaid could actually lead to savings, in part because uninsured individuals already cost states billions of dollars. Arkansas officials estimated the expansion would save the state $372 million in the first six years. Another recent study found that when states have expanded their Medicaid programs in the past, fewer people have died.
If a state opts out of the expansion, then adults who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but too little to qualify for tax subsidies to pay for private health insurance will be left without coverage. People in those states who earn less than 100 percent of the federal poverty limit ($11,170 for an individual) and are not eligible for Medicaid benefits would also not be eligible for tax credits to purchase otherwise unaffordable private insurance. If the state chooses to expand Medicaid, those people would be covered. For more information on this looming coverage gap, click here.
For more information about the debate taking place in states about whether to opt out of the health care expansion, click here and here.
For a Kaiser Commission brief titled "How will the Medicaid Expansion for Adults Impact Eligibility and Coverage?," which includes a state-by-state breakdown of current Medicaid eligibility, click here.
Reprinted with the permission of ElderLawAnswers.
Saturday, August 4, 2012
Home Care Agencies Hiring Unqualified Caregivers, Study Finds
.
A new survey has shed light on the hiring practices of private home care agencies, and the news is not good. In many cases, agencies are sending to the homes of vulnerable elderly patients workers with little or no experience or knowledge, no training, and inadequate background checks.
The study, which was carried out by researchers at Northwestern University, surveyed 180 private home care agencies in Illinois, California, Florida, Colorado, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Indiana. (The study did not include agencies that are certified by Medicare and are subject to federal regulations.)
The researchers posed as people calling the agency to obtain assistance for a family member, and they queried the agencies about their hiring and oversight of their caregivers. The results may surprise families who assume that agencies follow strict hiring guidelines.
For instance, none of the agencies assessed their caregivers' ability to understand medical terminology, and only 15 percent provided their caregivers with any training prior to sending them out to clients. Although slightly more than half (55.8 percent) of the agencies surveyed ran criminal background checks on their caregivers, none conducted checks outside of their own states, meaning that caregivers with criminal records in other states could still be employed.
According to a summary of the study in the Senior Journal, more than one agency told the researchers that they used screening tests that don't exist, such as the “National Scantron Test for Inappropriate Behavior” and the “Assessment of Christian Morality Test.”
"People have a false sense of security when they hire a caregiver from an agency," the study’s lead author Lee Lindquist, M.D., said in a statement. "There are good agencies out there, but there are plenty of bad ones and consumers need to be aware that they may not be getting the safe, qualified caregiver they expect. It's dangerous for the elderly patient who may be cognitively impaired."
"Some of the paid caregivers are so unqualified it's scary and really puts the senior at risk" for elder abuse, Lindquist said.
Only a third drug-tested their workers. "Considering that seniors often take pain medications, including narcotics, this is risky," Lindquist said. "Some of the paid caregivers may be illicit drug users and could easily use or steal the seniors' drugs to support their own habits."
Hiring a caregiver through an agency has a lot of advantages, especially when it comes to the logistics of paying the caregiver and complying with state and federal employment regulations. But as the Northwestern University study shows, not all agencies are alike. It's up to the customer to spend the time and effort to vet both the caregiver and the agency, asking questions about how the agency screens and assesses its caregivers.
The study was published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. To read the study abstract, and find links to the study itself, click here.
To read a detailed analysis of the study in The New York Times’ New Old Age blog, click here.
For questions to ask a potential caregiver, click here.
To learn about questioning a home care agency, click here.
Reprinted with the permission of ElderLawAnswers.
A new survey has shed light on the hiring practices of private home care agencies, and the news is not good. In many cases, agencies are sending to the homes of vulnerable elderly patients workers with little or no experience or knowledge, no training, and inadequate background checks.
The study, which was carried out by researchers at Northwestern University, surveyed 180 private home care agencies in Illinois, California, Florida, Colorado, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Indiana. (The study did not include agencies that are certified by Medicare and are subject to federal regulations.)
The researchers posed as people calling the agency to obtain assistance for a family member, and they queried the agencies about their hiring and oversight of their caregivers. The results may surprise families who assume that agencies follow strict hiring guidelines.
For instance, none of the agencies assessed their caregivers' ability to understand medical terminology, and only 15 percent provided their caregivers with any training prior to sending them out to clients. Although slightly more than half (55.8 percent) of the agencies surveyed ran criminal background checks on their caregivers, none conducted checks outside of their own states, meaning that caregivers with criminal records in other states could still be employed.
According to a summary of the study in the Senior Journal, more than one agency told the researchers that they used screening tests that don't exist, such as the “National Scantron Test for Inappropriate Behavior” and the “Assessment of Christian Morality Test.”
"People have a false sense of security when they hire a caregiver from an agency," the study’s lead author Lee Lindquist, M.D., said in a statement. "There are good agencies out there, but there are plenty of bad ones and consumers need to be aware that they may not be getting the safe, qualified caregiver they expect. It's dangerous for the elderly patient who may be cognitively impaired."
"Some of the paid caregivers are so unqualified it's scary and really puts the senior at risk" for elder abuse, Lindquist said.
Only a third drug-tested their workers. "Considering that seniors often take pain medications, including narcotics, this is risky," Lindquist said. "Some of the paid caregivers may be illicit drug users and could easily use or steal the seniors' drugs to support their own habits."
Hiring a caregiver through an agency has a lot of advantages, especially when it comes to the logistics of paying the caregiver and complying with state and federal employment regulations. But as the Northwestern University study shows, not all agencies are alike. It's up to the customer to spend the time and effort to vet both the caregiver and the agency, asking questions about how the agency screens and assesses its caregivers.
The study was published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. To read the study abstract, and find links to the study itself, click here.
To read a detailed analysis of the study in The New York Times’ New Old Age blog, click here.
For questions to ask a potential caregiver, click here.
To learn about questioning a home care agency, click here.
Reprinted with the permission of ElderLawAnswers.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Supreme Court Asked to Rule on Gay Widow's Estate Tax Refund Case
.
The surviving spouse of a lesbian couple is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on her case challenging a federal law that defines “marriage” as a union between a man and a woman. If she wins, the woman, Edith Windsor, will receive a refund of more than $363,000 in estate taxes she was forced to pay because the federal government did not consider her married to her spouse.
As ElderLawAnswers reported, a federal district court judge ruled in June that the Defense of Marriage Act's (DOMA's) denial of equal benefits to same-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the judge awarded Ms. Windsor reimbursement for the tax bill she paid on her wife's estate. (Heterosexual spouses can leave any amount of property to their spouses free of federal estate tax.)
A congressional legal group authorized by Republicans to defend DOMA quickly filed an appeal of the district court’s ruling with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Ms. Windsor’s lawyers are hoping to speed up the case by jumping to the Supreme Court, which has been asked to hear two other cases challenging the statute. “The Court will likely decide the constitutionality of DOMA this coming term, using one or more of these cases as vehicles for addressing the issue,” according to a blog post by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is helping to represent Ms. Windsor.
"Edie Windsor, who recently celebrated her 83rd birthday, suffers from a serious heart condition," said Roberta Kaplan, a partner at the firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and counsel to Ms. Windsor. "Because the District Court's ruling in her favor is entitled to an automatic stay of enforcement, Edie cannot yet receive a refund of the unconstitutional estate tax that she was forced to pay simply for being gay. The constitutional injury inflicted on Edie should be remedied within her lifetime."
In the meantime, Ms. Windsor will continue to defend her victory before the Second Circuit, which has agreed to hear her case on an expedited basis, with oral argument scheduled for September.
Background of the Case
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer became engaged in 1967 and were married in Canada in 2007, although they lived in New York City. When Ms. Spyer died in 2009, Ms. Windsor had to pay Ms Spyer's estate tax bill because of DOMA, a 1996 law that denies federal recognition of gay marriages.
Although New York State considered the couple married, the federal government did not and taxed Ms. Syper's estate as though the two were not married. Ms. Windsor sued the U.S. government seeking to have DOMA declared unconstitutional and asking for a refund of the more than $363,000 federal estate tax she was forced to pay.
On June 6, 2012, federal court judge Barbara Jones from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that there was no rational basis for DOMA's prohibition on recognizing same-sex marriages. Jones stated that it was unclear how DOMA preserves traditional marriage, which is one of the stated purposes of the law.
As ElderLawAnswers reported last year, President Obama decided to stop defending DOMA, so members of Congress formed an advisory group to defend the law. This was the fifth case to strike down DOMA.
For more on the decision to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, click here and here.
Reprinted with the permission of ElderLawAnswers.com
The surviving spouse of a lesbian couple is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule on her case challenging a federal law that defines “marriage” as a union between a man and a woman. If she wins, the woman, Edith Windsor, will receive a refund of more than $363,000 in estate taxes she was forced to pay because the federal government did not consider her married to her spouse.
As ElderLawAnswers reported, a federal district court judge ruled in June that the Defense of Marriage Act's (DOMA's) denial of equal benefits to same-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the judge awarded Ms. Windsor reimbursement for the tax bill she paid on her wife's estate. (Heterosexual spouses can leave any amount of property to their spouses free of federal estate tax.)
A congressional legal group authorized by Republicans to defend DOMA quickly filed an appeal of the district court’s ruling with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Ms. Windsor’s lawyers are hoping to speed up the case by jumping to the Supreme Court, which has been asked to hear two other cases challenging the statute. “The Court will likely decide the constitutionality of DOMA this coming term, using one or more of these cases as vehicles for addressing the issue,” according to a blog post by the American Civil Liberties Union, which is helping to represent Ms. Windsor.
"Edie Windsor, who recently celebrated her 83rd birthday, suffers from a serious heart condition," said Roberta Kaplan, a partner at the firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and counsel to Ms. Windsor. "Because the District Court's ruling in her favor is entitled to an automatic stay of enforcement, Edie cannot yet receive a refund of the unconstitutional estate tax that she was forced to pay simply for being gay. The constitutional injury inflicted on Edie should be remedied within her lifetime."
In the meantime, Ms. Windsor will continue to defend her victory before the Second Circuit, which has agreed to hear her case on an expedited basis, with oral argument scheduled for September.
Background of the Case
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer became engaged in 1967 and were married in Canada in 2007, although they lived in New York City. When Ms. Spyer died in 2009, Ms. Windsor had to pay Ms Spyer's estate tax bill because of DOMA, a 1996 law that denies federal recognition of gay marriages.
Although New York State considered the couple married, the federal government did not and taxed Ms. Syper's estate as though the two were not married. Ms. Windsor sued the U.S. government seeking to have DOMA declared unconstitutional and asking for a refund of the more than $363,000 federal estate tax she was forced to pay.
On June 6, 2012, federal court judge Barbara Jones from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that there was no rational basis for DOMA's prohibition on recognizing same-sex marriages. Jones stated that it was unclear how DOMA preserves traditional marriage, which is one of the stated purposes of the law.
As ElderLawAnswers reported last year, President Obama decided to stop defending DOMA, so members of Congress formed an advisory group to defend the law. This was the fifth case to strike down DOMA.
For more on the decision to appeal the case to the Supreme Court, click here and here.
Reprinted with the permission of ElderLawAnswers.com
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Federal Court Rules That Gay Widow Is Entitled to Estate Tax Refund
.
Finding that the Defense of Marriage Act's (DOMA's) denial of equal benefits to same-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, a federal court judge has awarded the surviving spouse of a lesbian couple reimbursement for the tax bill she paid on her wife's estate.
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer became engaged in 1967 and were married in Canada in 2007, although they lived in New York City. Ordinarily, spouses can leave any amount of property to their spouses free of federal estate tax. But when Ms. Spyer died in 2009, Ms. Windsor, now 82, had to pay Ms Spyer's estate tax bill because of DOMA, a 1996 law that denies federal recognition of gay marriages.
Although New York State considered the couple married, the federal government did not and taxed Ms. Syper's estate as though the two were not married. Ms. Windsor sued the U.S. government seeking to have DOMA declared unconstitutional and asking for a refund of the more than $350,000 in estate taxes she was forced to pay.
Federal court judge Barbara Jones from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that there was no rational basis for DOMA's prohibition on recognizing same-sex marriages. Jones stated that it was unclear how DOMA preserves traditional marriage, which is one of the stated purposes of the law. As ElderLawAnswers reported last year, President Obama decided to stop defending DOMA, so members of Congress formed an advisory group to defend the law. This is the fifth case to strike down DOMA.
To read the court’s decision, click here.
Finding that the Defense of Marriage Act's (DOMA's) denial of equal benefits to same-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, a federal court judge has awarded the surviving spouse of a lesbian couple reimbursement for the tax bill she paid on her wife's estate.
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer became engaged in 1967 and were married in Canada in 2007, although they lived in New York City. Ordinarily, spouses can leave any amount of property to their spouses free of federal estate tax. But when Ms. Spyer died in 2009, Ms. Windsor, now 82, had to pay Ms Spyer's estate tax bill because of DOMA, a 1996 law that denies federal recognition of gay marriages.
Although New York State considered the couple married, the federal government did not and taxed Ms. Syper's estate as though the two were not married. Ms. Windsor sued the U.S. government seeking to have DOMA declared unconstitutional and asking for a refund of the more than $350,000 in estate taxes she was forced to pay.
Federal court judge Barbara Jones from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that there was no rational basis for DOMA's prohibition on recognizing same-sex marriages. Jones stated that it was unclear how DOMA preserves traditional marriage, which is one of the stated purposes of the law. As ElderLawAnswers reported last year, President Obama decided to stop defending DOMA, so members of Congress formed an advisory group to defend the law. This is the fifth case to strike down DOMA.
To read the court’s decision, click here.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Federal Court Rules That Gay Widow Is Entitled to Estate Tax Refund
.
Finding that the Defense of Marriage Act's (DOMA's) denial of equal benefits to same-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, a federal court judge has awarded the surviving spouse of a lesbian couple reimbursement for the tax bill she paid on her wife's estate.
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer became engaged in 1967 and were married in Canada in 2007, although they lived in New York City. Ordinarily, spouses can leave any amount of property to their spouses free of federal estate tax. But when Ms. Spyer died in 2009, Ms. Windsor, now 82, had to pay Ms Spyer's estate tax bill because of DOMA, a 1996 law that denies federal recognition of gay marriages.
Although New York State considered the couple married, the federal government did not and taxed Ms. Syper's estate as though the two were not married. Ms. Windsor sued the U.S. government seeking to have DOMA declared unconstitutional and asking for a refund of the more than $350,000 in estate taxes she was forced to pay.
Federal court judge Barbara Jones from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that there was no rational basis for DOMA's prohibition on recognizing same-sex marriages. Jones stated that it was unclear how DOMA preserves traditional marriage, which is one of the stated purposes of the law.
As ElderLawAnswers reported last year, President Obama decided to stop defending DOMA, so members of Congress formed an advisory group to defend the law. This is the fifth case to strike down DOMA.
To read the court’s decision, click here.
(Reprinted with the permission of ElderLawAnswers)
Finding that the Defense of Marriage Act's (DOMA's) denial of equal benefits to same-sex couples violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, a federal court judge has awarded the surviving spouse of a lesbian couple reimbursement for the tax bill she paid on her wife's estate.
Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer became engaged in 1967 and were married in Canada in 2007, although they lived in New York City. Ordinarily, spouses can leave any amount of property to their spouses free of federal estate tax. But when Ms. Spyer died in 2009, Ms. Windsor, now 82, had to pay Ms Spyer's estate tax bill because of DOMA, a 1996 law that denies federal recognition of gay marriages.
Although New York State considered the couple married, the federal government did not and taxed Ms. Syper's estate as though the two were not married. Ms. Windsor sued the U.S. government seeking to have DOMA declared unconstitutional and asking for a refund of the more than $350,000 in estate taxes she was forced to pay.
Federal court judge Barbara Jones from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that there was no rational basis for DOMA's prohibition on recognizing same-sex marriages. Jones stated that it was unclear how DOMA preserves traditional marriage, which is one of the stated purposes of the law.
As ElderLawAnswers reported last year, President Obama decided to stop defending DOMA, so members of Congress formed an advisory group to defend the law. This is the fifth case to strike down DOMA.
To read the court’s decision, click here.
(Reprinted with the permission of ElderLawAnswers)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
