We finally got our Oregon tax refund back. Problem is, it was less than half as much as we initially thought it would be. You see, when we filed our taxes, we thought we were eligible for an imputed income exclusion. But we weren't. Because we aren't gay.
Under the Oregon tax code, domestic partners who receive medical insurance benefits can exclude the imputed income of the value of the benefit. In English: if you get a benefit, that is a form of income. You need to declare the cash value of that benefit as income and pay taxes on it. But some benefits are an exception, because the people who write the tax code think it is important that you don't get stuck with a tax bill on certain benefits. Benefits like health care. You know, because politicians keep telling us we need to solve our "health care crisis" every time they speak.
So according to the tax code here, health insurance benefits for domestic partners are considered one of those important tax-free benefits. But only if you are gay.
Some personal information:
The Gullybabe and I are now, as you know, a happily married heterosexual one-man one-woman couple. During the year leading up to our wedded bliss, we took advantage of one of the perks of Gullybabe's employer: insurance benefits for domestic partners.
According to Gullybabe's employer, ANY couple can qualify as "domestic partners." It isn't just a gay thing, because that would be discriminatory. Heterosexual couples may take advantage of this important benefit. So, we signed up. Of course, we also had to pay our share (although, if we were a gay couple, her employer would have paid the full cost of the insurance). But we weren't a gay couple, so we had to pay over $100 a month, out of pocket, for my coverage. That's a lot, but it was still cheaper than using the university-provided health insurance plan... but only slightly.
Meanwhile, her employer covered the remaining $500 or so each month, the "imputed income" amount of the benefit.
Fast forward to tax time:
On the tax form, there is a line item for health insurance for domestic partners. So we figured in the imputed income. This resulted in a large tax refund. Hooray!
Then, we got notice of audit. Apparently, we forgot to include along with our return an affidavit demonstrating that we were a same-sex couple. You see, even though there is NOTHING in the instructions on the tax form to indicate as such, the definition of a "domestic partner," as far as the Oregon Department of Revenue is concerned, is two sodomites.
So were denied the exclusion, and had to pay income tax on about $5,000 worth of "income" from being on a health insurance policy.
But we wouldn't have paid it if I was a carpet muncher.
Or if Gullybabe was a Gullybob.
After paying the income tax on the benefit, it ended up being far more expensive than university-provided insurance for me would have been. Some benefit.
So, the state of Oregon charges us more money for being heterosexual. Sounds to me like a BLATANT violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
"Wait," you say, "sexuality has never been found to be a protected class by the Supreme Court."
Indeed, you are correct. But, gender has been found to be protected, and you can't be a homosexual couple without being the same gender. If Gullybabe was a MAN, we would have more money. If I was a WOMAN, we would have more money. This isn't about the nature of our relationship; this is about our GENDER.
"Wait," you say again, "gays can't marry, and married couples get this benefit, so gays need the benefit, too."
Actually...
Gays CAN marry. There is no reason why a gay man and a lesbian woman can't enter a sham marriage for benefits while living independent homosexual lifestyles. I'm sure it happens all the time, actually.
"Wait," you say a third time, "that's not fair! Gays shouldn't have to marry just to get benefits, that's wrong!"
Aha! You fell into my trap!
If gays shouldn't have to marry for this benefit, then no one should have to marry for this benefit!
You can't argue that Gullybabe and I should have just married sooner, when we weren't ready to marry, just for benefits. Such a marriage would have been under false pretenses. By your reasoning, if gays and lesbians shouldn't have to resort to marriage under false pretenses just to get benefits, neither should heterosexual couples.
As you can now see, this law is truly an abomination and has to go. We were both so pissed off, we seriously considered a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the Oregon tax code.
But...
We really needed to receive the remainder of our refund, and a constitutional challenge would have taken years and cost us far, far more in legal fees and expenses than the difference on our taxes. So all we could really do is accept the revenue ruling and take the lesser refund. Such is the problem with such rulings: in order to overrule them, someone affected by them needs to sue; but most people will never be able to go through the expense, so suits never happen. There is nothing we can do.
But wait, there is something we can do:
We can alert you to this injustice, and hold politicians accountable. So, I encourage all of you to write your legislators, and demand that the gender-based discrimination regarding the taxation of health care benefits be abolished. If politicians really mean it when they talk about providing health care, they can start by NOT TAXING IT.
Horrid!
There is a new get-rich plan. Simply transfer your US citizenship to Mexico, sneak across the boarder, then you will realize all sorts of cool free stuff - from healthcare to houseing, from free food to jobs where you don't ever have to pay taxes again!
Posted by: JustaDog | Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 12:06 PM
Just so I understand. Did you claim the imputed income as income, and then were denied a corresponding deduction? Or were you just trying to reduce taxable income by taking a deduction from income that did not include the imputed income?
Posted by: Bill Holmer | Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 02:50 PM
Our W-2 from Gullybabe's employer lists the benefit as part of annual income, and provides a line-item identifying it as a "domestic partner benefit" so that it can then be excluded by "qualifying" couples. they just failed to define "qualifying" anywhere on the W-2 or the form 40. so, we thought we were just following instructions when we entered it as an excludable domestic partner health insurance premium on the form 40.
Posted by: Gullyborg | Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 03:50 PM
AMAAAAZING! You're going to be famous, if you're not already.
Posted by: Bill Holmer | Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 04:21 PM
Aren't you a lawyer now? Go forth and maketh thy mark!
Posted by: bob | Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 07:41 PM
The Force is with me; but I am not a Jedi yet.
Not a lawyer until I pass the bar, for those of you in Rio Linda.
Posted by: Gullyborg | Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 08:49 PM
Hello This is just not fair and it is horrid!!!Under the Oregon tax code, domestic partners who receive medical insurance benefits can exclude the imputed income of the value of the benefit.
-----------------------------
and for a one man and one woman Normal married couples to be denied the same benefit under the oregon tax code
it is not fair!!!!!oh by the way tell senator Ben westlund that.
Posted by: Tammy Brotton | Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 10:33 PM
I've already sent this to candidates to elicit their responses. We'll see what they have to say.
Posted by: Gullyborg | Wednesday, 31 May 2006 at 10:41 PM
why exactly is this unfair? The benefit is for married couples. Since same sex partners cannot marry, they must have equal opportunity to claim the benefit. You and GB are under no such restriction.
Posted by: torridjoe | Friday, 02 June 2006 at 03:51 PM
Since unmarried homosexual couples receive a tax benefit that unmarried heterosexual couples do not, it blows a huge hole in the "no special rights" demand of Basic Rights Oregon. Why does Mark Bunster (aka Torrid Joe) believe heterosexual couples should have to come out of the closet and get married to fully enjoy domestic partner benefits?
Posted by: Bill Holmer | Friday, 02 June 2006 at 04:13 PM
Bungster, it is this simple:
EVERYONE should get the benefit. Don't we ALL have a "right" to healthcare, at taxpayer expense? Haven't you yourself made that very same statement?
Therefore, EVERYONE should be able to exclude the imputed income of their health insurance.
Instead of just the carpet munchers.
Posted by: Gullyborg | Sunday, 04 June 2006 at 09:18 PM
You are complaining about something I myself have complained about many times.
But I am having such a hard time with your language that I'm finding myself wishing I could disagree with you.
Posted by: claire | Monday, 05 June 2006 at 05:23 PM
Claire,
How about a little compare and contrast. First, re-read my column and its comments. Then, read this article from an actual newspaper:
http://www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2006/06/01/News/Standing.Proud-2015358.shtml?norewrite200606061307&sourcedomain=www.dailyemerald.com
Whose language offends you more?
This is why I get the way I get.
Posted by: Gullyborg | Tuesday, 06 June 2006 at 10:09 AM
I suspect it's pointless to engage with you on this, but... I'm confused about the article you link. What's your point? That some college kids like to be provocative when they target people they don't like? That's old news.
And while you're talking about offensive speech, might as well look at the whole story about the folks being targeted in your example: http://www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2006/05/31/News/Traveling.Preachers.Stir.Campus-2015007.shtml?norewrite200606062255&sourcedomain=www.dailyemerald.com
P.S. I agree with you that health benefits shouldn't be taxable for domestic partners, regardless of gender.
Posted by: Penny Nickel | Tuesday, 06 June 2006 at 08:07 PM