Schoenbrod: SCOTUS Ruling Helps EPA Deal With a "Stupid Statute"
A More Perfect Union: Why Punish Russia for Crimea?
Jail Time for Revenge Porn Offenses?
End Game in the Fight Over Same Sex Marriage?
Is Punishment Dead in America?
Bill on Bankruptcy: Detroit Falls Short on Good-Faith Test
Bill on Bankruptcy: Madoff Victims Rooting for Stanford Victory
Bill on Bankruptcy: Listening in the Dark at the NCBJ
Health Care Antitrust & the Supreme Court – Interview with Bruce Sokler, Member, Mintz Levin
Bill on Bankruptcy: Detroit Shows Need for Amending Bankruptcy Law
Bill on Bankruptcy: Detroit Judge Might Lose Grip on the Case
PennDOT to Increase Number of Pennsylvania Bridges with Weight Restrictions
Harvey Miller: Detroit Will Be In Bankruptcy "For A Long Time"
Grayson: Only 1 Agency Should Regulate Wall Street
Bill on Bankruptcy: Supreme Court Cases Will Have Wide Impact
Coyle: Robert's SCOTUS Doesn't Respect Congress
Goldstein: Expect More Litigation in Wake of Myriad Gene Patent Decision
What's So Funny About The U.S. Constitution? Colin Quinn's Unconstitutional: Off-Broadway
S&C's Cohen: Brown-Vitter Punishes Banks For Being Big
Cohen: Cyprus Is Not A Template For Future Restructurings
It hardly seems like it's been an entire year since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a huge portion of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which precluded the federal government from recognizing the legally valid...more
On May 20, 2014, in the case of Whitewood v. Wolf, Judge John E. Jones III of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania struck down Pennsylvania’s ban on same-sex marriages. Like many of the rulings...more
On May 20, 2014, a federal judge in the case of Whitewood v. Wolf struck down both Pennsylvania's ban on marriage for same-sex couples and its prohibition against recognition of same-sex marriages legally entered into in...more
In the U. S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor (Windsor), the Court held that, for federal purposes, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional. Although the dispute in the Windsor...more
IRS Notice 2014-19 provides long-awaited guidance on the application of the decision in United States v. Windsor to retirement plans qualified under Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) Section 401(a). For tax-qualification...more
The State of Texas is the latest jurisdiction under scrutiny for its ban on same-sex marriage. On Wednesday, February 26, 2014, U.S. District Judge Orlando Garcia ruled that the state law banning same-sex marriage results in...more
Same-sex marriages now are being recognized under federal tax law for the first time. In June 2013, the Supreme Court released its decision in United States v. Windsor, 530 U.S. 12 (2013), declaring Section 3 of the federal...more
What you need to know:
As the result of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in United States v. Windsor and a subsequent ruling by the IRS, same-sex couples who are legally married in a jurisdiction that recognizes...more
The Ohio Department of Taxation (the "Department") has issued guidance that it will require married same-sex couples who file joint federal income tax returns to file Ohio income tax returns using a "single" filing status. On...more
Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which, for federal purposes, defined marriage as between one man and one woman. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ____...more
The California state legislature recently enacted a law that may affect the taxation of benefits an employer provides to same-sex domestic partners in the state. California AB 362 excludes from gross income for California...more
The United States Supreme Court's landmark Windsor decision in June of this year invalidated certain key provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act by holding that the disparate tax treatment of validly married same sex...more
The Internal Revenue Service and Department of Labor have issued recent guidance to clarify the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v. Windsor. The new guidance addresses some of the implications of the federal...more
The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently issued highly anticipated guidance regarding the impact of United States v. Windsor , 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013) – in which the United States Supreme...more
Employers extending benefit coverage to employees’ same-sex spouses and partners should review their payroll procedures to ensure that such coverages are properly taxed for federal income and FICA tax purposes. Employers...more
The recent United States Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor invalidated Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which had defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The ruling greatly expands the...more
Testing Hypotheses at the basis of medium-long term Projections of Health Care Expenditure - The case of Italy
The same methodology Oecd and Ecofin apply to project future trends of health care expenditue is here applied...more
As we previously reported, in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court held section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act provides...more
On June 26, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that Section 3 the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which prevented the federal government from recognizing state-granted same-sex marriages, was unconstitutional because...more
On September 13, 2013, in Revenue Information Bulletin No. 13-024, the Louisiana Department of Revenue (Department) announced that for Louisiana tax filings purposes, the Department will not recognize same-sex marriages. This...more
The September §7520 rate for use with estate planning techniques such as CRTs, CLTs, QPRTs and GRATs is 2.0%, which is the same as the August rate and an increase from July's rate of 1.2%. The applicable federal rate ("AFR")...more
Here's something that should be at the top of your to do list on this Monday morning: make sure your benefits and other employee policies are in compliance with new guidance from the IRS that becomes effective today relating...more
In 1996, as states were beginning to consider the concept of same-sex marriage, and before any state had acted to permit it, Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act. Section 3 of DOMA defined the term “marriage” as “a...more
This summer, same-sex couples achieved a legal victory in the Supreme Court when the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) was held unconstitutional....more
On June 26, 2013, in United States v. Windsor, the United States Supreme Court found unconstitutional Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”). Section 3 of DOMA prohibited the federal government from acknowledging...more
Find a Constitutional Law Author »
Back to Top