Trial by Jury: Why It Matters in a Democratic Society
Waldman: Stop Immunizing Websites That Allow Harassment
Busy Days For Voting Rights Advocates, Thanks to SCOTUS
A Moment of Simple Justice - Snitching Ain't Easy
Fighting for Education Rights: Equal Justice for Pregnant and Parenting Students
Combining Arms for Justice-Involved Veterans
A Moment of Simple Justice - Cameras on Cops
A Moment of Simple Justice - Ferguson
A Moment of Simple Justice - Revenge Porn
Schoenbrod: SCOTUS Ruling Helps EPA Deal With a "Stupid Statute"
SOX Whistleblower Protections Extend to Private Companies: Critical Steps to Take Now
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
On Monday, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit invalidated Virginia’s prohibition on same-sex marriages. Bostic v. Schaefer, Docket No. 14-1167 (4th Cir. July 28, 2014). The Fourth Circuit includes Virginia, Maryland,...more
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
The Internal Revenue Service recently furnished employers with welcome guidance concerning coverage of same-sex spouses in qualified plans.
In a new Notice, the Service discusses how qualified arrangements such as...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
Traditionally, marriage has been defined in the United States and in the state of Utah as a legal relationship between a man and a woman. In 1996, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which allowed states to...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
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
Recent guidance issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) division of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) provides some initial...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
The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), the Employee Benefits Security Administration (“EBSA”) and the Department of Labor (“DOL”) have recently provided new guidance with respect to how lawfully married same-sex spouses will...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
On August 29, 2013, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service issued a public announcement and released Revenue Ruling 2013-17 wherein it answered a number of open questions concerning the impact of the U.S....more
In response to the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013), the Internal Revenue Service issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17 (Ruling) on August 29, 2013, in which the IRS set forth the following...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
Plan sponsors will need to take prospective and, possibly, retroactive action in order to ensure compliance with the guidance.
On August 29, the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)...more
After months of speculation, on August 29, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service published formal guidance on the treatment of same-sex spouses under the Internal Revenue Code. In Revenue Ruling 2013-17, the IRS confirmed that a...more
Find a Constitutional Law Author »
Back to Top