THE MOONSCAPE OF TAX EQUALITY: WINDSOR AND BEYOND[dagger]
This Essay takes a critical look at the tax fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, which declared Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The Essay first describes the path that led to the decision in Windsor. Then, it turns...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Northwestern University law review 2014-01, Vol.108 (3), p.1115 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 3 |
container_start_page | 1115 |
container_title | Northwestern University law review |
container_volume | 108 |
creator | Infanti, Anthony C |
description | This Essay takes a critical look at the tax fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, which declared Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The Essay first describes the path that led to the decision in Windsor. Then, it turns to describing the ways in which the post-Windsor tax terrain may actually be worse for same-sex couples than the bleak tax landscape that they faced before that decision. Under DOMA, same-sex couples already faced a debilitating level of uncertainty in determining how the federal tax laws applied to their relationships. Post-Windsor, same-sex couples will see this uncertainty multiply-even after receiving guidance from the IRS on the implementation of the Windsor decision in the federal tax context. They will have to grapple not only with lingering questions surrounding the federal tax treatment of relationships that are not recognized, but also with new questions regarding whether and how their relationships will be recognized for federal tax purposes. Moreover, it seems that dispatching discrimination designed to erode the progress of same-sex couples toward formal equality has served only to entrench the privileged status of marriage in our federal tax laws rather than foster the recognition of a broader array of human relationships. |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1548705106</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3385885071</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-p183t-666c746209b800a0e43c36b123f7a6336267c26cee4b20db56bd5cb180eb04533</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotzdFKwzAUgOFcKDin7xDwunCSk5y03sW2c4XaqOvQITKaNBsMcbPd3n-CXv1333_BJgAyS1AbccWux3EHAEJoM2FZOy_5k3PNIrfPJXcz3tp3Xr4sbV21q3v-VjXFwr1y2xT8oVy5pvjou-02Dp837HLTfY3x9r9TtpyVbT5PavdY5bZODiLFY0JEwSiSkPkUoIOoMCB5IXFjOkIkSSZICjEqL6H3mnyvgxcpRA9KI07Z3Z97GPY_pzge17v9afj-Xa6FVqkBLYDwDEFZPAA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1548705106</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>THE MOONSCAPE OF TAX EQUALITY: WINDSOR AND BEYOND[dagger]</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Infanti, Anthony C</creator><creatorcontrib>Infanti, Anthony C</creatorcontrib><description>This Essay takes a critical look at the tax fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, which declared Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The Essay first describes the path that led to the decision in Windsor. Then, it turns to describing the ways in which the post-Windsor tax terrain may actually be worse for same-sex couples than the bleak tax landscape that they faced before that decision. Under DOMA, same-sex couples already faced a debilitating level of uncertainty in determining how the federal tax laws applied to their relationships. Post-Windsor, same-sex couples will see this uncertainty multiply-even after receiving guidance from the IRS on the implementation of the Windsor decision in the federal tax context. They will have to grapple not only with lingering questions surrounding the federal tax treatment of relationships that are not recognized, but also with new questions regarding whether and how their relationships will be recognized for federal tax purposes. Moreover, it seems that dispatching discrimination designed to erode the progress of same-sex couples toward formal equality has served only to entrench the privileged status of marriage in our federal tax laws rather than foster the recognition of a broader array of human relationships.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0029-3571</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago: Northwestern University (on behalf of School of Law)</publisher><subject>Couples ; District courts ; Equal rights ; Equality ; Estate taxes ; Federal court decisions ; Gays & lesbians ; Gender ; Income inequality ; Law ; Marital deductions ; Same sex marriage ; Sexual orientation ; State court decisions ; Supreme Court decisions ; Upward mobility</subject><ispartof>Northwestern University law review, 2014-01, Vol.108 (3), p.1115</ispartof><rights>Copyright Northwestern University School of Law 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Infanti, Anthony C</creatorcontrib><title>THE MOONSCAPE OF TAX EQUALITY: WINDSOR AND BEYOND[dagger]</title><title>Northwestern University law review</title><description>This Essay takes a critical look at the tax fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, which declared Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The Essay first describes the path that led to the decision in Windsor. Then, it turns to describing the ways in which the post-Windsor tax terrain may actually be worse for same-sex couples than the bleak tax landscape that they faced before that decision. Under DOMA, same-sex couples already faced a debilitating level of uncertainty in determining how the federal tax laws applied to their relationships. Post-Windsor, same-sex couples will see this uncertainty multiply-even after receiving guidance from the IRS on the implementation of the Windsor decision in the federal tax context. They will have to grapple not only with lingering questions surrounding the federal tax treatment of relationships that are not recognized, but also with new questions regarding whether and how their relationships will be recognized for federal tax purposes. Moreover, it seems that dispatching discrimination designed to erode the progress of same-sex couples toward formal equality has served only to entrench the privileged status of marriage in our federal tax laws rather than foster the recognition of a broader array of human relationships.</description><subject>Couples</subject><subject>District courts</subject><subject>Equal rights</subject><subject>Equality</subject><subject>Estate taxes</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Gays & lesbians</subject><subject>Gender</subject><subject>Income inequality</subject><subject>Law</subject><subject>Marital deductions</subject><subject>Same sex marriage</subject><subject>Sexual orientation</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><subject>Upward mobility</subject><issn>0029-3571</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNotzdFKwzAUgOFcKDin7xDwunCSk5y03sW2c4XaqOvQITKaNBsMcbPd3n-CXv1333_BJgAyS1AbccWux3EHAEJoM2FZOy_5k3PNIrfPJXcz3tp3Xr4sbV21q3v-VjXFwr1y2xT8oVy5pvjou-02Dp837HLTfY3x9r9TtpyVbT5PavdY5bZODiLFY0JEwSiSkPkUoIOoMCB5IXFjOkIkSSZICjEqL6H3mnyvgxcpRA9KI07Z3Z97GPY_pzge17v9afj-Xa6FVqkBLYDwDEFZPAA</recordid><startdate>20140101</startdate><enddate>20140101</enddate><creator>Infanti, Anthony C</creator><general>Northwestern University (on behalf of School of Law)</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>4U-</scope><scope>7WY</scope><scope>7WZ</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>87Z</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8FL</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>F~G</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M0C</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20140101</creationdate><title>THE MOONSCAPE OF TAX EQUALITY: WINDSOR AND BEYOND[dagger]</title><author>Infanti, Anthony C</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-p183t-666c746209b800a0e43c36b123f7a6336267c26cee4b20db56bd5cb180eb04533</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Couples</topic><topic>District courts</topic><topic>Equal rights</topic><topic>Equality</topic><topic>Estate taxes</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Gays & lesbians</topic><topic>Gender</topic><topic>Income inequality</topic><topic>Law</topic><topic>Marital deductions</topic><topic>Same sex marriage</topic><topic>Sexual orientation</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><topic>Upward mobility</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Infanti, Anthony C</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>University Readers</collection><collection>Access via ABI/INFORM (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (PDF only)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Global</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Northwestern University law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Infanti, Anthony C</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>THE MOONSCAPE OF TAX EQUALITY: WINDSOR AND BEYOND[dagger]</atitle><jtitle>Northwestern University law review</jtitle><date>2014-01-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>108</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>1115</spage><pages>1115-</pages><issn>0029-3571</issn><abstract>This Essay takes a critical look at the tax fallout from the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor, which declared Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional. The Essay first describes the path that led to the decision in Windsor. Then, it turns to describing the ways in which the post-Windsor tax terrain may actually be worse for same-sex couples than the bleak tax landscape that they faced before that decision. Under DOMA, same-sex couples already faced a debilitating level of uncertainty in determining how the federal tax laws applied to their relationships. Post-Windsor, same-sex couples will see this uncertainty multiply-even after receiving guidance from the IRS on the implementation of the Windsor decision in the federal tax context. They will have to grapple not only with lingering questions surrounding the federal tax treatment of relationships that are not recognized, but also with new questions regarding whether and how their relationships will be recognized for federal tax purposes. Moreover, it seems that dispatching discrimination designed to erode the progress of same-sex couples toward formal equality has served only to entrench the privileged status of marriage in our federal tax laws rather than foster the recognition of a broader array of human relationships.</abstract><cop>Chicago</cop><pub>Northwestern University (on behalf of School of Law)</pub></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0029-3571 |
ispartof | Northwestern University law review, 2014-01, Vol.108 (3), p.1115 |
issn | 0029-3571 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1548705106 |
source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
subjects | Couples District courts Equal rights Equality Estate taxes Federal court decisions Gays & lesbians Gender Income inequality Law Marital deductions Same sex marriage Sexual orientation State court decisions Supreme Court decisions Upward mobility |
title | THE MOONSCAPE OF TAX EQUALITY: WINDSOR AND BEYOND[dagger] |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-27T10%3A45%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=THE%20MOONSCAPE%20OF%20TAX%20EQUALITY:%20WINDSOR%20AND%20BEYOND%5Bdagger%5D&rft.jtitle=Northwestern%20University%20law%20review&rft.au=Infanti,%20Anthony%20C&rft.date=2014-01-01&rft.volume=108&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=1115&rft.pages=1115-&rft.issn=0029-3571&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E3385885071%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1548705106&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |