What if I\’m Neither: Practical Planning Tips for Transgender and Queer Persons
Welcome to our 4th segment in our series on estate planning for transgender and queer persons. When planning for the \”T\” & \”Q\” of the LGBTQ community, attorneys must understand the overlapping factors and relationships between retirement planning, estate planning, gender definitions, and legal interpretation. While we can control some factors, such as estate planning and applicable definitions, other factors, such as the laws governing retirement plans and statutory definitions of gender, are typically out of our control. Additionally, estate-planning attorneys should consider planning in the context of Windsor for transgender and queer persons as we do for all clients: examining financial and non-financial issues. Yet, most attorneys also agree that non-financial issues are usually the more challenging part of planning. The 3 categories generally considered in non-financial estate planning conversations are: (1) the client’s health and the health of close family members and loved ones; (2) family dynamics; and (3) lifestyle and retirement goals. This article focuses on health and issues attorneys face with healthcare Advanced Directives. Good health and healthcare is important to everyone; transgender and queer persons may have more or less issues and some of their issues are different. So, this issue may or may not be important, and is only one of many for transgender and queer persons. Assessing a client’s health for purposes of estate planning includes, but is not limited to, issues surrounding chronic or terminal illness. For transgender and queer persons, we should consider the implications of sexual reconstruction and potential related matters, e.g., whether our client has or had a therapist. All of these issues should be addressed in our clients’ Advanced Directives. Other than certified copies of vital records, Advanced Directives are probably the most important documents a person can have during their lifetime. Additionally, like lesbian, gay, or bigender persons who are unmarried, transgender and queer persons generally need more than a basic power of attorney for healthcare and a living will and even if married. Advanced Directives should include: 1. Illinois Statutory Power of Attorney for Health Care; 2. Illinois Statutory Power of Attorney for Property 3. HIPAA forms 1 and 2 4. Illinois Mental Health Treatment Declaration 5. Hospital Visitation Authorization form 6. Illinois Living Will 7. Illinois Department of Health DNR-POLST To be clear, a person’s sexual physiology is generally irrelevant for purposes of protecting a transgender or queer person’s interests. What is relevant and most important is how that person identifies on the societal gender scale. What is also relevant are the facts as that person wants them communicated, how and when the facts should be communicated, to whom those facts must be communicated, and that those facts are accurately and legally. The Illinois Power of Attorney Act changed substantially last year, and the changes went into effect January 1, 2015. The changes provide individuals with more options regarding the authority they grant to their agents. Yet, more options also requires the need for more information on the part of the principal, which is why we do not recommend individuals completing this form without the assistance of an attorney. The issues to consider in the new Illinois Power of Attorney for Healthcare form cover 5 pages of questions whose considerations could result in a disastrous miscommunication of facts if not done in precise legal context. Again, before addressing financial matters, especially for transgender and queer persons, estate-planning attorneys must ensure that carefully prepared Advanced Directives are in place. Otherwise, the wills and trusts could easily be contested and nullified. Estate Planning for the T&Q of the LGBTQ Community: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5
What If I\’m Neither: The Dual-Track Agency Dance
In our first article in this series, unlike Illinois law, we alluded to how Windsor created tricky issues for the LGBTQ community to navigate with respect to marriage. The Illinois Marriage Fairness Act embraces the entire LGBTQ community, whereas Windsor does not. Okay, but what does this mean? Part of the Windsor decision required action by the IRS, which resulted in the IRS passing Revenue Rule 2013-17 (“Rev. Rule 2013-17” or “Rev. Rule-17”). The rule stated that the agency never gave much, if any, meaningful consideration to gender; so, since the Court in Windsor required IRS action, the agency the IRS mandated that, post-Windsor, its rules and regulations governing all taxation applicable to heteronormative (“straight”) married couples would also apply to lawfully same-sex married couples. Additionally, the IRS announced that it would use the “place of celebration” standard when reviewing its matters with respect to married couples. Finally, the agency strongly suggested that other federal agencies, especially those whose benefits were governed by IRS rules and regulations, to follow suit. However, many federal agencies that used male and female descriptors in definitions involving marriage didn’t recognize same-sex marriages before Windsor. So, post-Windsor, a number of federal agencies decided that, like the IRS, they were required to abide by the Supreme Court decision for lawfully married same-sex couples, the agencies were not required to use the same standard of review for determining benefits as the IRS and the Court would not disagree, per another seminal Supreme Court case, Chevron. Therefore, many agencies decided to use the “place of domicile” standard instead. Explaining the \”standards\” Place of Celebration: Same-gender marriages are recognized as legal as long as the place where the couple was married provides legal same-gender marriages. An agency that uses this standard will recognize your marriage even if you live in an unfriendly state. Place of Domicile: The same-gender marriage must be legal where the married couple resides. Ergo, if the couple was married in Illinois, which provides same-gender marriages, but lives in Florida, an unfriendly state that does not recognize same-gender marriages, then an agency using this standard will not recognize the marriage as legal. The dual-standard usage by federal agencies resulted in a dual-track federal benefit system for legally married same-sex couples. So, while Windsor was a great milestone for the LGBTQ community, the federal agency guidance that followed created an interesting path for planners to navigate, depending on the benefits the plan needed to consider. For example, if estate planning attorneys consider the dual-track federal benefit system strictly from a same-sex paradigm, i.e., lesbian, gay, and bigender, the decision matrix would resemble the chart to the left. Also, if attorneys consider the dual-track benefit system when planning for a transgender person who is in transition and cannot check a gender box or a queer person who will not check a box, then we\’re left with the question marks below. All of the question marks are appropriate for transgender married couples who even reside in friendly states, such as Illinois, because lawyers must consider a plethora of benefits from agencies that a potential surviving spouse should receive were that spouse in a heteronormative marriage. Still, as the chart below illustrates, agencies following Windsor and using the place of domicile standard can inadvertently preclude transgender or queer surviving spouses from enjoying benefits that surviving spouses who are in lawful same-sex marriages enjoy. Considering a transgender person who has completed their sexual reconstruction and resides in an unfriendly state or who would like to leave benefits to their spouse, results in several questions about the definition of ‘spouse’ as derived from a particular statute or regulation governing a particular benefit: If the state defines spouse in terms of Windsor and the couple consists of a transgender man and a non-transgender woman, then is the couple a same-sex couple? If a state benefit did not follow Windsor, should the couple argue that the transgender man’s identity should apply and, therefore, they are a heteronormative couple able to receive the benefit? If the transgender man could transfer benefits to his spouse but a same-sex married couple living in the same state could not, is that fair? If the transgender man began his transition before Windsor and completed his transition after Windsor, would a federal benefit even apply? These and many questions are what transgender and queer couples must contend with in Windsor’s wake. Stay tuned for a few solutions and, of course, more questions. Estate Planning for the T&Q of the LGBTQ Community: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
What if I\’m Neither: Opposite Does Not Equal Different
Welcome to the second article in our series on \”Estate Planning for the T&Q of the LGBTQ Community.\” Click here to read the first article. The role of pronouns and how important that role is to transgender and queer persons is illustrated by the language in marriage equality case law and our statutes, especially when combined with certain adjectives. Consider Illinois’ first “marriage equality statute,” the Illinois Religious Freedom Protection and Civil Union Act (“Civil Union Act”). Section 5 of the Civil Union Act provides that one of its fundamental purposes is to “provide persons entering into a civil union with the obligations, responsibilities, protections, and benefits afforded or recognized by the law of Illinois to spouses.” Section 5 contains no language involving gender or biological markers. However, when reviewing Section 10, Definitions, we see that “‘Civil Union’ means a legal relationship between 2 persons of either the same or opposite sex…” So, according to the Illinois Civil Union Act, persons who entered into civil unions had to be either male or female. What if one or both of the parties was neither? Section 5 requires the Civil Union Act to be liberally interpreted. Arguably, the liberal interpretation is to be applied to the parties and actions satisfying the definitions of Section 10. So anyone living in some of Illinois’ more conservative counties who didn’t satisfy the definitions is SOL, right? Setting aside the question the Civil Union Act left open for transgender and queer couples, the conundrum still emerges when considering the language in U.S. v. Windsor. The last paragraph in Windsor states, “DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others.” Windsor patently applies to same-sex couples; it is not gender neutral. Therefore, while Windsor was a watershed moment for same-sex couples desiring or intending to marry, it left in the wings, however, transgender and queer couples. Now, you could say that this is being too technical or that this interpretation of Windsor is too narrow; but au contraire. The grant or denial of benefits or rights in this country often hinges on a single word or definition. Even in friendly states, if a person identifies as neither – because they are in the process of sexual reconstruction or because they simply do not identify as male or female – that person may experience legal difficulties because they are asked to check a box that does not comply with their identity. If this issue causes problems in friendly states, imagine the results in unfriendly states. Returning to Illinois statutory law, we see that the language in Illinois’ new marriage equality statute embraces the entire LGBTQ community. Carefully considering our Marriage Fairness Act’s Section 5 language, we see that the Act’s underlying purpose is to “provide same-sex and different-sex couples and their children equal access to the status, benefits, protections, rights, and responsibilities of civil marriage.” Note that the term “different-sex” replaces the term “opposite-sex” that was in the Civil Union Act. This was not an oversight. Thus, the Illinois Marriage Fairness Act embraces transgender and queer couples, in addition to lesbian and gay couples. Perhaps our state\’s legislators should make a trip to the U.S. Supreme Court. Estate Planning for the T&Q of the LGBTQ Community: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
Protecting You and Yours Even if You\’re Neither…
Recognizing and hoping that this series may be moot in 6 months, when SCOTUS hears cases from Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee that involve state bans on same-sex marriages, in the interim, planning for those who may be \”neither\” is important. The following are remarks from a presentation I gave in the fall of 2014 at the Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education: What if I\’m Neither: Estate Planning for Transgender and Queer Persons. In striking down Section 3 of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), SCOTUS’s U.S. v. Windsor ruling delivered a great victory to the LGBTQ community and especially to the L, G, and B persons and couples. However, the rights afforded this and other marriage equality victories were still questionable for certain couples, specifically those whose parties included transgender or queer persons. So estate planning for the entire LGBTQ community still required a thorough understanding of the laws, rules, regulations, and opinions involving both marriage and gender equality. A big issue for lawyers is understanding “who” our clients are. If this is important to us, it’s crucial for our clients because if the lawyer doesn’t get it; then you clients should find a lawyer who does. Identifying who is the client, can be reduced to a simplistic answer is we use Illinois law. Section 10(c) of The Illinois Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act (“Illinois Marriage Fairness Act” or “Marriage Fairness Act”) provides: Parties to a marriage shall be included in any definition or use of terms such as “spouse,” “family,” “immediate family,” “dependent,” “next of kin,” “wife,” “husband,” “bride,” “groom,” “wedlock,” and other terms that refer to or denote the spouse relationship, as those terms are used throughout the law, regardless of whether the parties to a marriage are of the same sexes or different sexes. As you can see, this section of the Marriage Fairness Act completely removes gender orientation as a factor in determining marital relationships and the accompanying rights, burdens, benefits, and obligations for Illinois citizens. If gender is removed from the marital relationship formula, then what’s left? Who are the parties? Who are the clients? Simple: Persons. The individual who is sitting at the conference room table seeking our help is a person. The individual may be a transgender person or queer, but he, she, Dana, or they is (and, in this case, the grammar is correct) a person first, deserving of the respect, dignity, and excellent service provided any client. In other words, if a lawyer doesn’t recognize a potential client as a person, then that person shouldn’t recognize that lawyer as competent to serve the potential client’s needs. Estate Planning for the T&Q of the LGBTQ Community: Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4
Will Marriage Equality Be Recognized Nationally?
The marriage equality march is returning the U.S. Supreme Court again this April and this time, the Court may just determine to end the continued discrimination against same-gender couples in the 14 states that refuse to allow loving, committed couples of the same gender to marry. The plaintiffs who caused the straw on the camel\’s back to break are a lesbian couple from Michigan whose case created yet another division between the 36 who get it and the 14 who don\’t. If you\’re familiar with our marriage equality work, you know we\’ve been watching and participating in the marriage equality march from our firm\’s inception. So, we are pleased that some sources report that Chief Justice Roberts may side with the plaintiffs in this case. Note, C. J. Roberts did not decide on the constitutionality of state bans in Windsor, and left himself room to join or, even pen, the appropriate decision in this case. Why? Because of Loving v. Virginia, which we and other colleagues have long argued is the fundamental legal basis for providing national marriage equality. Other legal analysts also wonder if the Court will revisit the term \”animus\” because the seminal cases involving recognizing individual rights for the LGBTQ community involve a determination of animus on the part of opponents to LGBTQ rights. The Court has allowed extra time for arguments. The decision is likely to be reached at the end of June. We are confident where the socially conservative 3 justices – Thomas, Scalia, and Alito – will stand. We are also confident where the socially liberal justices – Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kagan – will stand. Many also think that Kennedy will side with the liberal 3 but we\’re not so sure given his recent decisions on individual rights involving minorities. Additionally, Sotomayor was the intervenor for Kansas, providing opponents of marriage equality to at least temporarily prevail in upholding Kansas\’s marriage equality ban. Thus, we\’ve got a number of interesting scenarios confronting the question: Roberts votes with Ginsberg, Breyer, and Kagan and Kennedy, who sided with them in Windsor, will create a plurality allowing for marriage equality in America and thus, creating the United States of America once again, at least with this issue; Roberts votes with the liberal 3 but Kennedy and Sotomayor do not, leaving the patchwork and discrimination in place; Roberts votes with the conservative 3 but Kennedy and Sotomayor side with the liberal 3 (see plurality cited in #1); Roberts sides with the conservatives and Kennedy or Sotomayor also side with the conservatives (see patchwork and discrimination in #2). June will be a very interesting month indeed – for the LGBTQ community, for America, and for the Roberts Court legacy.
Don\’t Try This at Home…Though the Law Says Differently
On September 24, 2014, the Illinois legislature enacted an amendment to the Illinois Power of Attorney Act. The Act was changed to “simplify” the healthcare power of attorney form. Estate planning attorneys in Illinois have been watching this legislation for a while, hoping that it would die. Unfortunately, it lives and the consequences we foresee are anything but simple. In fact, it looks like our legislature gave our citizens an early Halloween scare. The problem is that this can produce genuinely monstrous results: No standard form is required. So in medical emergencies, doctors must use their own judgment about legal forms. Huh? The notice page that makes the suggested format legal is FIVE PAGES long, which includes a litany of questions users are to ask themselves and presumably include answers to on their healthcare power of attorney “form.” Yeah, right. The form you use can be “included” or “combined” with the statutory property power of attorney. Doing so will allow your bankers to read all about your health concerns and your doctors can do the same with issues concerning your finances. Did our legislature forget about HIPAA? The changes removes actual provisions regarding choice of agent…OK…so that’s a tad misleading – that guidance is somewhere in that FIVE PAGE notice. What is optional in the form of your choosing is selecting quality of life over length of live, with some mention about pain. The changes remove language from the suggested format that reflects actual U.S. congressional privacy laws for medical practitioners and third parties. This language is now placed in the statute. Presumably, users will review the Illinois Power of Attorney Act, understand it, then read FIVE PAGES of notice, understand that notice, and create this legally sound, uniquely tailored form. Yeah, right. The form also provides that successor agents are “optional.” Not providing successors has always been optional, lawyers just didn\’t like saying so. We don\’t like telling folks about that particular option because not providing successor agents is tantamount to driving 70 MPH on a busy highway with no seat belt or airbags. Forget Frankenstein or Freddie Krueger, the new changes to the Illinois Power of Attorney Act are sufficiently scary and worse – they\’re REAL.
Love & the Law: A Polar Vortex Campfire Tale
Updated May 27, 2023 Amidst Polar Vortex 1 of January 2014, a group of wonderful folks and yours truly sat around a warm office, invited by IntraSpectrum , discussing LGBTQ relationship rights. I introduced them to my series Love & the Law, here, as briefly as I could and we had a great time. So, really, what does all of this mean? Well, my (former) rockstar intern, Emily Welter, boiled down my hefty remarks into a few poignant and fabulous images and take-aways: The equality fight then The equality fight later… and… DOMA … and … WINDSOR and … SCOTUS… and POTUS… OH MY! Much like Dorothy and her gang, our Nation’s lawmakers followed a harrowing yellow brick road to marriage equality for over 50 years. We have come a long way from the 1966 case of Loving v. Virginia and we made positive strides towards that “Emerald City” of equal love. Below are 8 key points to know about the legal changes that took place in 2013 – aka the “Watershed Year” – which have affected Estate Planning for today’s LGBT couples: Several States passed marriage equality laws; SCOTUS (\”Supreme Court of the United States\”) ruled in favor of lesbian surviving spouse, Edith Windsor; SCOTUS ordered the IRS to treat legally married same-sex couples the same as straight married couples; The IRS mandated equal treatment of legally married LGBTQ couples for all tax treatment; The IRS called employers to issue FICA refunds to legally married LGBTQ couples; The IRS called on other agencies to comply with the new IRS rules; USCIS removed its barrier to legally married LGBTQ immigrant spouses; AND, finally Illinois passed same sex marriage(!); SCOTUS ruled in favor of marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges; and President Joe Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act, repealing DOMA and helping ensure marriage equality for all U.S. persons.
Our Readers\’ Top 5 Articles from 2013
Like most, The Shark Free Zone took a little time off to reflect over last year’s work and our readers’ preferences. So before the “reflection” month of January is over, below are the top 5 articles from 2013. Enjoy! NUMBER ONE. The popularity of our top article for 2013 may have had a little to do with its melodramatic title, “Infants, Stairwells, & Burning a Million Dollars.” The premise was less dramatic than the title, but still important: If professionals or smallbiz owners fail to protect their assets by not planning, they might as well set their income and belongings on fire. Of course, we’re not advocating arson, but if someone slips and falls on your property or a toddler visiting with Mom finds his or her way into a non-child-proof cabinet, oh woe… Click here to read the star of The Shark Free Zone for 2013 and feel free to pay it forward. TWO. \”What the Civil Union Means…to Many,\” was a spillover all the way back from 2011, providing useful information on LGBTQ couples considering or entering into Illinois Civil Unions. It\’s continued popularity was likely because it resonated with many concerned about the economic benefits that can be reaped when discrimination ends. It’s a somewhat moot now that Illinois has passed the Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness Act, providing marriage equality to Illinois LGBTQ couples. However, the article has many relevant points, so you can read it here. Our article on marriage equality in Illinois is forthcoming, so stay tuned! THREE. Smack dab in the middle is our series, whose information, is rising to the top of the news charts as more statistics and reports are being shared daily about the large aging Baby Boomer population. We first mentioned the Baby Boomer issue, or “Silver Tsunami,” a few years ago. It is now abundantly clear to all advisors that almost everyone is or will be affected by the Boomer generation, especially families that are unprepared. Don’t get caught by the Boomer wave. Prepare for the Silver Tsunami by checking out this middle entree. FOUR. Fourth in last year’s popular articles again involved marriage equality, particularly DOMA’s undoing. Our series, “The IRS Takes a Bite Out of DOMA” highlighted the complex estate and financial planning machinations LGBTQ couples had to take before the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in U.S. v. Windsor and the subsequent IRS ruling 2013-17 that removed a lot of that complexity for legally married LGBTQ couples, and especially those in \”friendly\” states. Tap here to read the beginning of this important 4-part series. FIVE. Rounding out our top 5 is “The Money Talk.” Recently, a relative became engaged, which will likely happen with many couples next month on Valentine’s Day. As couples take this loving step, it’s critical to know and understand each other’s mindset as it relates to saving, spending, investing, charitable giving, and a host of other related issues. So before you say “yes” or consider putting a ring on it, consider having this conversation. So there you have it: The top interests of 2013 were about love, money, and justice. What else is there to be interested in, except a pair of good looking shoes, right?
The IRS Takes a Bite Out of DOMA, Pt 4
Last week’s article was the third in this series covering the court cases and government rulings that have been issued over the last several months. Today’s article, the last in the series, will consider migrating same-sex couples, i.e., couples who move from a state with one set of marriage equality laws to a state with a different set of marriage equality laws. With respect to marriage, all couples fall into 3 basic mindsets: lawfully married, intending to marry, or not reached the fence yet. For the sake of this article, we’ll also put states in 3 basic categories: friendly, unfriendly, and grey, such as Wisconsin. Lawfully married couples who migrate to an unfriendly state, will likely have state income and estate tax issues, presuming the state has an estate tax. If they have or plan to have children, a problem may emerge involving parental recognition and rights. Also, legal problems involving healthcare may arise, such as decision-making authority and visitation rights in medical emergencies. Lawfully married couples residing in friendly states should think long and hard before moving to unfriendly or grey jurisdictions. Married same-sex couples in a grey state should consider the worst-case scenario and take lessons from living somewhere like Alabama. One would think that the easiest advice to give married couples in a friendly state would be, “STAY PUT.” However, tax minimization and relationship recognition aren’t always the most important factors LGBT families face. Still, if all else is equal, they should STAY PUT. If a couple is engaged or intends to wed, they should consider all of the factors. Moving by itself is often a relationship destroyer, regardless of gender makeup. Add to that the stress of relationship recognition issues and stir in income tax burdens for good measure, and the couple may be divorced even before getting married. So great thought should be given to moving, especially if moving soon before or after the wedding. If a couple has yet to seriously consider marriage, they should travel together. If they begin considering marriage, they should move to a friendly state. A friendly hypothetical always helps to illustrate a point: Facts: Chris and Chaz marry in Iowa in 2010, move to Indiana, have a baby girl, Sarah, and Chris is killed in Indiana in 2012. Now Chaz’s attorney must file an estate tax return. Chris was also a transgender. Points to ponder: Was their marriage was valid? Iowa legalized same-sex marriage in 2009; they were married in 2010, so their marriage was lawful. The estate administration lawyer filed estate and income tax returns within 9 months of Chris’s death; can the income tax return be amended now? Yes; the return is inside the statute of limitations. Should the return be amended to reflect the marriage? Good question. It depends on potential advantages and disadvantages. Can the estate tax return, which was filed on June 21, 2012 be amended and should it be? Yes and it depends on a number of factors. Another hypo: If Indiana’s wrongful death statute required payment only to the spouse or children, does Chaz have standing to even claim? No, unless Chaz is willing to renounce their same-sex marriage which would be demeaning and a circumstance no one should have to endure. Also a final wrinkle is the fact that because Chris was the biological parent, Chaz would likely have to apply for guardianship before being able to act on behalf of baby Sarah as an heir. Though Windsor, Perry, and the government\’s guidance substantially increased marriage equality for LGBT couples, the decisions and rulings also resulted in more patches and landmines for migrating LGBT couples to navigate. Biting DOMA was good, but chewing the entire statute up would have been much more satisfying for those who want and deserve complete marriage equality. The IRS Bites DOMA Pt 1 | 2 | 3 | 4
The IRS Takes a Bite Out of DOMA, Pt 3
Before beginning today’s article in earnest, a brief recognition and review of the legislative process is relevant. Yesterday, Tuesday, November 5, 2013, was a historic day for Illinois. The state’s legislature voted affirmatively on the question of marriage equality, i.e., allowing Illinois same-sex couples to marry. Thus, Illinois LGBT couples, as of June 1, 2014, may enter into a legal state of loving matrimony. Listening to members on the floor of the House deliver the reasons why they favored the bill, SB10, one theme rang loud and clear: We should not be a society where the law treats individuals or groups in our population differently because other individuals or groups disagree with their lifestyles, don’t like them, or may not understand what makes them “different.” Sidebar: I’m saving arguments that address the reductio ad absurdum issue for later. Being one of those “different” kinda folks myself, I have always been a proponent of marriage equality and LGBT equal rights. Yet, when I saw and heard Catholics and African American men steadfastly and eloquently place their support behind the law, a sense of pride in our legislature, in our democratic system of governance, in our state, washed over me. While Illinois, most assuredly, has its fiscal woes, our money problems aren’t, or at least shouldn’t be, the ultimate issue. The ultimate issue is whether those of us with immutable differences, such as sexual orientation and identification, skin color, or ethnicity, should be afforded the same rights as those whose immutable characteristics are more commonplace. Surely, if we look deep enough, we will recognize that, in some way, we are all different, and our differences should not be the sole basis for refusing, abrogating, eliminating, or enlarging our rights individually and collectively. The fundamental rights of all should be equal. Therefore, if a state gives the right to marry or literally speaking, license to marry, to one group, it is an abomination to our system of democracy if we do not provide the same license to another. So it stands that Illinois citizens should applaud our legislators who lifted the rights of all Illinoisans yesterday when they provided marriage equality to our LGBT community. Now back to the business at hand, which is even more poignant for Illinois couples given the last 24 hours. Because of Windsor and the flurry of guidance that followed, disparate treatment of lawfully married same-sex couples under federal tax laws has been virtually eliminated. Therefore, estate and tax planning for same-sex married couples is more aligned with traditional estate planning methods for opposite-sex married couples. In the post Illinois Civil Union – make that the Illinois Religious Freedom and Marriage Fairness – Act and post Windsor plus guidance world, a same-sex married couple in Illinois should receive equal federal and Illinois treatment for purposes of income tax, estate tax, qualified retirement plans under ERISA, and FICA. However, practitioners must be mindful of the nuances between Illinois and federal law, such as, statute of limitations for amending returns, date of marriage recognition, portability*, and the fact that Illinois estate tax exemption is lower than the federal exemption. *Portability is the “check the box rule” that allows a surviving spouse to use the unused portion of the deceased spouse’s lifetime gift exemption. EXAMPLE: Michael dies on June 30, 2014 and used $1M of his $5.34M federal exemption. David, Michael’s surviving spouse can add the remaining $4.34M of Michael’s exemption. This means if David hasn’t used his, he now has $9.68M to give away tax free during his lifetime. NOTE: Before the Rev. Rule 2013-17, this wasn’t available to lawfully married same-sex couples anywhere in the U.S. So what does this mean for filing purposes? Because lawfully married same-sex couples are now equal in the eyes of the state and federal tax regimes for Illinois, they don’t have to complete “dummy” federal returns for income or estate tax purposes. WARNING: Illinois couples who are currently only in Civil Unions are not in federally recognized relationship; so, they must still complete the “dummy” forms. IRS Notice 2013-61 followed Rev. Rule 2013-17 and is at the center of the tax return amending issue for most married same-sex couples. The Notice requires employers to amend their 941 returns with respect to over withholding, FICA overpayment, and benefits counted as wages. Why is this relevant to estate tax returns? To file an accurate estate tax return, Form 706, an accountant or attorney should have an accurate income tax return record. Therefore, for these purposes especially, before amending a 706, a decedent spouse’s 1040 should probably be amended to account for Notice 2013-61 issues. Debates wage among colleagues about whether to file an amended return for an estate that is not taxable and, given the level of the federal exemption for a married couple, only very few estates are taxable at the federal level and even at Illinois’ level. Yet, if the income tax return is being amended, then filing a 706 might be advisable for consistency’s sake. Also, a surviving spouse should file a 706 if he or she wants to or should elect portability. All of this ultimately suggests that surviving spouses of same-sex marriages should request a filing extension on original returns to ensure that all tax records are thoroughly reviewed before filing amendments. The same premises apply for Illinois estate taxes because federal numbers drive state numbers. Of course, just because tax returns that fall within the statute of limitations should be reviewed, doesn’t mean they should be amended. Like a surviving spouse of an opposite sex marriage, a surviving spouse of a same-sex marriage might have to pay more taxes. Nevertheless, couples should review the amendment issue. As discussed last week, Rev Rule 2013-17 stipulates that “affected taxpayers may rely on this revenue ruling for the purpose of filing original returns, amended returns, adjusted returns or claims for credit or refund for any overpayment of tax resulting from these holdings providing the applicable limitations period for filing such claim