DOCSLIB.ORG

Exploring Ways to Eliminate Penalties for Marriage for Low-Income Families

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Exploring Ways to Eliminate Penalties for Marriage for Low-Income Families S. HRG. 109–773 EXPLORING WAYS TO ELIMINATE PENALTIES FOR MARRIAGE FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES HEARING BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SPECIAL HEARING MAY 3, 2006—WASHINGTON, DC Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 27–921 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri TOM HARKIN, Iowa MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland CONRAD BURNS, Montana HARRY REID, Nevada RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama HERB KOHL, Wisconsin JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire PATTY MURRAY, Washington ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota LARRY CRAIG, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois MIKE DEWINE, Ohio TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado J. KEITH KENNEDY, Staff Director TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Minority Staff Director SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Chairman MIKE DEWINE, Ohio MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (ex officio) ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia (ex officio) Professional Staff MARY DIETRICH KATE ELTRICH (Minority) Administrative Support LASHAWNDA SMITH (II) CONTENTS Page Opening Statement of Senator Sam Brownback ................................................... 1 Statement of Senator Wayne Allard ...................................................................... 3 Statement of Hon. Wade F. Horn, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services ............................................................................... 4 Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 6 Statement of Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow and Co-Director, Center on Chil- dren and Families, The Brookings Institution .................................................. 9 Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 11 Statement of C. Eugene Steuerle, Senior Fellow, The Urban Institute .............. 20 Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 23 Statement of Kate Jesberg, Director, Department of Human Services, District of Columbia ........................................................................................................... 42 Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 43 Statement of Curtis Watkins, President, East Capitol Center for Change, Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 45 Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 46 Statement of Saundra Graham, District of Columbia .......................................... 47 Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 48 Statement of Winston Graham, District of Columbia .......................................... 50 (III) EXPLORING WAYS TO ELIMINATE PENALTIES FOR MARRIAGE FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2006 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met at 10:07 a.m., in room SD–124, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sam Brownback (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Brownback and Allard. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK Senator BROWNBACK. Call the hearing to order. Thank you all for joining us this morning. By all accounts, and according to all available research, children do best when they grow up in homes with their married biological parents. It doesn’t seem like we should need, or have, to state that, but that is what the sociological data says, and it’s something of importance for us, as policymakers, to see that children, as many as possible, grow up in the best possible setting. They are generally healthier, happier, and have brighter futures than children who grow up with only one parent. Statistics tell a compelling story. Children raised by married par- ents are three times less likely to repeat a grade in school, five times less likely to have behavioral problems, half as likely to be depressed, three times less likely to use illicit drugs, half as likely to become sexually active as teenagers, and are seven times less likely to live in poverty. A compelling picture. Given the enormous benefits that accrue to children who are reared by their married parents, it is a moral and societal impera- tive that we esteem, support, foster, and, indeed, encourage the in- stitution of marriage. But sadly, governmental policies have actu- ally conspired to do just the opposite. Certain programs created in the 1960s had the unintended con- sequence of discouraging marriage by providing financial incentives for low-income parents to never get married. These policies made it economically rational for a low-income mother to remain single and unemployed, rather than to get married. Three decades of these incentives have wrought the significant and tragic result for our children. Fully 35 percent of all babies born today in America are born to single mothers. This compares to just 4 percent in 1960. Certainly, there are many single mothers who are heroically and successfully raising children on their own. They deserve our respect (1) 2 and support. But it also is an indisputable fact that a father and a mother bound together in marriage provide the best environment in which to raise healthy children. As a society, and as a govern- ment, we should strive to foster what is the very best for our chil- dren. But government policies have often done just the opposite. Although the 1996 Welfare Reform Act attempted to remove the incentives for parents to remain unmarried, unwed birth rates have continued to increase. In fact, Government policies often con- tinue to penalize low-income couples with children who decide to get married. Today, we’re delighted to have Dr. Wade Horn here, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. He will unveil a new tool, called a ‘‘marriage calculator,’’ which will show low-income couples with children just how significant the penalties are if they decide to get married. This new resource should help us examine ways that tax and benefit transfer policies could be reformed to eliminate mar- riage penalties. And I want to note here, we’ve spent quite a bit of time in Con- gress eliminating, and working on eliminating, penalties to mar- riage in the Tax Code. We’ve spent far too little time in Congress working on ways to eliminate the penalties to marriage in the transfer code, or in the areas of support. And what I hope to start with this hearing is us working more on that side of the equation. We’ve worked on the tax side of it. We need to work on the transfer side of it, as well. Obviously, there’s something wrong with a system that penalizes couples for doing the right thing for their children and for them- selves. Rather than providing financial penalties for marriage, I be- lieve that we should help low-income married couples gain stronger financial security. Financial security can help sustain a healthy marriage. As a way to help low-income married couples gain appreciable assets here in the District of Columbia, we just began a pilot new federally funded marriage development accounts (MDAs). I’ve got a brochure here, ‘‘Saving and Prospering Together,’’ that was devel- oped by one of the groups, and they’re launching a campaign here in the District to promote this program. There was a nice article in USA Today, the Lifestyle section, April 27, on these financial in- centives to wed. As a way to help low-income married couples gain appreciable assets, we did start these marriage development accounts. They’re available to low-income married couples who are citizens or legal residents of the District, and who have very low net worth. Couples may save money to buy a home, pay for job training or education, or start their own businesses. They’ll have a high incentive to save, because their contributions will be matched at a ratio of 3 to 1 by the Federal Government and partnering private institutions. As a requirement of participation, couples will receive training to help them repair their credit, set a budget and savings schedule, and manage their money. They’ll also receive a bonus for receiving mar- riage counseling. Just last Thursday, as I noted, leaders from the faith community and nonprofit organizations launched the program ‘‘Together is 3 Better’’ to strengthen marriages here in the District, with MDAs of- fered as an important tool to help low-income married and engaged couples put their lives
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Income Tax and the State of a Union in America
    North East Journal of Legal Studies Volume 12 Fall 2006 Article 3 Fall 2006 The Income Tax and The State of A Union In America Cindy Lou Beale Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/nealsb Recommended Citation Beale, Cindy Lou (2006) "The Income Tax and The State of A Union In America," North East Journal of Legal Studies: Vol. 12 , Article 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.fairfield.edu/nealsb/vol12/iss1/3 This item has been accepted for inclusion in DigitalCommons@Fairfield by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Fairfield. It is brought to you by DigitalCommons@Fairfield with permission from the rights- holder(s) and is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses, you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/or on the work itself. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 2006 I The Income Tax and State of a Union I 56 57 I Vol. 16 1 North East Journal of Legal Studies THE INCOME TAX AND THE STATE OF A UNION IN demographic changes that have occurred since 1948 when the AMERICA joint return was created as well as the assumptions and other motivating factors behind its creation and to determine if the by Cindy Lou Beale* continued existence of that filing status in our federal tax system is appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • Marriage Penalties in Means-Tested Tax and Transfer Programs: Issues and Options
    Marriage Penalties Marriage Penalties in Means-Tested Tax and Transfer Programs: Issues and Options CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS: Bradford Wilcox, Ph.D., Chris Gersten and Jerry Regier, Ph.D. 1 https://hmrf.acf.hhs.gov Final Report | October 2019 OFA Report Number: 2019-01 Contract Number: HHSP233201500114I Submitted to: Robin Y. McDonald, Division Director Office of Family Assistance Administration for Children and Families U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Submitted by: Jerry Regier, Ph.D., Project Manager & Co-Author W. Bradford Wilcox, Ph.D., Co-Author Chris Gersten, Co-Author Mary Myrick, Senior Advisor Public Strategies 3 East Main Street Oklahoma City, OK 73104 405.848.2171 This report is in the public domain. Permission to reproduce is not necessary. Suggested citation: Wilcox, W., Gersten, C. and Regier, J. (2019). Marriage Penalties in Means-Tested Tax and Transfer Programs: Issues and Options, OFA Report 2019-01, Washington, DC: Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This report sponsored by the Office of Family Assistance is available at https://www.acf.hhs.gov/ofa/resource-library/. Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Office of Family Assistance, the Administration for Children and Families, or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This white paper addresses questions related to marriage and marriage penalties associated with means-tested transfers
    [Show full text]
  • How Do Federal Income Tax Rates Work? XXXX
    TAX POLICY CENTER BRIEFING BOOK Key Elements of the U.S. Tax System INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX How do federal income tax rates work? XXXX Q. How do federal income tax rates work? A. The federal individual income tax has seven tax rates that rise with income. Each rate applies only to income in a specific range (tax bracket). CURRENT INCOME TAX RATES AND BRACKETS The federal individual income tax has seven tax rates ranging from 10 percent to 37 percent (table 1). The rates apply to taxable income—adjusted gross income minus either the standard deduction or allowable itemized deductions. Income up to the standard deduction (or itemized deductions) is thus taxed at a zero rate. Federal income tax rates are progressive: As taxable income increases, it is taxed at higher rates. Different tax rates are levied on income in different ranges (or brackets) depending on the taxpayer’s filing status. In TAX POLICY CENTER BRIEFING BOOK Key Elements of the U.S. Tax System INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAX How do federal income tax rates work? XXXX 2020 the top tax rate (37 percent) applies to taxable income over $518,400 for single filers and over $622,050 for married couples filing jointly. Additional tax schedules and rates apply to taxpayers who file as heads of household and to married individuals filing separate returns. A separate schedule of tax rates applies to capital gains and dividends. Tax brackets are adjusted annually for inflation. BASICS OF PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAXATION Each tax rate applies only to income in a specific tax bracket. Thus, if a taxpayer earns enough to reach a new bracket with a higher tax rate, his or her total income is not taxed at that rate, just the income in that bracket.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Income Tax the Marriage Penalty
    EXHIBIT F Individual Income Tax The Marriage Penalty Arkansas Tax Reform and Relief Legislative Task Force July 27, 2018 Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration Marriage Penalty and Marriage Bonus Overview Marriage Penalty/Bonus: Overview • A couple incurs a marriage penalty if the two pay more income tax filing jointly as a married couple than they would pay if they were single and filed as individuals. Conversely, a couple receives a marriage bonus if they pay less tax filing jointly than they would if they were single. 3 Marriage Penalty: Overview • Under a progressive income tax system, marriage penalties and bonuses arise because the household rather than the individual is the unit of taxation. Tax provisions that phase in or out with income also produce penalties or bonuses. Couples receiving bonuses typically outnumber those incurring penalties. • Marriage penalties and bonuses result from the combination of progressive tax rates and taxing married couples as single units. With progressive taxes, which impose higher rates on higher incomes, and tax brackets that are not twice as wide for couples as for individuals, some married couples’ income is taxed at higher rates than if each spouse’s income was taxed separately. A married couple is not obliged to file a joint tax return, but their alternative (filing separate returns as a married couple) generall results in greater tax liability at the Federal level. 4 Marriage Penalty: Overview • Couples in which spouses have similar incomes are more likely to incur marriage penalties than couples in which one spouse earns most of the income, because combining incomes in joint filing can push both spouses into higher tax brackets.
    [Show full text]
  • How Marriage Penalties Change Under the 2001 Tax Bill
    How Marriage Penalties Change under the 2001 Tax Bill Adam Carasso and C. Eugene Steuerle* *Adam Carasso is a research associate and C. Eugene Steuerle is a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. This paper could not have been written without support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the George Gund Foundation. Views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of The Urban Institute, its board, or its funders. 1 Abstract This paper examines how the various provisions of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) change marriage penalties and subsidies for different, hypothetical pairings of heads of household with single workers filing a joint return. Heads of household are assumed to have two children—both eligible for the earned income tax credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit—and the analysis is conducted for families with total adjusted gross incomes (AGI) of up to $80,000, with special attention to those families with combined AGI of $35,000 or less who often face marriage penalties from expenditure programs. Additionally, our simulations take place in 2010 when all provisions of EGTRRA will be fully implemented, although we present our results in real 2001 dollars. Our research focus was to examine the additional marriage penalties that heads of household face in the way of loss of valuable tax benefits for which two single, childless taxpayers who marry would not be eligible. We modeled the impact of six pertinent provisions from the tax bill: the refundable, doubled child credit, the new 10 percent tax bracket, the newly expanded EITC for married couples, the new standard deduction for married couples, the new 15 percent tax bracket for married couples, and the new 25 percent tax bracket.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Protest, a Homosexual, and Frivolity: a Deconstructionist Meditation
    Pittsburgh University School of Law Scholarship@PITT LAW Articles Faculty Publications 2004 Tax Protest, a Homosexual, and Frivolity: A Deconstructionist Meditation Anthony C. Infanti University of Pittsburgh School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/fac_articles Part of the Judges Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Law and Gender Commons, Law and Society Commons, Legal Biography Commons, Legal History Commons, Litigation Commons, Sexuality and the Law Commons, Taxation-Federal Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Anthony C. Infanti, Tax Protest, a Homosexual, and Frivolity: A Deconstructionist Meditation, 24 Saint Louis University Public Law Review 21 (2004). Available at: https://scholarship.law.pitt.edu/fac_articles/176 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Publications at Scholarship@PITT LAW. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@PITT LAW. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. TAX PROTEST, "A HOMOSEXUAL," AND FRIVOLITY: A DECONSTRUCTIONIST MEDITATION ANTHONY C. 1NFANTI* "Even though a state may recognize a union of two people of the same sex as a legal marriage for the purposes within that state's authority, that recognition has no effect for purposes of federal law. A taxpayer in such a relationship may not claim the status of a married person on the federal income tax return." -The Internal Revenue Service' "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law." 2 -Martin Luther King, Jr.
    [Show full text]
  • A Fairtax White Paper
    A FairTaxsm White Paper The FairTax benefits farmers and ranchers by Ross Korves About five million Americans live on the nation’s 2.1 million farms and ranches. Farming and ranching remain as vital to the economy today as they have been throughout our nation’s history. In 2005, farming and ranching produced crops and livestock valued at $249.2 billion and generated $109.4 billion in added value to the gross domestic product of the country.1 These enterprises employed 3,034,000 workers, including 2,198,000 full time and part-time farm operators and 834,000 hired employees. Agricultural products comprise 7.7 percent of all exports from the U.S., for a total of $62.3 billion in exported products in fiscal year 2004. Farms and ranches generate economic activity that transcends the rural communities in which they were produced, creating upstream jobs in manufacturing and downstream jobs in processing, transportation, retailing, and exporting. I. Farmers and ranchers are disadvantaged under the income tax system. Some policy analysts argue that farming and ranching are subsidized under our current income tax system. These include favorable accounting and inventory methods, certain income deferral provisions, capital gain/ordinary loss treatment and expensing allowances. However, rather than being subsidies, these are simply practical accommodations in an income tax system that is overly complex for most farmers and ranchers with relatively simple business structures. Although the effective tax rate has been gradually declining from the stratospheric level of 1980, farmers and ranchers still bear high tax and compliance burdens on the operation of their businesses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Marriage Penalty After the TCJA: Effects on High- and Low-Income Households and the Elderly
    REPORT 03.26.19 The Marriage Penalty after the TCJA: Effects on High- and Low-Income Households and the Elderly Joyce Beebe, Ph.D., Fellow, Center for Public Finance Although couples rarely think about tax and $100,000. Because families can pool returns at their wedding, the tax system resources together in ways individuals does change a couple’s income tax liability cannot, the tax system views the family as from that day forward, for richer or for a tax unit, instead of the individuals within poorer. Furthermore, some marriage-related the family. Secondly, the system maintains tax effects last after death doth a couple a progressive rate structure, meaning that part. This issue report first summarizes the taxpayers with higher incomes pay higher nature and evolution of the marriage penalty taxes at higher rates. Finally, the tax system in the U.S. tax system. It then reviews the is based on the belief that a couple’s marital magnitude of the penalty and its influence status should not influence their tax liability; on work and marital decisions. Finally, it the system remains marriage neutral. discusses how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Separately, these are all desirable of 2017 (TCJA, Pub. L. 115–97) changes the goals. However, the “unattainable ideal” marriage penalty for different income and that incorporates all three simply cannot This year marks the age groups. be achieved simultaneously. Prior to the 50th anniversary of TCJA in 2017, two unmarried people who the creation of the both earn $100,000 would each pay WHAT IS THE MARRIAGE PENALTY? $18,139 in taxes, or $36,278 total.
    [Show full text]
  • Fair Tax for Illinois” FISCAL Jared Walczak FACT Senior Policy Analyst No
    Twelve Things to Know About the “Fair Tax for Illinois” FISCAL Jared Walczak FACT Senior Policy Analyst No. 641 Mar. 2019 Key Findings • New Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D) has proposed sweeping changes to Illinois’ tax code, advocating a constitutional amendment to permit a graduated-rate income tax and proposing a new rate and bracket structure. • Under the proposal, corporate income would be taxed at 10.45 percent, the third-highest rate in the nation, while pass-through business income would be taxed at a top rate of 9.45 percent, the fourth highest such rate nationwide. • The proposal diverges sharply from ideal—or even typical—income tax structure. It omits inflation indexing (resulting in “bracket creep”), creates a marriage penalty, and includes a recapture provision which subjects the entirety of a taxpayer’s income to the top marginal rate once they reach that bracket. • The neighboring states of Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, and Missouri have all cut income taxes in recent years, while Illinois may be headed in the opposite direction. • The governor’s proposed tax rates are merely notional; should voters permit a graduated-rate income tax, there are compelling reasons to believe that rates may climb even higher, and that more taxpayers would be subjected to higher The Tax Foundation is the nation’s rates. leading independent tax policy research organization. Since 1937, our research, analysis, and experts have informed smarter tax policy • Were the proposal implemented, Illinois is projected to decline from 36th to at the federal, state, and local levels. We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit 48th on the State Business Tax Climate Index, which measures tax structure.
    [Show full text]
  • The Financial Consequences of Marriage for Cohabiting Couples with Children
    POVERTY, VULNERABILI TY, AND THE SAFETY N ET The Financial Consequences of Marriage for Cohabiting Couples with Children Elaine Maag and Gregory Acs September 2015 Research consistently shows that married adults are emotionally and physically healthier and economically more secure than unmarried adults (Waite and Gallagher 2000; Sawhill 2014). Children living with their married parents fare better on a host of indicators and outcomes than children in any other living arrangement (McLanahan and Sandefur 1994). Family structure is the most important predictor of economic mobility—children who grow up with married parents fare best (Chetty et al. 2014). But marriage appears to be in decline, particularly among lower-income couples (Sawhill 2014). Lower marriage rates result in more children born out of wedlock and living in less stable situations than in past decades. Sawhill (2014) estimated that if marriage rates returned to pre-1970s levels, the rate of child poverty today would fall by 20 percent, assuming the current relationship between parents’ marital status and poverty is unchanged. Though the benefits associated with marriage are not purely a function of whether a couple opts to marry, the government—with little success—has tried many initiatives to promote marriage. Rather than marrying, many young couples (particularly those with fewer resources) are choosing to cohabit (Copen, Daniels, and Mosher 2013). Cohabitation and marriage are not equivalent. On average, cohabiting couples with children have lower incomes than their married counterparts. This difference in income reflects that the mother’s age and education as well as the father’s employment status are generally lower in cohabiting-couple families than in married-couple families (Acs and Nelson 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Rev. Proc. 2016-55
    26 CFR 601.602: Tax forms and instructions. (Also Part I, §§ 1, 23, 25A, 32, 36B, 42, 45R, 55, 59, 62, 63, 68, 125, 132(f),135, 137, 146, 147, 148, 151, 179, 213, 220, 221, 512, 513, 831, 877, 877A, 911, 2010, 2032A, 2503, 2523, 4161, 4261, 5000A, 6033, 6039F, 6323, 6334, 6601, 6651, 6652, 6695, 6698, 6699, 6721, 6722, 7345, 7430, 7702B; 1.148-5.) Rev. Proc. 2016-55 Table of Contents SECTION 1. PURPOSE SECTION 2. CHANGES SECTION 3. 2017 ADJUSTED ITEMS Code Section .01 Tax Rate Tables 1(a)-(e) .02 Unearned Income of Minor Children Taxed as if Parent’s 1(g) Income ("Kiddie Tax"). .03 Adoption Credit 23 .04 Lifetime Learning Credit 25A .05 Earned Income Credit 32 .06 Refundable Credit for Coverage Under a Qualified Health Plan 36B(f)(2)(B) .07 Rehabilitation Expenditures Treated as Separate New Building 42(e) .08 Low-Income Housing Credit 42(h) .09 Employee Health Insurance Expense of Small Employers 45R - 2 - .10 Exemption Amounts for Alternative Minimum Tax 55 .11 Alternative Minimum Tax Exemption for a Child Subject to the 59(j) “Kiddie Tax” .12 Certain Expenses of Elementary and Secondary 62(a)(2)(D) School Teachers .13 Transportation Mainline Pipeline Construction Industry Optional 62(c) Expense Substantiation Rules for Payments to Employees under Accountable Plans .14 Standard Deduction 63 .15 Overall Limitation on Itemized Deductions 68 .16 Cafeteria Plans 125 .17 Qualified Transportation Fringe Benefit 132(f) .18 Income from United States Savings Bonds for Taxpayers Who 135 Pay Qualified Higher Education Expenses .19 Adoption Assistance
    [Show full text]
  • The Marriage Penalty: the Working Couple's Dilemma
    Fordham Law Review Volume 47 Issue 1 Article 3 1978 The Marriage Penalty: The Working Couple's Dilemma Wendy C. Gerzog Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Wendy C. Gerzog, The Marriage Penalty: The Working Couple's Dilemma, 47 Fordham L. Rev. 27 (1978). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol47/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Marriage Penalty: The Working Couple's Dilemma Cover Page Footnote University Fellow and Lecturer in Law, The George Washington University. B.A. 1968, Clark University; J.D. 1976, University of Akron; Candidate for L.L.M. (Taxation) 1979, The George Washington University. This article is available in Fordham Law Review: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol47/iss1/3 THE MARRIAGE PENALTY: THE WORKING COUPLE'S DILEMMA WENDY C. GERZOG* INTRODUCTION T has recently, been observed that the "Internal Revenue Code provides an opportunity to the young to demonstrate the depth of their unselfishness . ."I The source of this "opportunity" is the marriage penalty-a curious feature of the tax system whereby the tax liability of a married couple may exceed that of a cohabiting unmarried couple.2 The term "marriage penalty" is actually a misnomer. Marriage does not always give rise to a tax penalty; in some cases it results in a tax savings.
    [Show full text]