I recently posted a blog on the differences between a same sex divorce in Connecticut and a “traditional divorce.” These differences result because same sex marriage is not recognized at the federal level. This includes federal tax treatment.
Connecticut, which has legalized same sex marriage, allows same sex couples to file joint state returns. However, it has been estimated that same sex couples pay approximately $6,000 more per year in federal taxes since they cannot file joint federal returns.
Here is a post detailing a few of the other ways that same sex couples get hit hard at tax time:
All Couples Are Not Created Equal in the Tax Code – DailyFinance
A study by the National Academy of Sciences recently found that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not have the expertise to properly examine and monitor vehicles with advanced electronics.
Car manufacturers are installing increasingly sophisticated hardware and computer software in cars. Just like other systems, these electronics can malfunction and potentially cause serious car accidents. If an accident occurs, the NHTSA can investigate to determine what went wrong, whether the issue is widespread and how to prevent similar accidents.
The NTHSA stated that it would continue to improve in order to keep the “driving public safe [and] assess potential safety concerns and help ensure the reliability of electronic control systems.” These systems include everything from high-tech music systems to electronic braking systems.
The NHTSA requested the Academy’s study after the NHTSA investigated Toyota’s electronic throttle systems and did not find evidence of defects. NASA conducted its own study of the Toyota cars in question and came to the same conclusion as the NHTSA. Toyota’s unintended acceleration problem, which led to the recall of millions of vehicles, has been attributed to accelerator pads and floor mats and not the electronic control systems installed in the cars.
Still, the National Academy of Sciences recommended that the NHTSA:
- Hire people with technical expertise in car systems
- Refine the way it investigates car safety
- Develop an advisory panel to help with vehicle investigations and reviews
- Continue to advocate for the installation of black boxes in all new vehicles
- Develop a long-term strategy for meeting challenges involving electronic systems
Source: The New York Times, “Road Safety Agency Is Urged to Add Expertise in Electronics Systems,” Bill Vlasic, Jan. 18, 2012.
In November 2008, Connecticut legalized same sex marriage. So, now that Connecticut recognizes same marriages how are same sex divorces handled?
As a general rule, the procedure and the law which is applied in a same sex divorce is similar to a “traditional” Connecticut divorce. The differences that do arise have to do with federal law.
In 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was enacted. This act specifically defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Therefore, federal law does not recognize same sex marriages. As a result, same sex divorces may differ from “traditional divorces” in the following ways:
1. Federal tax consequences. Same sex couples cannot file joint federal tax returns and cannot claim each other as a tax exemption. However, same sex couples are able to file joint Connecticut tax returns.
2. Social Security. A same sex spouse is not entitled to survivor benefits.
3. Retirement Plans. Certain retirement plans, like a federal pension, may not allow a distribution to a same sex spouse.
4. Child custody. If a parent relcoates to a state that does not recognize same sex marriage, custody orders may not be enforced and the collection of child support difficult.
5. Alimony/spousal support. Alimony is taxable to the recipient and a “write off” to the payor. The IRS however has no regulations to address the tax consequences of alimony in the context of a same sex divorce.
Although the laws in Connecticut do not distinguish between a same sex divorce and “tradtional” divorce, it is vital to understand the impact of federal law when negotiating a same sex divorce settlement.
In Connecticut, parents involved in a divorce or initial custody action must complete a Parenting Education Program if the case involves children under age 18.
The program is designed to educate parents on the developmental stages of children, adjustment of children to parental separation, dispute resolution and conflict management for parents, guidelines for visitation, stress reduction in children and cooperative parenting.
The feedback I have received from clients regarding the program has generally been positive. Although parts of the program may seem elementary to some participants there is surely something to be learned by virtually any parent.
A few points:
Parents may attend together but are not required to do so.
Online courses do not fulfill the requirement. Online parenting courses do not provide for interactive participation through questions and answers and role playing scenarios. In addition, since the Parenting Education Program is ordered for the benefit of the children, the convenience of the parents should not be the primary consideration.
The Notice of Automatic Orders requires that parents complete the program within sixty days of the commencement of the case. However, the issue of whether a parent has completed the program does not usually arise until the case is disposed unless the case has had extensive court involvement. Nothwithstanding, I encourage parents to complete the program as soon as possible so they may put into play what they have learned.
Completion of the Parenting Education Program is among the “best interest” factors a judge may consider when deciding custody and visitation issues.
Please contact me if you have questions about the requirements of the Parenting Education Program in Connecticut.
On Sunday afternoon, an operator was killed in a Bridgeport construction accident while grading a slope with a mini-excavator. The man was working on a hill when the excavator rolled backwards, ejecting the operator and then trapping him against a house.
According to the East Side Assistant Fire Department, the man was not wearing a seat belt at the time of the accident. The operator passed away from serious torso injuries. This Connecticut construction accident happened at a house owned by the Bridgeport Housing Authority.
In 2010, there were more than 4,500 fatal work injuries in the U.S. Two out of every five fatal construction accidents were motor-vehicle-related, including excavator accidents, forklift accidents, car accidents, truck accidents and tractor overturns. Construction jobs are inherently deadly. However, that does not mean that families cannot recover compensation for their loved one’s injuries.
After a fatal construction accident, it is important to determine who and what caused the accident. Workers’ compensation will cover damages when the accident was caused by the victim’s employer or as a result of the employment. However, was a third party liable for the accident? If so, then the victim’s family may also be able to bring a third party claim for damages.
For example, in the Bridgeport construction accident, if the excavator malfunctioned, then the family of the deceased operator can bring a claim against the company that manufactured or maintained the excavator. Similarly, if a subcontractor had left the work site in an unsafe condition, causing injury, the subcontractor may be held liable through a third party lawsuit.
Source: Connecticut Post, “Machine Operator Killed on Sunshine Circle,” Michael Mayko, Jan. 8, 2012.
A recent article by msnbc.com questions whether ignition interlock devices should be required on all vehicles, not just on the vehicles of people convicted of drunk driving. The debate centers around whether preventing the risk of Connecticut drunk driving accidents outweighs the personal liberty involved in choosing to drive after drinking “just a few.”
As of January 2012, Connecticut is one of 15 states that require installation of an ignition interlock device (IID) after a first drunk driving conviction. Drunk drivers must pay for the installation of IIDs, which require drivers to breathe into the devices before starting their cars. If any alcohol is detected on their breath, their engine will not start.
Technological improvements on the IIDs mean that drunk drivers cannot have their sober friends breathe into the IIDs for them. Furthermore, technology is in development that could use air samples, skin emissions, eye movements and driver performance as further ways to detect drunk driving. These sensors could be used in every car on the road to prevent drunk driving accidents.
According to MADD and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, IIDs help reduce the number of people who reoffend by 67 percent. However, others argue that mandating IIDs through laws can have negative consequences and believe judges should ultimately decide who must install IIDs.
In 2009, at least 99 people were killed in Connecticut drunk driving accidents. This accounted for 44 percent of all fatal car accidents in Connecticut. Since alcohol causes so many accidents, many say that it would be wise for the government to require automakers to install some sort of ignition interlock device in all cars. What do you think?
Source: Msnbc.com, “Curbing drunk drivers: should ignition interlock be required on every car?” Jim Gold, Jan. 6, 2012.