Married same-sex couples face tax obstacles

If there's any day of the year when married same-sex couples confront the ugly reality of life under the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), it's April 15.

When Marlin Nabors, 31, and Jonathan Knight, 28, married in 2006 the Hyde Park couple knew that DOMA would have an impact on their lives. But the reality of that discrimination hit home when they first filed their taxes as a married couple the following year. DOMA bars the federal government from recognizing their marriage, which means that every April the couple must file two individual returns with the IRS. That first year the couple's tax preparer calculated what they would owe if the federal government recognized their marriage, and the young couple was frustrated to discover that DOMA was costing them an additional $1200 each year in federal income taxes.

"We were just surprised at the difference it made even as a new couple just starting out at our modest incomes," said Nabors, a housing administrator at a Boston-area college. "That was our first introduction as a married couple to the distinction between our marriage and other marriages."

Knight, who works in finance administration at Harvard, said the couple was upset to find out that they were barred from taking advantage of the regulations in the tax code designed to protect newly married couples.

"It was no huge surprise because we're used to discrimination, but $1200 for a newlywed couple - I think the idea is the tax laws are written to help people in that specific situation, and it seemed absurd we couldn't file jointly," said Knight.

The couple has teamed up with Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) to try to end that disparate treatment. Last month GLAD filed a challenge to Section 3 of DOMA - which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages performed by states - on behalf of Nabors and Knight and seven other couples and three widowers from Massachusetts (see "Obama administration mum on DOMA challenge," March 5). GLAD believes the suit has the potential to reach the U.S. Supreme Court, and hopes that a ruling in their favor would undermine not only Section 3 but DOMA as a whole.

Nabors and Knight are the youngest of the plaintiff couples in the DOMA suit, and while many of the other plaintiffs have spent decades living together and have started families, Nabors and Knight's relationship is relatively new. They met four years ago in Indianapolis, connecting over Yahoo Personals and meeting for a coffee date. The couple says it was a case of opposites attracting; Nabors had grown up in Flint, Michigan and had worked in the city, while Knight spent his formative years in rural Indiana and was working at the time on an organic dairy farm.

"I think there was a balancing that was pretty apparent immediately, and just a curiosity that kicked in. Jonathan had this quiet intellect, and I'm more of the extrovert, so I think we were interested and entertained with one another right from the start," said Nabors.

The couple began dating, but six months later Nabors got news that could have spelled the end of their relationship: he had a job offer in Boston. Instead they treated the job offer as an adventure, said Knight, and moved to Boston together. They got married in 2006. Nabors said there was no magic moment where one of the pair got down on one knee and proposed; the decision to tie the knot just seemed like a natural evolution in their relationship.

"I think we both knew that we were going to be there for each other no matter what and were in love and are in love, and we wanted to make it clear for ourselves and our friends and the people in our lives that this is for life and we were going to be in each other's lives permanently, and this seemed like the right move to solidify our relationship," said Nabors.

Last year the couple bought a house in Hyde Park. They have spent their free time sprucing it up, painting and making repairs. At some point in the future they plan to have children.

The couple's first trip to the tax preparer steered them toward their current path as plaintiffs in GLAD's suit. Compared to some of the other couples in the suit, who have lost tens of thousands of dollars in extra taxes, the $2520 in additional money that Knight and Nabors have paid to the IRS since 2006 may seem minor. But Knight said for a young couple with two modest salaries and a new mortgage, DOMA has taken a significant bite out of their income. Knight said even before they bought the house the money they lost every year at tax time represented a significant hardship.

"I think it was more about keeping up to bills month to month, because buying a house, it took us several years to get to that point. But of course we weren't saving money through that time, either," said Knight.

The couple connected with GLAD after the organization sent out an e-mail to its list looking for married couples who had faced discrimination as a result of DOMA. Knight and Nabors wrote to GLAD and told them their story, and eventually they were invited to be part of the suit.

Nabors said despite the money they have lost because of DOMA, their decision to join GLAD's suit was not about money but about the desire to be treated equitably.

"To be fair, it wasn't and isn't all about the tax issue per se. We'd be willing to pay more in taxes if our situation changed and it was necessary to pay more in taxes as long as we knew we were being treated like every other couple," said Nabors.