Archive Version of Partners Task Force for Gay and Lesbian Couples Founded 1986. Online 1995-2022 Go here for a brief article on Partners History. Demian, Sweet Corn Productions, demian@buddybuddy.com |
Domestic Partner Statistics,
Data from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force |
Special Issues
Insurance Coverage —————Even after employers decide to offer full DP benefits, they are often faced with additional obstacles when administering the benefits. Soft benefits are easily extended to domestic partners since the regulation of sick leave and the use of employer facilities fall completely under the purview of the employer. Hard benefits, however, require employers to closely examine their benefits administration as well as the process whereby it can be changed. Larger companies with self-funded insurance plans can fairly easily add recipients however they choose. Employers that are not self-funded generally contract their policies through insurance providers and must negotiate the specific addition of DP coverage with the insurance company. This listing presents those insurance companies which have, in some instances in certain regions of the country, included domestic partners in their policies. Even if not listed, your insurance provider may be willing to include domestic partners in their coverage if persuaded or asked to do so:
AETNA In certain regions of the country, state regulations limit the extent or circumstances under which employers can provide DP cove rage. These regulations generally apply to certain types of cove rage (i.e., small group coverage, for under 50 people) or types of policy (i.e., HMOs may be excluded). These regulations are most stringent in Georgia and Virginia, where the state has prohibited any insurance provider within the regions from covering domestic partners. Virginia employers have the option of contracting with out-of-state providers; Georgia employers do not. Information on insurance regulations in these states and others can be obtained by contacting the state insurance commission. Rarely are these regulations written in stone, however. They are subject to change through reinterpretations of existing code language to allow for the inclusion of domestic partners (rather than implying their exclusion). This is yet another realm in which citizen activism can bring about change. In situations where the insurance provider does not cover DP benefits, employers may provide employees with funds to cover the cost of individual insurance policies for domestic partners and their children. In still other, less desirable situations, companies allow partners to join a group plan but ask the employee to make the co-payment.
A significant tax burden exists on employees who participate in DP benefits plans. For the most part, health care and other benefits extended to the spouse and/or children of an employee are exempt from taxes. However, the same contributions made to any other individual — including registered domestic partners and dependents of domestic partners — are not exempt from taxes, unless those receiving benefits meet the definition of “dependent” under the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). IRC Section 152 defines a “dependent” as one who:
All benefits extended to a tax payer’s non-dependent, non-spousal family members are, therefore, taxable. While the policy regarding the taxability of domestic partnership benefits is not explicitly stated in the IRC, several private letter rulings from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have affirmed this interpretation of the code (see PLR 971708, PLR 9603011, PLR 9431017, PLR 9231062, PLR 9109060, PLR 9034048). In order to compute the income attributable to domestic partner coverage, the organization Hollywood Supports suggests the following formula (in a two-tier benefits structure): I = F - S - C
where:I = imputed income to employee with respect to nondependent(s) coverage. F = applicable COBRA rate (less 2 percent administrative fee) or premium or premium equivalent for family coverage S = applicable COBRA rate (less 2 percent administrative fee) or premium or premium equivalent for single coverage C = additional after-tax contribution to cover nondependent(s) This formula suggests that the standard cost for single coverage be subtracted from the cost for domestic partner-inclusive family coverage. The employer contribution for single coverage should also be subtracted, resulting in a final total of imputed income. This formula could easily be modified for a three (or more) tier structure, although specific types of benefits policies, such as cafeteria plans or pension plans, may have altogether different tax ramifications. Employees should contact a tax professional to fully understand the financial implications of electing DP cove rage. In extending DP benefits, employers may wish to create an informational sheet that explains how DP benefits taxation will apply to the company’s specific benefits option(s). Because of these tax laws, DP benefits are still unequal to spousal benefits since they cost the employee more. Here too, though, the employer can advance the cause of fairness by “grossing up” the benefits compensation to cover the amount taxed. While this option makes DP benefits more costly, it also makes the benefits more accessible to employees.
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force is not authorized to issue tax or legal advice. This summary of information is intended as an informational primer only. Please consult an accountant and/or attorney for additional information.
National LGBTQ Task Force (was National Gay and Lesbian Task Force) 1325 Massachusetts Ave. NW, #600, Washington, DC 20005 202-393-5177 | fax 202-393-2241 | thetaskforce@thetaskforce.org |
Key Court Cases Affecting the Rights of Domestic Partners Complied by Thomas F. Coleman, Executive Director, Spectrum Institute. The following is a summary of some of the leading appellate decisions affecting the rights of domestic partners. Some involve same-sex couples while the litigants in others involved unmarried opposite-sex relationships. The list is not intended to be comprehensive as it does not include, for example, decisions of state courts invalidating sodomy laws or state cases involving child custody, visitation, or adoption.
United States Supreme Court
Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) United States Court of Appeal
Markman v. Colonial Mortgage Co. (D.C. Cir. 1979)
Rovira v. AT&T, 817 F.Supp. 1062 (S.D. N.Y. 1993)
Alaska Supreme Court
Swanner v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commission, 874 P.2d 274 (Alaska 1994)
University of Alaska v. Tumeo, 933 P.2d 1147 (Alaska 1997) California Supreme Court
City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, 610 P.2d 436 (Cal. 1980)
Marvin v. Marvin, 557 P.2d 106 (Cal. 1976)
Elden v. Sheldon, 758 P.2d 582 (Cal. 1988)
Smith v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission, 913 P.2d 909 (Cal. 1996) California Court of Appeal
Hinman v. Department of Personnel Administration, 213 Cal.Rptr. 410 (1985)
Dept. of Industrial Rel. v. Worker’s Comp. Bd., 156 Cal.Rptr. 183 (Cal. App. 1979) Colorado Court of Appeal
Ross v. Denver Dept. of Health, 883 P.2d 516 (Co. App. 1994) Georgia Supreme Court
City of Atlanta v. McKinney, 454 S.E.2d 517 (Ga. 1995)
Morgan v. City of Atlanta, __ S.E.2d __, 1997 WL 677314 (Ga. 1997) Illinois Supreme Court
Hewitt v. Hewitt, 394 N.E.2d 1204 (Ill. 1979) Louisiana Supreme Court
Henderson v. Travelers Ins. Co., 354 So.2d 1031 (La. 1978) Massachusetts Supreme Court
Reep v. Commissioner, 593 N.E.2d 1297 (Mass. 1992) Minnesota Supreme Court
State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2 (Minn. 1990) Minnesota Court of Appeal
Lilly v. City of Minneapolis, 527 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 1995) New Jersey Supreme Court
Dunphy v. Gregor, 642 A.2d 372 (N.J. 1994) New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
Rutgers Council of AAUP v. Rutgers University, 689 A.2d 828 (N.J. Super.A.D. 1997) New York Court of Appeals
Braschi v. Stahl Associates, 543 N.E.2d 49 (N.Y. 1989)
Baer v. Town of Brookhaven, 537 N.E.2d 619 (N.Y. 1989)
Morone v. Morone, 413 N.E.2d 1154 (N.Y. 1980) New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Gay Teachers Assn. v. Board of Education, 585 N.Y.S.2d 1016 (N.Y. Supr. Ct. 1992) Ohio Court of Appeals
State v. Hadinger, 573 N.E. 2d 1191 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991) Oregon Court of Appeals
Tanner v. Oregon Health Sciences University, __ P.2d __, 1998 WL 869976 (Or. Ct.
App. Dec. 9, 1998) Virginia Supreme Court
Cord v. Gibb, 254 S.E.2d 71 (Va. 1979) Wisconsin Supreme Court
County of Dane v. Norman, 497 N.W.2d 714 (Wisc. 1993) Wisconsin Court of Appeal
Phillips v. Wisconsin Personnel Commission, 482 N.W.2d 121 (Wisc. App. 1992) |
© 2024, Demian None of the pages on this Web site may be reproduced by any form of reproduction without permission from Partners, with the exception of copies for personal, student, and non-commercial use. Please do not copy this article to any Web site. Links to this page are welcome. |