Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site wxlvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxb!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!dcdwest!ittvax!wxlvax!slack From: slack@wxlvax.UUCP (Tom Slack) Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.singles,net.women Subject: Re: Marriage penalty Message-ID: <403@wxlvax.UUCP> Date: Wed, 20-Feb-85 14:07:44 EST Article-I.D.: wxlvax.403 Posted: Wed Feb 20 14:07:44 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 26-Feb-85 20:20:51 EST References: <285@calmasd.UUCP> <399@wxlvax.UUCP> <501@homxb.UUCP> <1405@dciem.UUCP> <419@lsuc.UUCP> Organization: ITT-ATC SRD, Shelton Ct. Lines: 24 Xref: watmath net.taxes:719 net.singles:5953 net.women:4530 > "Common-law" marriage (there's no such thing, it's just a media > term used for living together) does not entitle either half > of the couple to claim the other. You have to be married to > claim the unused portion of the spouse's basic deduction. > It may be true that if you have no marriage certificate then you cannot claim a deduction for your spouse, however "common-law" marriages have existed long before our income tax amendment. This is evident in case of abandonment. A person can claim a common-law marriage and get benefits (if she can find him). Also, I have heard it is simpler (in some states) to file for a license stating that you are already married after some time living together than it is to ask for a marriage license to get married if you are not. I am not advocating this, by the way. It seems fraught with legal tangles. All I am saying is that the legal definition does exist, and has existed for a long time. Media has little to do with it. Tom Slack By the way, in some states the bigamy laws also acknowledge common law marriages.