The guide—called “Navigating the System: A Know-Your-Rights Guide for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Elders in California”—is designed as a resource to empower and help protect California’s LGBT elders who often are targets of discrimination due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

The 61-page guide, published by the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lavender Seniors of the East Bay, Transgender Law Center, Openhouse, and Planning for Elders in the Central City, offers a wide range of resources for the state’s LGBT elders and equips them with the tools they need to:

• Know California’s anti-discrimination laws
• Find LGBT-friendly housing and service providers
• Effectively address discrimination or mistreatment
• Understand how relationship recognition laws affect benefits
• Navigate the unique challenges that confront transgender elders
• Understand how to protect their families and choices with life-planning documents 
• Identify available benefits, particularly for people with disabilities

Advocates and LGBT elder community members put together this publication because they saw a need for a California-specific and comprehensive resource that they could turn to for help explaining information about laws and services, said NCLR Elder Law Fellow Daniel Redman.

“The result is a publication that all LGBT elders—including those who are among the most marginalized in our aging community—can use to better understand their rights, to assert those rights in a variety of elder care contexts, and to more easily navigate the complex systems that they face everyday,” said Redman, who co-authored the guide. “We have a responsibility to care for aging members of our community, ensuring that they have access to resources and services that will allow them to live with dignity and respect, completely free of discrimination and mistreatment.”

A recent survey found that the majority of LGBT elders feared they would face discrimination if they were open about their identity in long-term care facilities, with more than half believing that staff or other residents would abuse or neglect them.

LGBT people—and elders in particular—are also more likely to struggle financially than their straight peers, with same-sex elder male couples more likely to live in poverty, and same-sex elder female couples twice as likely. In fact, a San Francisco study found that almost 62 percent of gay men and lesbians aged 60 and older earned less than $39,000, including over 42 percent who earned less than $26,000. Transgender elders, in particular—because of ongoing and systemic discrimination—experience poverty at extraordinary rates.

“LGBT older adults face unique challenges as they age due to a legacy of discrimination and marginalization,” said Openhouse Executive Director Seth Kilbourn.  “ ‘Navigating the System’ and the agencies that collaborated to write it provide critical information and resources that empower LGBT seniors and their support networks to manage these challenges.”

“Many seniors and their families are in great need of assistance with navigating the difficult and confusing system of government social services especially during this time of so many budget cuts. Lavender Seniors is pleased that NCLR is addressing this issue with ‘Navigating the System,’ ” said Lavender Seniors of the East Bay Director Dan Ashbrook.

Said Transgender Law Center Executive Director Masen Davis: “This is an extraordinary resource for transgender seniors and their families who often face barriers to accessing quality services and care. This guide will help seniors live with the dignity and respect we all deserve.”

Added Planning for Elders Interim Executive Director James Chionsini: “This LGBT guide is a wonderful development. We work with many LGBT seniors who are looking for something just like this.”

Download “Navigating the System: A Know-Your-Rights Guide for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Elders in California.”

###

The National Center for Lesbian Rights is a national legal organization committed to advancing the human and civil rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender community through litigation, public policy advocacy, and public education. www.NCLRights.orgFor 17 years, Lavender Seniors has been improving the lives of LGBT elders by delivering volunteer driven services, outreach, and advocacy. Programs are designed to foster a sense of belonging for all LGBT elders in particular those who are isolated, copying with chronic conditions, or loss. Education for service providers and government officials is also a regular part of Lavender Seniors’ services.  A critical aspect of this work is ensuring that LGBT elders are well-prepared to lead healthy independent lives by addressing discriminatory policies and procedures among health and human services and government institutions. www.LavenderSeniors.org

Transgender Law Center champions the ideal that everyone should be treated fairly and equally. Unfortunately, people who don’t fit narrow gender stereotypes face discrimination that undermines our common human dignity. By working for and with transgender people and our allies to change laws, policies and attitudes, the Transgender Law Center makes it possible for us all to be who we are and live safe and fulfilling lives. For more information visit www.TransgenderLawCenter.org

Openhouse enables San Francisco Bay Area LGBT seniors to overcome the unique challenges they face as they age by providing housing, direct services and community programs.  www.Openhouse-sf.org 

Planning for Elders in the Central City works to improve the quality of life of seniors, adults with disabilities, and their caregivers in San Francisco and beyond. Planning for Elders, a community non-profit founded in 1991, works to fulfill its mission through advocacy, organizing, education and training for San Francisco’s seniors, persons with disabilities, and their caregivers. www.PlanningforElders.org

**To download a pdf copy of the publication, please click here: LGBT_ElderLawPublication(Final).

Two prominent voices in the LGBT rights movement — Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese and Freedom to Marry President Evan Wolfson — will be among the witnesses who’ll testify at an upcoming Senate hearing on repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act.

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, which will be the first congressional hearing against DOMA, will take place on Wednesday. The hearing is set to begin at 10 am in Room 226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The hearing is intended to highlight the Respect for Marriage Act, which would repeal DOMA. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the committee, is a co-sponsor of the legislation. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who’s also on the committee, is lead sponsor.

According to a notice from the committee, Solmonese and Wolfson will testify in addition to individuals who are in or were in same-sex marriages. These unions have been affected by DOMA, which prohibits federal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Republican witnesses are also expected testify at the hearing, but they have yet to be named. Presumably, these witnesses would speak out against DOMA repeal.

The named witnesses who were in or are in same-sex marriages are:

* Susan Murray, who lives in Ferrisburgh, Vt., with her spouse, Karen Murray. An attorney with the Burlington office of Langrock, Sperry & Wool, Murray was the co-counsel in the lawsuit Baker v. Vermont, which established civil unions in Vermont in 2000.

* Andrew Sorbo, a Cheshire, Conn., resident who was married to Colin Atterbury. Before dying of pancreatic cancer in 2009, Atterbury was a retired Veterans Affairs hospital administrator and professor of medicine at Yale University. Sorbo, now retired, worked for 35 years as a history teacher and principal.

* Ron Wallen, an Indio, Calif. resident, who married Tom Carrollo in 2008 after being together for 55 years. In March, Carrollo lost his battle to cancer. After Carrollo’s death, Wallen’s income was compromised because DOMA prohibits him from receiving his spouse’s Social Security payment. Wallen would have been able to receive these payments had he been in an opposite-sex marriage. According to the hearing notice, Wallen is unable to make payments on his family home and is faced with selling the residence, after just losing his spouse.

UPDATE: Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and original co-sponsor of DOMA repeal legislation, is set to chair the second panel at the hearing in which Solmonese and Wolfson are expected to testify.

“The Defense of Marriage Act is a discriminatory law that deserves to be repealed,” Coons said in a statement. “This hearing is important. It will study the impact DOMA has had on American families and I’m humbled that Chairman Leahy asked me to play such a substantial role in it. I look forward to exploring DOMA’s effects with our invited witnesses and helping to move the Respect for Marriage Act forward.”

To access this article online, click here.

By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Contra Costa Times
© Copyright 2011, Bay Area News Group

In what would be a nationwide first, California may draw its new political districts with an eye toward protecting the voting power of “gayborhoods.”

Same-sex couples can get married in five states and the District of Columbia—and in New York starting July 25. But the happily-ever-after part doesn’t necessarily extend to their personal finances.

Such couples still can’t file a joint federal tax return, share retirement benefits, shield each other’s assets from estate taxes or benefit from many other tax breaks provided through federal law.

As a result, same-sex couples who marry have to stay on guard, doing even more financial and legal planning, in some cases, than those who don’t choose to tie the knot.

“Same-sex couples who get married in New York will find they have some, but not all, of the benefits and burdens of being married,” says John Olivieri, a partner in White & Case’s private-client group in New York.

As of 2008, there were an estimated 565,000 same-sex couples across the U.S., including about 32,000 who were married and 80,000 registered as reciprocal beneficiaries or domestic partners or united in civil unions, according to U.S. Census Bureau data analysis by the Charles R. Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law at the University of California at Los Angeles. New York had 45,761 same-sex couples at that point. (The 2010 Census data with same-sex-couple figures are still being released state-by-state.)

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont and Washington, D.C., now issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. California did so for part of 2008, and those marriages remain valid. Four states allow civil unions among same-sex couples, and seven, plus the District of Columbia, grant some state-level spousal rights through domestic partnerships.

The problem: Under the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton, the federal government doesn’t recognize same-sex marriage—even if it is blessed by a state government. So it’s important to weigh what same-sex families stand to gain—or not—by getting married.

State Rights

As long as the couple continues to live in a state that recognizes their same-sex marriage, many state-based rights extend to them, often including rights surrounding hospital visitation and emergency medical treatment, inheritance, workers’ compensation benefits if a spouse dies at work, health insurance and pension benefits for spouses of public employees, and divorce—including alimony. (One note: Lawyers still recommend that same-sex couples have health-care powers of attorney naming their partners, in case they travel somewhere that doesn’t recognize their union.)

The downside is that you also assume liability for your spouse’s debt—and have the obligation to support your spouse during marriage or divorce. Also, if you have inherited a large asset yourself, you may have to share it now—unless you enter a prenuptial agreement spelling out what remains with each partner in the case of a split.

Tax Headaches

Anything involving federal taxes for same-sex couples can turn into a quagmire quickly.

Since they still have to file their federal income-tax returns as individuals, many same-sex couples wind up filling out tax forms no fewer than four times: Separately with the federal government, then a “dummy” joint federal return, and finally a married-filing-jointly state return based on the pretend federal one, says Nicole Pearl, an estate-planning partner at McDermott Will & Emery in Los Angeles.

Filing separate state and federal tax returns can get complicated fast. California, Nevada and Washington, for example, allow same-sex couples to register as domestic partners and are also so-called “community property” states, which generally treat income and property acquired during marriage as belonging equally to both partners, no matter who earned it. Since same-sex domestic partners can’t file joint federal tax returns, each is required to report half of the combined community income earned by the individual and his or her partner on the individual’s single federal return.

Simply writing half of your income on a single return could trigger an audit, says Melissa Labant, a tax expert with the American Institute of CPAs. Say the couple earns $10,000 in interest income, reported on a 1099 form. That means each individual would have to report $5,000. However, “if the $10,000 on the 1099 doesn’t match up with the amount on the tax return, it will kick out an examination letter,” she warns.

To avoid the problem, you could report $10,000 in income, she says, “then on the next line down, you’d note the amount reported on the partner’s tax return. The bottom line would say $5,000.”

Death and Inheritance

The biggest problems may not come until death do you part. Although same-sex spouses are legally entitled to inherit assets from each other whether there’s a will or not, since inheritance is governed through state law, they don’t have federal rights.

Same-sex spouses can’t inherit retirement plans as easily as opposite-sex spouses, because they are regulated federally. Husbands and wives can have defined-contribution-plan assets, such as a 401(k) account, transferred into individual retirement accounts in their own names. But unlike opposite-sex spouses, same-sex spouses would have to transfer such accounts to inherited IRAs and start taking distributions each year, rather than allowing the tax-deferred assets to continue to potentially accumulate tax-free earnings.

Another difference: Opposite-sex spouses can leave each other unlimited assets without owing any estate tax. The break is called the “marital deduction,” and it drives much of estate planning. Since the federal government doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages, such assets could be taxed when they go to the surviving spouse—even if they were held in joint accounts, Ms. Pearl says. And if those assets remained upon the second spouse’s death, they could be taxed again.

Assets aren’t subject to estate tax until they exceed $5 million—but that limit reverts to $1 million in 2013. To prevent having the same assets taxed after each spouse dies, she recommends leaving assets in an irrevocable trust for the surviving spouse’s benefit. “You would owe estate tax at the first death on the amount that goes into the trust, but not at the second death,” she says.

There is one way to take advantage of the federal government’s lack of recognition of same-sex marriage: Such couples can set up a “grantor-retained income trust,” a type of trust that family members aren’t allowed to create for one another. You put an asset into a trust and retain the right to income from it. You have to pay gift tax on that asset, but the Internal Revenue Service would subtract a standard rate of return from the asset’s value, and you would owe tax on that discounted amount—whether the asset produces income or not, says Mr. Olivieri, in New York.

“I have recommended to a number of same-sex couples that they do this,” he says.

To access the article, click here.

Write to Kelly Greene at familyvalue@wsj.com

Click here to view resources offered by Horizons Foundation.

To See Pub. 555, click here.

Join NCLRights.org, Out for Justice blog, Facebook, and Twitter for more of their updates throughout the day.

The Internal Revenue Service, not exactly known as a bastion of compassion, had these words for gay and lesbian couples this week: we’re sorry.

The public apology was in response to inquiries from The Bay Citizen about problems faced by same-sex couples, most in California, who are filing returns in compliance with new rules that recognized their relationships for the first time.

The change to the tax code, put into effect for 2010, was supposed to be a step toward equal treatment by the I.R.S.

Instead, couples have faced a litany of conflicts. The latest involves at least 300 taxpayers who have had their returns rejected with terse letters signed by an enigmatic I.R.S. employee named J. Bell from Fresno.

“Your return includes income or tax liability for more than one taxpayer, other than husband and wife,” the letters read. Note: husband and wife. Not two husbands, or two wives.

Couples who received the letters had to produce additional paperwork and faced delays in receiving refunds; most were forced to hire tax professionals.

In a statement this week, the I.R.S. said that the letters had been “incorrectly sent” because of a processing error and that it “apologizes for this mistake and sincerely regrets any inconvenience to taxpayers.”

The agency explained that J. Bell was a manager whose stamped signature was “system-generated.”

Toni Broaddus and Janice Wells of Richmond, who wed while same-sex marriage was legal in California in 2008, received a J. Bell letter in April.

“We were upset and we were angry when we got the letter,” Ms. Broaddus said. “I felt like we were being harassed by someone in the government who works for the I.R.S.” The couple’s case remains unresolved.

How the errant letters started is unclear. Tax experts who brought the letters to the attention of the I.R.S. weeks ago had wondered if anti-gay I.R.S. employees were acting out of malice.

“It’s either intentional or ignorance,” said Pan Haskins, an Oakland tax consultant who had been tracking the letters.

J. Bell is just the latest headache for same-sex couples — 60,000 in California — trying to comply with a tax system that has become increasingly complicated because of inconsistencies between state and federal laws regarding their relationships.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act effectively bans federal recognition of gay couples, yet more than a third of states recognize some form of legal partnerships.

To deal with one of these conflicts, the I.R.S. said last year that same-sex couples in states with community property laws (California, Nevada and Washington) should combine and then split their incomes for their federal returns. The motivation behind the change was fairness: heterosexual married couples can combine incomes, which can lower tax brackets and overall taxes paid if one spouse earns more.

But the change has had mixed results.

Interviews with more than a dozen Bay Area tax preparers and same-sex couples have revealed that the new rule has proved to be cumbersome and expensive. It is too complex for do-it-yourself tax filing computer software, and many couples were forced to hire tax professionals.

That help came at a hefty price: accounting fees ranged from double past rates to as high as $4,000 for some returns.

The returns have been so problematic that some tax preparers are specializing in them. Jeff Johnston, a tax accountant with expertise in same-sex returns, took out an advertisement in The Bay Area Reporter, a newspaper that covers the gay community.

“It takes 5 or 10 times as long to do some of these returns,” Mr. Johnston said.

It is not known how many couples have complied with the new rule, although experts say a significant number did not because of the expense and hassle.

Still, for some affluent couples with disparate incomes, the extra paperwork has paid off.

Shannon Schwartz, a stay-at-home father in Mountain View, and his husband, Calvin Kuan, a physician, have saved tens of thousands of dollars by applying the new rule to returns dating to 2007, which is legal, although after 10 months of working with the I.R.S., their case is still not completely resolved. “We’re thrilled about the money,” Mr. Schwartz said, “but the complexity of it seems unnecessary.”

And that was before J. Bell tolled.

“The rules were a mess anyway,” Ms. Broaddus said, “but then you do everything you can and you get this letter. It was a reminder that we’re second-class citizens.”

To access the article online, click here.