\-\-\-\--Original Message\-\-\-\--

From: Joe Seagle
\[[[mailto:jseagle1@cfl.rr.com]{.underline}](mailto:jseagle1@cfl.rr.com)\]

Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 10:48 PM

To: comments

Cc: field@hrc.org

Subject: Adverse Tax Situations

Our letter to the Panel is attached in Word format.

Joseph E. Seagle

Attorney at Law

Office: 501 E South St Ste B, Orlando, FL 32801

Home: 7983 Canyon Lake Cir, Orlando, FL 32835

O\) 407.770.0100

F\) 407.770.0200

Direct fax) 407.386.6495

H\) 407.578.4492

M\) 407.595.8301

Office: joe@seaglelaw.com
\<[[mailto:joe@seaglelaw.com]{.underline}](mailto:joe@seaglelaw.com)\>

Home: jseagle1@cfl.rr.com
\<[[mailto:jseagle1@cfl.rr.com]{.underline}](mailto:jseagle1@cfl.rr.com)\>

***Philip W. Richardson & Joseph E. Seagle***

7983 Canyon Lake Circle

Orlando, Florida 32835-5383

prichardson1@cfl.rr.com \| jseagle1@cfl.rr.com

407.578.4492 *voice* \| *telefacsimile* 407.770.0200

November 14, 2023

The President\'s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform\
1440 New York Avenue NW\
Suite 2100\
Washington, DC 20220

Via Electronic Mail Only to <comments@taxreformpanel.gov>

Dear Sirs:

We write to you today to inform the Panel regarding unfair and adverse
tax situations that we have encountered as a gay couple.

For several years, Joe was insured under Philip's health insurance at
work as a domestic partner under Philip's company's health insurance
plan. While Philip's employer-paid premiums were not taxed, those that
Philip's employer paid for Joe's insurance were taxed as income to
Philip. Married couples are not subjected to such taxation on benefits
an employer pays for spousal or dependent health insurance coverage. The
tax code should be amended to allow employers to pay for insurance
premiums for spouses, dependents, and domestic partners without
penalizing the employee with taxable income treatment for such benefits.

Last year, Philip's company started offering Flexible Spending Accounts
for employees as a benefit. Philip does not have regular prescription
drugs or healthcare needs that would utilize such a plan. However, Joe
takes a regimen of prescriptions and has a regular appointment with his
primary care physician and specialists throughout the year. So such a
flexible spending plan would benefit Joe tremendously. However, under
the current tax Code, Joe is not eligible to participate in the plan,
because he is not defined as a "spouse" or a "dependent." The code
should be amended to allow unmarried domestic partners of covered
employees to participate in flexible spending accounts without penalty.

Further, regarding Flexible Spending Accounts, the code should be
amended to allow higher amounts to be placed into the accounts, and the
employee should be allowed a refund of any unused amounts in the account
at the end of the plan year. Of course, such refunds should then be
taxed at the employee's regular rate. But it is grossly unfair to
penalize an employee for not using all of their wages that they have set
aside for healthcare needs. Further, such threat of forfeiture of an
overage in the account is why Philip no longer participate in the
Flexible Spending Account plan at his company.

Joe owns his own business, and Philip sometimes puts money into the
business with no expectation of being paid back. Further, Joe and Philip
share household expenses, including major improvements and repairs to
the home. Joe often will buy things for their home on his credit cards,
and then Philip will pay the credit card bills directly, or Joe will
transfer funds from Philip's accounts to his own to cover the expenses.
They buy thousands of dollars worth of food and groceries each year for
each other. Under the letter of the tax code, Philip often -- in this
manner -- makes "gifts" to Joe in excess of \$11,000.00 per year, and
vice versa. This then technically requires Joe and Philip to file a gift
tax return to report the gifts. This leads to costly accountants' fees
and time-consuming record-keeping to track and report the "gifts." If
Joe and Philip were spouses, they could give each other and unlimited
amount of "gifts" each year and avoid the waste of time and expense. The
tax code should be amended to allow gifts between non-spouses of up to
\$100,000.00 each year tax-free, or it should be amended to apply the
same gift-tax limits and reporting rules to spouses as to non-spouses.

Philip has a large retirement account. When he retires, Joe will have to
pay higher taxes on the payments from the account than if he were
Philip's legal spouse. The tax code should be amended to apply the tax
rates fairly to non-spousal beneficiaries of retirement accounts, as
they are applied to spousal beneficiaries.

Joe and Philip must file separate tax returns each year, and are subject
to high tax rates in each of their respective brackets. If they were
allowed to file jointly, they would save money on accountants fees, and
would be subject to the filing-jointly tax brackets which are often more
favorable than the rates charged to unmarried couples. The tax code
should be amended to recognize legitimate unmarried domestic
partnerships, and allow filing jointly, or it should be amended to
abolish joint filing completely as an option. At that point, every tax
payer would be required to file hi s or her own tax return each year.

There are many other instances where the unfairness of the tax code as
it relates to unmarried couples has adversely affected us. However, the
instances listed above are the most memorable. We hope that you will
listen to our problems and consider our remedies. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to call or write. Until then, we
remain,

> Cordially Yours,
>
> /s/
>
> Joseph E. Seagle & Philip W. Richardson
>
> Attorneys at Law