Search form

New California Law Excludes Certain Health Care Reimbursements from Employees' State Taxable Income

By Mark S. Askanas
  • October 15, 2013

California has adopted a new law excluding from gross income, for state personal income tax purposes, any amount received by an employee from an employer to compensate for additional federal income taxes incurred by the employee from employer-provided health benefits because of the federal government’s failure to recognize same-sex spouses or domestic partners as the employee’s spouse for federal income tax purposes. This exclusion also includes any “grossed-up” amounts the employer provided to offset any taxes incurred by the employee on such reimbursement. The new law covers same-sex couples who are married or registered domestic partners whose employers reimburse them for federal taxes the couples pay on health care benefits for their partner and dependents. The exclusion applies to tax years 2013 to 2018.

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 26, 2013, opinion in United States v. Windsor, which invalidated the provision of the federal law that confined marriage to a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that same-sex couples who are legally married in jurisdictions that recognize their marriages will be treated as married for all federal tax purposes, regardless of whether the couple currently lives in a jurisdiction that recognizes same-sex marriage or not. (For details on Windsor, please see U.S. Supreme Court Rulings on DOMA and California’s Proposition 8 Affect Employee Benefit Plans and Plan Sponsors. For details on the IRS ruling, please see IRS Rules All Legal Same-Sex Marriages Will Be Recognized for Federal Tax Purposes.) The IRS ruling does not apply to registered domestic partners.

For more information on this or other workplace developments, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work. 

IRS Circular 230 disclosure: Any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments or enclosures) was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication. (The foregoing disclaimer has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury regulations governing tax practitioners.)


©2013 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

September 29, 2015

Employee Benefits for Employers - Fall 2015

September 29, 2015

Welcome to our inaugural issue of the Employee Benefits for Employers newsletter! Using our considerable experience in the this area, we have prepared a comprehensive piece on timely issues that we hope you will find useful. We hope you enjoy it and welcome your feedback. In this issue: Arbitration of ERISA Claims:... Read More

August 21, 2015

Final Regulations on Contraceptive Coverage under Affordable Care Act – the Religious Exemption

August 21, 2015

The Departments of Treasury, Labor and Health and Human Services have released Final Regulations providing much-needed guidance with respect to defining a “closely-held corporation.” The Final Regulations, released on July 14, 2015, also provide guidelines for establishing a religious objection for purposes of qualifying for... Read More

June 26, 2015

U.S. Supreme Court Lifts Bans on Same-Sex Marriages, Requires Recognition of Valid Same-Sex Marriages

June 26, 2015

Effectively legalizing gay marriage throughout the United States, a divided U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states must issue a license for a marriage between two people of the same-sex and that state prohibitions against same-sex marriages violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of same-sex couples.Obergefell v. Hodges, No. 14-556 (... Read More

Related Practices