Login | April 19, 2024
Tax commissioner did not discriminate against heterosexual couples
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: November 17, 2016
A Lake County husband and wife couple has lost a court battle alleging heterosexual Ohio couples are treated unfairly at tax time.
Glenn and Jodie Cahill filed a class action suit in February 2015 in Lake County Common Pleas Court against Ohio Tax Commissioner Joseph W. Testa claiming violation of the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and U.S. constitutions.
The Cahills argued R.C. 5747.08(E) unfairly discriminated against heterosexual couples by requiring them to file joint state income tax returns for tax year 2013 if they filed joint federal returns, while failing to impose the same burdens on homosexual couples.
The plaintiffs claim the discrimination led to them having to pay an additional $313 in state income taxes for that tax year.
On appeal, the Cahills alleged the trial court erred in granting Testa’s March 2015 motion to dismiss.
In a split decision, the 11th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed the trial court’s decision.
The tax commissioner argued that the couple’s attempt to seek a refund for their alleged tax overpayment must be resolved through special proceedings reserved for complex tax issues, and that they filed the case in the wrong venue.
Writing for the appellate court, 11th District Judge Diane V. Grendell agreed.
“At the time of this ruling, Ohio did not recognize same-sex marriages and therefore did not and could not require same-sex couples to file their state taxes jointly,” Judge Grendell stated. “The statute therefore applied to all couples recognized as married in Ohio and did not discriminate against heterosexual married couples.”
The appellate court found the plaintiffs’ actual issue was not with R.C.5747.08(E) on its face, but how it applied to them regarding Revenue Ruling 2013-17.
“The claim that, under Ohio law for the tax year 2013, there were `identically situated same-sex couples … not subject to this mandate’ is patently false,” Judge Grendell wrote. “… In brief, there was no such thing as a `same-sex couple’ in Ohio law, much less same-sex couples identically situated to the Cahills.
“... The disparate legal standing of husband-and-wife couples and same-sex couples under Ohio law in 2013 was rationally related to the government policy that the filing status of `married filing jointly’ only be applied to married couples. Same-sex couples may have been able to file joint federal returns, but they were not recognized as married. Thus, there was a reasonable justification for the classification or disparate treatment.”
Appellate Judge Cynthia Westcott Rice concurred, while 11th District Judge Colleen Mary O’Toole dissented.
Judge O’Toole said the couple was not required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing the complaint. In addition, jurisdiction was proper in the Lake County trial court because the plaintiffs filed and paid their state Ohio taxes, she wrote in her dissenting opinion.
“… As recognized and administered, Revenue Ruling 2013-17 created the disparate treatment raised and argued by appellants, a heterosexual married couple. Furthermore, it violated the intent of R.C. 5747.08(E) regarding the underlying filing status between federal and state returns,” Judge O’Toole stated.
“… The issue here is not whether all persons who were recognized as married under Ohio law were treated equally. Rather, the issue is whether all taxpayers who file joint federal tax returns were treated equally.”
The case is cited Cahill v. Ohio Tax Commr., 2016-Ohio-7648.