Domestic Partners Must Have Sex

[OneFinger]

University of Florida employees have to pledge that they're having sex with their domestic partners before qualifying for benefits under a new health care plan at the university.

 

The partners of homosexual and heterosexual employees are eligible for coverage under UF's plan, which will take effect in February. The enrollment process began this month, and some employees have expressed concern about an affidavit that requires a pledge of sexual activity...

 

In addition to declaring joint financial obligations, prospective enrollees must "have been in a non-platonic relationship for the preceding 12 months," according to the affidavit.

 

Marylou Behnke, a UF senator, told Cavanaugh she found the requirement "offensive."

 

As a member of the Senate, representing faculty in UF's College of Medicine, Behnke said she was compelled to learn more about UF's plan. She said she was taken aback to find that employees would be required to swear to prior sexual activity, a standard not applied to married couples covered by UF's primary health care plan.

 

"Are you going to police it?" Behnke asked Cavanaugh...

 

http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060120/LOCAL/201200329/1078/GATORS02

 

Read the entire article at the link above. Very interesting.

 

Although the article does NOT mention this, I believe the value of domestic partner health care coverage is considered taxable income that is reported to the IRS. So, if the value of the insurance costs the employer $7,500 per year, your reportable income is increase by the fair market value of the benefit.

 

Can any of our legal advsers verify if this is true? Also, if it is a self-funded program (very common in large companies), could your income be "adjusted" to include the actual cost of health care? In the event of major surgery or a life-threatening illness, the reported benefit amount could easily be $250K a year!

 

-------------

"We need to have more respect for each other. Things have just gone really crazy, out of control. ... We're on a very weird kind of cycle." Stevie Wonder

[Rick Munroe]

>"Domestic Partners Must Have Sex"

 

I'm going to needlepoint that on a pillow and give it to Derek for Valentine's Day (not that he needs to be reminded...ouch).

[+ deej]

So you're saying you needle him?

 

(Hey, you brought it up!)

 

:+

[OneFinger]

No, Deej, I think Rick was implying that his witty sense of humor was keeping Derek in stiches. :+

 

-------------

"We need to have more respect for each other. Things have just gone really crazy, out of control. ... We're on a very weird kind of cycle." Stevie Wonder

[+ deej]

LOL!

 

I knew there was a joke here, but wasn't sure how to sew it up.

[Rick Munroe]

>No, Deej, I think Rick was implying that his witty sense of

>humor was keeping Derek in stiches.

 

Crochet...I mean, touché. :+

[Guest]

>Although the article does NOT mention this, I believe the

>value of domestic partner health care coverage is considered

>taxable income that is reported to the IRS. So, if the

>value of the insurance costs the employer $7,500 per year,

>your reportable income is increase by the fair market value of

>the benefit.

>

>Can any of our legal advsers verify if this is true? Also, if

>it is a self-funded program (very common in large companies),

>could your income be "adjusted" to include the actual

>cost of health care? In the event of major surgery or a

>life-threatening illness, the reported benefit amount could

>easily be $250K a year!

>

Well, I'm not a legal advisor, but I do have a partner on my company domestic partner plan. I do not pay taxes on the employer-paid portion of his premiums. Of the portion I pay, somewhat less than half is paid with pre-tax dollars, and the greater portion (non-qualified) with post-tax dollars.

[Guest skrubber]

The same thing is happening at Rutgers U in New Jersey.

[Guest LatinoRican]

The University of Puerto Rico also recently approved medical insurance benefits to 'domestic partners' including those of the same sex. I was told (by the Chancellor) that those that wish to benefit must fill out an affidavit as mentioned in the previous post, but I do not know if it must state that they have sex with each other...an interesting point. This seems to be the way of the future. Hmmm...I wonder who I'll put down as my beneficiary... There are sooo many...Yeah, right.

[uwsman2]

A story posted to a higher education blog this morning said that yesterday the University indicated it was rethinking the requirement that domestic partners swear that they have a sexual relationship. There were many complaints that it was both too intrusive and unequal - on the sense that the University does not inquire about the sex lives of married participants in the health plan. A university had defended the requirement by saying they found it in other employers' plans - but a spokesperson for a gay rights group disputed that.

[Barry]

>prospective enrollees must "have been in a non-platonic

>relationship for the preceding 12 months," according to the

>affidavit.

 

I always thought platonic meant without romance or sex. The question is then how do they word it to rule out friends, long time roomates, etc.? How would you define a domestic partner?

 

Barry

[Guest bighugbearphx]

>Although the article does NOT mention this, I believe the

>value of domestic partner health care coverage is considered

>taxable income that is reported to the IRS. So, if the

>value of the insurance costs the employer $7,500 per year,

>your reportable income is increase by the fair market value of

>the benefit.

>

>Can any of our legal advsers verify if this is true? Also, if

>it is a self-funded program (very common in large companies),

>could your income be "adjusted" to include the actual

>cost of health care? In the event of major surgery or a

>life-threatening illness, the reported benefit amount could

>easily be $250K a year!

 

I'm a tax professional with a largely gay clientele, so this is an issue I deal with regularly.

 

The *value* (not necessarily "cost", since group coverage is cheaper than individual policies) of the coverage provided by the employer is considered taxable income to the employee as a non-excludable fringe benefit. (Tax law specifically exempts medical insurance and other benefits provided to the employee, his/her legal spouse and any dependents. Since a domestic partner is generally none of these, the benefit is included in income by default.)

 

However, in the case of medical insurance provided by a third-party insurance policy, a technicality in the law allows exclusion of the value of the insurance coverage from the employee's income, providing that the insured is the employee's dependent FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES. Note those last three words, which makes this different than claiming someone as a dependent on your tax return. For medical purposes, someone can be considered your dependent if they meet four of the five usual criteria for being claimed as a dependent, but fail the "income test" (can't earn more than the personal exemption amount, which was $3,200 for 2005). If unrelated to you, the person must live with you ALL year, and you must be providing MORE than half of the person's total support.

 

Take a typical example: Adam and Steve live together, and both work, earning $60,000 and $30,000 respectively. All expenses are paid out of a joint checking account, to which they both contribute their net pay. Clearly, Adam is providing more than half of their combined living expenses. Adam's employer provides domectic partner medical insurance for Steve. Adam made his employer aware that Steve is his dependent for medical purposes, and, as a result, Adam does NOT have to have the value of that benefit included in his taxable income (The employer also saves, since he pays less in payroll taxes!)

 

This is concept that most major employers (including American Express, Xerox, Well Fargo bank) are aware of, but small employers providing such benefits might not be. Most require some kind of affadavit from the employee certifying that the individual is his medical dependent. The savings can be hundreds to thousands of dollars in tax.

 

The "medical dependent" loophole doesn't apply to self-insured plans. In that case, the value of the coverage (based on industry estimates of what it would cost from a third party insurer) is included in taxable wages. The actual benefits paid out from the plan should not be a factor for tax purposes.

[+ deej]

>I always thought platonic meant without romance or sex.

> The question is then how do they word it to rule out friends,

>long time roomates, etc.? How would you define a domestic

>partner?

 

It's an interesting question.

 

I have a str8 female friend who was in a platonic relationship with a lesbian for seven years. For all intents and purposes they were 100% coupled. They pooled incomes, bought a house together, etc., but there was no intimacy or romance whatsoever. They simply nurtured each other.

 

They wouldn't pass the "medical dependent" test posted by BHBP below because their incomes were roughly equal, but they certainly considered themselves a couple (as did everyone who knew them).

 

There will be much to work out with this same-sex couple business as it becomes more common.

[OneFinger]

Thank you for the clarification. I knew there was someone out there that would know the answer.

 

I wasn't aware of the medical dependent loophole. But, in my particular case, since my employer's health care is self-funded it's wouldn't make a difference.

 

But, I did think of another "problem" with making people admit to sexual relations with their domestic partner. Homosexuality and sodomy are still illegal in many states. Can a University force you to admit to illegal acts? Could that declaration later be used against you?

 

-------------

"We need to have more respect for each other. Things have just gone really crazy, out of control. ... We're on a very weird kind of cycle." Stevie Wonder

[Guest zipperzone]

I read today in Gay.com that the university had recinded that requirement.

 

Nothing like a bunch of academics to get something royally fucked up!

[Luv2play]

For your information, the sodomy laws in Texas were struck down by your Supreme Court several years ago, which I believe invalidated them wherever they were found throughout the union.

 

As for the main topic, this is just another example why "domestic partners" or "civil unions" are not the same as "marriage" and why gays in Canada fought for and won the right to marry so they wouldn't face this kind of bull s**t in their daily lives.

[Guest zipperzone]

>As for the main topic, this is just another example why

>"domestic partners" or "civil unions" are not the same as

>"marriage" and why gays in Canada fought for and won the right

>to marry so they wouldn't face this kind of bull s**t in their

>daily lives.

 

A right our new and glorious Prime Minister is determined to take away from us. May he burn in hell.