Financial Planning for the New Realities of Marriage

In describing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling barring bans on same-sex marriage, U.S. president Barack Obama called it “justice that arrives like a thunderbolt.”

Based on their comments to us about the decision’s implications for their profession, financial advisors and estate-planning attorneys agree the decision is a sudden game-changer.

“I don’t think anybody anticipated this,” says Susan Wetzel, a partner in the Dallas office of the law firm Haynes and Boone. Based on her conversations with her employer clients, she believes some employers may seize an opportunity with the ruling to reduce their benefits budgets. They will save money by chopping off benefits.

After all, say experts, some employers and governments — federal, state and local — enacted legal and financial benefits in response to some states’ bans on same-sex marriages. In light of the ruling, some employers may now start asking, “Why are we doing this if everybody can get married?” according to Wetzel.

Ross Gerber of Gerber Kawasaki Wealth & Investment Management in Santa Monica, Calif., says they already are. He’s been getting calls from clients who say their employers plan to strip domestic-partner benefits as a result of the Supreme Court ruling.

From a planning perspective, however, Gerber thinks there’s no universally correct response.

Each client has to weigh the personal, tax, and other general financial benefits of maintaining a domestic partnership versus the cost of losing concomitant benefits. “If you get married, you are going to pay more in taxes — unless one spouse isn’t working,” says Gerber, whose firm manages $375 million. The question to ask clients, he says, is, “Do those increased taxes trump the loss in value of domestic-partner benefits for the spouse?”

Sheryl Rowling of Rowling & Associates, a San Diego-based wealth firm with $260 million under management, says there are other implications for couples in the Supreme Court’s decision. In this view, they stand to lose more than just tax savings if they get married to preserve a partner’s benefits under new policies spawned by the high court’s ruling. “They might be collecting Social Security benefits based on a deceased or divorced spouse,” she says. “They will lose those if they get married.”

But there are “personal reasons beyond economics” that keep some couples from getting officially hitched, no matter what the nation’s highest court permits, says Rowling. “I have clients that don’t want to mess with any kind of commingling of assets.”

But the ruling and its potential consequences give advisors opportunities to help clients reevaluate the marriage question in light of changed employer and government policies, Rowling and Gerber say.

Putting It Mildly

But advisors should undertake such reviews carefully. “You have to look at a lot of things — not just taxes, but also the additional rights and duties of becoming a legally married spouse,” says Rowling. For instance, a married spouse “ends up being responsible for a partner’s debts,” she warns.

Advisors should also anticipate that employers will test waters on proposals to drop domestic-partner benefits, while others may embrace the status quo because they don’t want to risk irking and losing employees, Rowling predicts.

“I think we don’t know what is going to happen entirely in this area,” says Rowling. “Getting married simplifies some things and complicates others.”

By Miriam Rozen

The opinions voiced in this material are for general information only and are not intended to provide specific advice or recommendations for any individual. To determine which course of action may be appropriate for you, consult your financial advisor. No strategy assures success or protects against loss.

Gerber Kawasaki, 2716 Ocean Park Blvd. #2022 Santa Monica, CA 90405. Contact us at (310) 441-9393.

Schedule a call with an advisor, free of charge.
Read more from this issue
  • For Elon Musk, Tesla’s Impresario, the Latest Act Falls Flat
  • Live Sports Remain Ace In The Hole For Cable Companies Against Cord Cutters
  • Should advisers barter their services?
  • How a Smart Comp Plan Can Boost Firm Growth
  • Like Dividend Stocks? Don’t Chase Performance, RIAs Warn
  • How To Get in On The Big Money In Sports
  • What It Really Costs to Attend Coachella
  • Rise Of Social Media Takes Toll On Traditional Advertising
  • Remind clients that inherited stocks aren’t keepsakes
  • Middle class deserves unbiased advice
  • 10 Financial Things Newlyweds Must Do
  • 12 Habits Of High Earners That Anyone Could Emulate
  • Healthy Investing Could Make You Wealthy
  • Jack Dorsey’s Twitter stock buy: PR or true confidence?
  • Despite selloff, stick with tech titans: Strategists
  • Pulling Clients Away from the Panic Button
  • Harsh Reality Of Tech Stocks: Not Everyone Can Be A Unicorn
  • Advisors Who Warned Clients about the Stock Slump
  • New Apple iPad Pro geared toward meeting advisers' business needs
  • Gaming The Investing Angles Of Virtual Reality
  • 7 Times You Need to Talk to a Financial Advisor
  • Winklevoss Twins call on advisers to get on Bitcoin bandwagon but they're not budging
  • Wells Fargo Pushes for Cross-Sales with VIP Program
  • Star Wars: The Investor Force Awakens
  • Fed Proves Irrelevant in $2.6 Trillion Slice of U.S. Debt Market
  • Prepare Your Portfolio For Iraq War Three: The Death Of ISIS
  • Stock Options & Restricted Stock
  • Four Big Tech Trends for 2016
  • Twitter users dislike Twitter exec exodus
  • Oil-Based Economies Collapsing And That's Great For America
  • Why IPO Investors Are Set Up For Failure
  • A New Wave of Advisor Recordkeeping Tools
  • Pride Month: 3 Financial Tips for LGBT Couples
  • Musk’s SolarCity Bid a Rare Time Investors Don’t Buy Vision
  • Yahoo reports lackluster results as sale looms