Commentary
2011 may be a very taxing year for same-sex couples, regardless of marital status
Onerous federal estate tax set to return
Congratulations, you assembled your friends and family and got married in Washington DC. Now it is recognized in both DC and Maryland. It’s the moment of a lifetime and a moment you’ve been waiting for.
Well, guess what? The IRS doesn’t care! That’s right, to the IRS, you are still strangers according the law. If your estate and retirement plans include leaving your partner your estate, next year may well prove to be a expensive year to die regardless of marital status!
Thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act, even though same-sex couples can now get married in Washington DC and have it recognized in the state of Maryland, the IRS still does not recognize the validity of that marriage. As a result, unlike heterosexual married couples who can pass an unlimited amount of assets between spouses at death, same-sex couples can be hit with the Federal estate tax, regardless of marriage status. Understanding how the Federal estate tax rules work and following a couple of action items could significantly reduce or entirely eliminate this tax.
The Federal estate tax is due when a person leaves assets above a certain dollar amount to someone other than a heterosexual married spouse. Straight married couples get a free pass called the unlimited martial deduction. In 2010 only, there is an unlimited exemption. But, you may owe capital gains tax on any appreciation. Each estate can exempt $1.3 million of gains from the carryover basis rule. Another $3 million exemption applies to assets inherited from a spouse.
In 2011, however, unless Congress acts, Federal estate tax rules change. As a result, same-sex couples could witness a significant tax bite if a partner dies next year. Straight married couples won’t have this problem since the IRS continues to give them a free pass with the unlimited martial deduction.
Next year, at the death of a partner, the value of any estate above $1 million will be taxed at 55%.
Think you don’t have a $1 million, well think again!
How the IRS calculates your gross estate for Federal estate tax purposes probably includes some items you likely wouldn’t count. It also means that many more gay and lesbian couples will feel this tax bite, if you don’t plan properly. The largest impact will likely be felt by older gay and lesbian couples, who are nearing retirement and have built up retirement assets over the course of their life. This becomes an issue as they rely on their partner’s asset to maintain financial independence.
How the IRS calculates the Federal Estate Tax:
To determine whether an estate is hit by the Federal estate tax, it is important to understand how the IRS calculates the Federal Estate Tax. For the purposes of the estate tax calculation, the IRS includes almost everything. Yep, add up all the assets, including personal assets, cars, collections, art, etc. The biggest ticket items usually include the following:
• savings and checking accounts, CDs;
• brokerage or investment accounts;
• retirements accounts like IRAs, Roth IRAs, 401(k)s, 403(b)s or TSP plan assets;
• personal property such as boats, paintings, collections, etc.;
• real estate titled in the decedent’s own name or the percentage portion that is titled • as tenants in common;
• the gross value of life insurance proceeds in the decedent’s own name;
• property that is titled as joint tenants with rights of survivorship (which allows the property to pass automatically to a partner at death, the way many gay and lesbian couples have their homes titled).
The last two bullets are important and frequently overlooked. Most people know that life insurance passes INCOME tax free, but if it is owned by the person who dies, the IRS includes the entire amount of the life insurance proceeds in the total amount of the ESTATE tax calculation. As a result, if you own a $500,000 life insurance policy in your name and have your partner as the beneficiary, your estate increases by $500,000
The IRS also includes the gross value, less any mortgages on property titled as Joint Tenants with Rights of Survivorship (JWROS) in the estate of the first person to die UNLESS payments or contributions can be proven.
Let’s take a look at a hypothetical example: Mark age 55 and Max age 60 are looking to retire in 5 years. They own a $550,000 home with a $50,000 mortgage titled as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. Max has been paying the mortgage, while Mark has been paying all the living expenses. Max also owns two life insurance policies: one from work which is worth $250,000 and a personal policy worth also $250,000. His 401(k) has taken a hit with the market but is still valued at $425,000 and he has a rollover IRA with $25,000. He also has a brokerage account worth $25,000 and a $25,000 CD.
While drinking a martini in Rehoboth, Max accidently chokes on an olive and dies. Unless Congress acts, here’s how the IRS will calculate the estate in 2010 versus 2011.
Note that because Max made all the contributions, the IRS adds the home to his estate, even though it is titled jointly. Mark could not show that he contributed to the mortgage payments. He was paying for the utilities, car payments, etc.
In 2011, Mark has to pay $275,000 in Federal estate taxes. Again, straight married couples pay zilch, zero, nada! Mark still walks away with a cool $1,225,000, right?
Well, not exactly. Because Mark will continue to live in the home that part of the estate is not liquid or immediately accessible. If the value of the house is removed, the actual cash amount that he receives from the estate is reduced to $725,000 or ($1,500,000 less $500,000 (the value of the home) less $275,000 (the estate taxes)).
Mark, like any heterosexual married beneficiary, is going to have to pay legal/probate fees. In addition, Mark will also have to pay Federal income taxes on the 401(k) and IRA money when he starts taking distribution. In the worse case scenario, if he pulled out all those funds in a lump sum, the tax could be taxed up to 35%.
The question then becomes will Mark, who has a life expectancy of an additional 24.37 years according to Social Security table, have enough assets to live at least that long without running out of money.
The estate tax is often considered a voluntary tax because with proper advanced planning, Max and Mark could have significantly reduced their overall estate tax burden. By re-structuring some of their assets today, they could reduce their estate size to potentially pay zero Federal estate taxes. That’s right, zero, zilch, nada!
The question then becomes, where is a good place to spend the $275,000 that would otherwise have gone to estate taxes, a problem we would all like to have!
What to do:
• Calculate the gross estate including all your assets. Be sure to calculate it the way the IRS does.
• Review your estate planning documents and beneficiary designations.
• Review the titling of all your assets to determine in to whose estate the asset falls.
• Review the ownership of your life insurance including both your personal and work. The current ownership structure of the life insurance could simply be increasing the amount you will be paying to the IRS. By retitling the ownership of the life insurance to either a trust or putting it in your partner’s name you may be able to remove it from your estate. Use caution, however, because retitling assets incorrectly could trigger a costly current gift tax if not done correctly.
• Review how your home is titled and who is making payments on the mortgage. It is common for one partner to pay the mortgage while the other pays for other expenses. This could cause an estate trap because it may be difficult to substantiate payments into a jointly owned home. Retitling your home incorrectly could trigger a costly current gift tax of 55% if not done correctly. In some jurisdictions, even if it is done correctly, it may trigger a local transfer tax.
• Consult a professional to determine what is the best way to structure your estate and minimize your estate taxes.
The information provided is for general information. It is not intended to be all-inclusive on estate taxes.
Nicholas Burkholder and Joseph Kapp ([email protected]) are registered representatives and investment advisor representatives with Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp., a broker/dealer (member SIPC) and registered investment advisor, offering insurance through Lincoln affiliates and other fine companies. This information should not be construed as legal or tax advice. You may want to consult a legal or tax advisor regarding this material as it relates to your personal circumstances. The content of this material was provided to you by Lincoln Financial Advisors for its representatives and their clients. CRN201004-2040969
Commentary
IDAHOBiT a reminder we all must stand up against transphobia
Trans rights remain under attack in U.S., around the world
May 17 is the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia.
In 2026, transphobia is the biggest issue out there: all the stereotypes that were used against the LGBTQ community in general in the past are now used to attack the rights of transgender people and to create a moral panic against them. As a person who understood that they were not a girl — despite being assigned female at birth — since they were four, and who in their 30s had to wait in line for a gender clinic, I am obviously worried about this situation. Trans people continue to be seen less as people and more as part of an “agenda,” and there is a greater risk that the international trend of attacks on trans rights is just a first step in a broader attack on the LGBTQ community, and that soon bi, gay, and lesbian people will lose part of their hard-won rights to have the same protections and opportunities as heterosexual people.
When, in U.S. states such as Kansas, trans people face escalating legal and political restrictions on recognition that affect their everyday lives — for example, requiring their driving licenses to match the gender assigned at birth even after transition — while trans people in the U.S. are banned from military service and federal funding is stopped for gender-affirming care for trans youth, it is obvious to everyone that the problem is real. It is also global.
For example, there have been significant attacks on trans rights in the UK in recent years, especially against trans youth, many of whom have been denied gender-affirming care. The day when I finally found the energy to write this story was the day of the local British elections, when surprisingly many seats in city and town councils were won by the queerphobic populist Reform Party, creating some new Reform-dominated councils. Reform Party leader Nigel Farage has praised U.S. President Donald Trump and expressed admiration for Russian dictator Vladimir Putin — both of whom are known for endangering the lives of their trans citizens and rejecting trans identity as something that should be accepted.
So, who can challenge it? The general public often takes cues from public figures. Celebrities play a significant role in shaping public opinion and framing how different social issues are understood.
We need trans celebrities to speak up against transphobia when “anti-trans” celebrities like JK Rowling oppose our rights. It seemed that when conservatives around the globe stood up together to support each other, the trans community should unite, and trans celebrities should protect their trans siblings, while the broader LGB community should recognize the threat and unite around trans rights.
But not everything is so simple. Surprisingly, at a time of the greatest attack on trans rights in this century, many lesbian, gay, bi and even trans celebrities and influencers openly support transphobic policies and ideologies.
One of the clearest examples is Caitlyn Marie Jenner, a retired Olympic gold medal–winning decathlete and public figure known for her participation in the reality show “Keeping Up with the Kardashians.” She is one of the most famous trans people in the world.
From 2015 to 2016, she starred in the reality television series “I Am Cait”on E!, which focused on her gender transition and on telling a story to inspire the younger generation of trans people. In the first episode, Jenner also visited the mother of Kyler Prescott, a 14-year-old trans child who died by suicide earlier that year, and spoke openly about using her privilege to fight for awareness, equality, and dignity for trans people. The idea of supporting trans youth was one of the core themes of her TV series.
That was then.
Jenner’s perspective on trans rights became more and more transphobic. For example, in 2021 she opposed trans girls participating in girls’ school sports. In 2023, she launched a PAC campaign attacking trans youth rights. She also expressed support for Donald Trump and said about herself that she would never be a “real woman.”
Another famous example is transmasculine sex educator and activist Buck Angel, a former adult film actor. He was seen as a modern and progressive person in the 2000s and early 2010s, praised for increasing visibility for trans men through sex education, documentaries, public speaking, and media work. But later he started calling himself “transsexual” rather than “transgender,” following a more transphobic and rigid view of trans identity, and openly showed support for Trump and MAGA.
Of course, there are plenty of trans celebrities who continue to fight for trans rights — the most obvious example is Lana and Lilly Wachowski, notable film directors who gave us “The Matrix” films and the “Sense8” TV series. But the Wachowski sisters were known for being politically left-wing and progressive even before their transition. They are part of a progressive movement, not just a “famous trans person” like Jenner was.
So, why is this happening? Why have more mainstream and conservative trans celebrities, as well as some LGBTQ groups, turned away from trans rights? And what do we need to do?
One of the reasons is fear.
Popular and privileged people — whether they are socialites, actors or leaders of big organizations — are not used to being outcasts, and so they follow dominant trends. For them, the fear of not fitting in, being rejected by the audience and losing their position in society became bigger than their sense of justice. This is probably one of the reasons why some LGBTQ groups, such as the Log Cabin Republicans in the U.S., became more transphobic, or why the LGB Alliance in the UK became more popular.
Another reason is the polarization of society.
Some LGBTQ activists may hate me for saying this, but it is partly our fault. Mainstream trans communities sometimes make trans identity look like a “trend” or part of an ideology. The media — especially tabloids — are even more to blame for this stereotype than the trans community itself. When uninformed people hear about trans people today, many of them imagine left-wing, maybe even socialist, non-religious young supporters of Palestine who are good at understanding ecological issues and worried about global warming. Of course, many trans people are like that. But many are not. And those who are not often feel excluded and become more prone to public self-hatred.
It created a cycle in which people who did not feel part of the community started searching for an alternative that rejected them for being trans and encouraged them to accept transphobic rhetoric, betraying themselves and their trans siblings. This led to greater polarization and hatred against conservative trans people, pushing them even further away.
The International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia needs to be a day when we stand up against all transphobia, including the kind expressed by trans people, while at the same time supporting all trans people, no matter how uncomfortable their views may be for us.
Commentary
Disillusioned about democracy? Think of it as a community garden
May 17 is the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia
A short walk from where I live, there is a community garden. People of all ages can participate in designing its areas and learn how to cultivate plants. Together, they build and maintain the space for the benefit of the entire community.
Democracy works the same way. It flourishes when people can bring their energy, knowledge, and presence to the common ground. It works precisely because most of us want to nurture neighborhoods where every life can flourish — no matter where we live, the color of our skin, or the food we enjoy on our tables.
But today, reactionary political movements and governments worldwide are poisoning our gardens with the invasive weeds of their authoritarian policies and exclusionary legislation. According to the CIVICUS Monitor, 73 percent of the world’s population lives in countries where governments repress fundamental civil society freedoms.
By now, we know the playbook. Whenever authoritarians seize our common garden, they drive out those they deem dispensable first. Very often, LGBTI people, racialized persons, and migrants are at the forefront of weathering the storm.
Only half a century ago, the wins that our movement has obtained seemed unthinkable. But those advances are always on the line, always one election away from the strongman of the hour deciding to unravel them.
On May 17, 1990, the World Health Organization removed homosexuality from the International Classification of Diseases (almost 30 years later, also in May, the removal of “gender identity disorder” followed.) The world celebrates this anniversary every year as the International Day against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia. This was a milestone in the global struggle for the rights of LGBTI people. Back then, 114 countries and territories worldwide still criminalized consensual same-sex sexual acts. Today, still 65 of them maintain those laws.
Progress has been steady. But in 2025, for the first time in years, that number started to grow again. Burkina Faso introduced a criminalizing law for the first time in its history. Trinidad and Tobago reversed recent gains. Senegal further tightened the threat after years of intensifying violence.
The obsession of legislators and policymakers with people’s bodies has translated into paroxysmal attacks against trans and intersex folks — from the 771 bills currently under consideration in the United States, to the disgraceful and misguided policy of the International Olympic Committee reintroducing sex testing and banning trans and intersex women athletes from competing in the female category.
And isn’t it ironic, really, that legislators worldwide put so much effort into driving LGBTI people out of public spaces, when at least 61 UN member states still have legal barriers that prevent civil society organizations working on sexual, gender and bodily diversity issues from formally registering and operating?
Political scientists Phillip Ayoub and Kristina Stoeckl, writing in the “Journal of Democracy”, show that illiberal governments deliberately deploy state-sponsored LGBTI-phobia to mobilize constituencies and frame liberal democracy as a cultural threat. These governments weaponise democratic pluralism for endless culture wars.
The playbook passes from one authoritarian to the next, activist Rémy Bonny showed. What started in Russia in 2013, with a law against the “promotion of non-traditional sexual relationships,” has grown into a pattern that illiberal leaders worldwide use to silence opposition and gain international influence amongst conservatives.
What makes this strategy particularly vicious is how it pits discriminated groups against one another. Time and again, reactionary people in power speak of “protecting women” just to attack trans and intersex people — manufacturing conflict among communities that, in fact, share a common struggle to protect the freedom to decide over their own bodies.
Whenever governments need to distract the public from their failures to create a better garden for everyone, they need a scapegoat. More often than not, it is LGBTI folks. Often, it is those fighting for safe abortions or against racism. Some other times, it is those advocating respectful relations with our land and natural resources. But the attacks never stop at a single movement. Case in point? Only 10 days ago, a government caved in to foreign influence and cancelled the largest global gathering on human rights in the digital age.
At ILGA World, we serve and work with LGBTI communities globally. We know that time and again, LGBTI people have resisted these pests, rolled up their sleeves alongside all the good people caring about their communities, and sown the seeds of change.
This year, the world will join to celebrate May 17 under the theme “At the heart of democracy.” Because, as disillusioned with the concept as people may be, deep down most of us believe that we all deserve a space where we can feel safe and thrive. And together, we can contribute to the beautiful, shared community garden that we deserve.
Julia Ehrt (she/her) is the Executive Director at ILGA World and a widely respected LGBTI activist and community leader.
Before joining ILGA World, she was the Executive Director of Transgender Europe, where she contributed significantly to how trans issues are perceived and debated today in Europe and beyond. She served as a founding Steering Committee member of the International Trans Fund (ITF) until 2019 and as a board member of the Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID) for six years. She is a member of the board of directors of the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice, and a signatory to the Yogyakarta Principles plus 10.
Julia holds a PhD in mathematics and lives with her partner and child in Berlin and Geneva.
Commentary
‘Live Your Pride’ is much more than a slogan
Waves Ahead forced to cancel May 17 event in Puerto Rico
On May 5, I spoke by phone with Wilfred Labiosa, executive director of Waves Ahead, a Puerto Rico-based LGBTQ community organization that for years has provided mental health services, support programs, and safe spaces for vulnerable communities across the island. During our conversation, Labiosa confirmed every concern described in the organization’s public statement announcing the cancellation of “Live Your Pride,” an event scheduled for Sunday in the northwestern municipality of Isabela. But beyond the financial struggles and organizational challenges, what stayed with me most was the emotional weight behind his words. There was pain in his voice while describing what it means to watch spaces like these slowly disappear.
This was not simply the cancellation of a community event.
“Live Your Pride” had been envisioned as a celebration and affirming gathering for LGBTQ older adults and their allies in Puerto Rico. In a society where many LGBTQ elders spent decades hiding parts of themselves in order to survive, spaces like this carry enormous emotional and social significance. They become places where people can finally exist openly, without fear, apology, or shame.
That is why this cancellation matters far beyond Isabela.
What is happening in Puerto Rico cannot be separated from the broader political climate unfolding across the U.S. and its territories, where programs connected to diversity, inclusion, education, mental health, and LGBTQ visibility increasingly find themselves under political attack. These changes do not always arrive through dramatic announcements. More often, they happen quietly. Funding disappears. Community organizations weaken. Safe spaces become harder to sustain. Eventually, the absence itself begins to feel normal.
That normalization is dangerous.
For years, organizations like Waves Ahead have stepped into gaps left behind by institutions and governments, particularly in communities where LGBTQ people continue facing discrimination, social isolation, economic instability, and mental health struggles. Their work has never been limited to organizing events. It has involved accompanying people through loneliness, trauma, rejection, depression, aging, and survival itself.
“Live Your Pride” represented much more than entertainment. It represented visibility for LGBTQ older adults, many of whom survived decades of family rejection, religious exclusion, workplace discrimination, violence, and silence. These are individuals who came of age during years when living openly could cost someone employment, housing, relationships, or personal safety. Many learned to survive by making themselves invisible.
When spaces like this disappear, something deeply human is lost.
A gathering is canceled, yes, but so is an opportunity for healing, connection, recognition, and dignity. For many LGBTQ older adults, especially in smaller municipalities across Puerto Rico, these events are not secondary luxuries. They are reminders that their lives still matter in a society that too often treats aging and queer existence as disposable.
There are still political and religious sectors that portray the rainbow as some kind of ideological threat. But the rainbow does not erase anyone. It illuminates people and stories that society has often tried to ignore. It reflects the lives of young people forced out of their homes, transgender individuals targeted by violence, older adults aging in silence, and families that spent years defending their right to exist openly.
Perhaps that is precisely why the rainbow unsettles some people so deeply.
Its colors expose abandonment, hypocrisy, inequality, and fear. They force societies to confront realities that are easier to ignore than to address honestly. They reveal how fragile human dignity becomes when political agendas decide that certain communities are no longer worthy of protection, funding, or visibility.
The greatest concern here is not solely the cancellation of one event in one Puerto Rican town. The deeper concern is the message quietly taking shape behind decisions like these — the idea that some communities can wait, that some lives deserve fewer resources, and that safe spaces for vulnerable people are expendable during moments of political tension.
History has shown repeatedly how social regression begins. Rarely with one dramatic act. More often through exhaustion, silence, budget cuts, and the slow dismantling of organizations doing essential community work.
Even so, Waves Ahead made one thing clear in its statement. Although “Live Your Pride” has been canceled, the organization will continue providing mental health and community support services through its centers across Puerto Rico. That commitment matters because people do not survive on slogans alone. They survive because somewhere there are still open doors, trained professionals, supportive communities, and people willing to remain present when the world becomes colder and more hostile.
Puerto Rico should pay close attention to what this moment represents. No healthy society is built by weakening the organizations that care for vulnerable people. No government should feel comfortable watching community groups struggle to survive while attempting to provide services and compassion that public institutions themselves often fail to offer.
The rainbow has never been the problem.
The real problem is the discomfort created when its colors force society to confront the wounds, inequalities, and human realities that too many people would rather keep hidden.
-
Opinions4 days agoDual endorsement for Independent Council-at-large: Patterson or Crawford
-
Real Estate4 days agoIntroducing Next-Generation Assisted Living & Memory Support.
-
District of Columbia4 days agoD.C. Pride flag raising ceremony set for June 1
-
Theater4 days agoCedric Neal on his juicy narrator role in ‘Pippin’

