Commentary: For love or money: finding the delicate balance

By Judith McGee Dolan Media Newswires PORTLAND, OR--When starry-eyed couples repeat their wedding vows, "For better, for worse; for richer, for poorer," few have given much thought to what those words mean when it comes to combining their finances. I'm not referring to those individuals who are shamelessly marrying for money without a prenuptial agreement. They have undoubtedly given plenty of thought to the matter. But when should sincere couples have "the conversation?" Finances are rarely a topic of discussion prior to the wedding, and nothing can kill a romantic moment faster. How many women look deeply into their fiance's eyes over a candlelit dinner and ask, "Honey, do you mind if I take a quick little peek at your credit report?" How many men gazing back at their future wives are wondering about the balance on her student loans or the debt accumulated from shopping sprees? Maybe you and your spouse have already found a way to work out your financial situation. But maybe you now have grown children who could benefit from your advice. Teach them the wisdom of taking an unemotional step backward to view the long-range picture from a more practical standpoint. Because, like it or not, marriage is a business relationship. Think of it in terms of a partnership ... with benefits. Obviously, the money conversation must take place before couples can begin to seriously consider merging their finances and assets. The decision to do so will have long-lasting repercussions, especially if the partners have completely different attitudes toward spending. If both partners share the same goals, then combining finances might be a painless process. But if there are significant differences of opinion, or impulsive buying habits, then it might be best to ease into things. Consider establishing a joint account that covers shared expenses like housing, utilities, groceries and so on. As trust is built and spending habits prove to be compatible, they can gradually begin to combine other assets. Filing income taxes jointly is another decision to weigh. Many couples choose to file jointly. They combine income and deduct combined allowable expenses on the same tax form. Joint tax liabilities may be lower than if separate returns were filed. This is where the issue of trust really becomes crucial. What if one spouse is lax about record-keeping, or - in the worst case - fudges the numbers? Is the other spouse responsible for the tax, interest or penalty due on the joint return? The answer is yes. The situation becomes especially troublesome in the case of divorce, death, or when the offending spouse is simply not available or unwilling to help pay off the debt. These rules apply even in cases where the other spouse was the sole income earner. In the eyes of the IRS, it still needs to be paid for back taxes from joint returns, even if divorce papers explicitly state that the other spouse is responsible for all tax obligations. Fortunately, the IRS offers three different categories of spouse relief: innocent spouse provision, separation of liability and equitable relief. In the past, equitable relief was available only if the innocent spouse applied for it within two years from the date that the understatement of taxes was discovered. Today, that time limit does not apply. And folks who had relief denied in the past because they missed the two-year cutoff can now reapply, providing the collection statute of limitations for the tax years involved has not expired. There is much to be considered when it comes to handling assets jointly. It helps to remember the bottom line: Marriage is a business! Judith McGee is the chairwoman and CEO of McGee Financial Strategies Inc., an independent registered investment adviser. She is a co-branch manager of, and offers securities through, Raymond James Financial Services Inc. in Portland. Contact her at 503-597-2222 or judith@mcgeenet.com. Entire contents copyrighted © 2012 by The Dolan Company. Published: Mon, Feb 13, 2012