Case 3:10-cv-01750-VLB Document 68 Filed 07/15/11 10 Pages

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:10 CV 1750 (VLB) ___________________________________________ JOANNE PEDERSEN & ANN MEITZEN, ) GERALD V. PASSARO II, ) LYNDA DEFORGE & RAQUEL ARDIN, ) JANET GELLER & JOANNE MARQUIS, ) SUZANNE & GERALDINE ARTIS, ) BRADLEY KLEINERMAN & JAMES GEHRE, and ) DAMON SAVOY & JOHN WEISS, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, ) TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER, in his official capacity ) as the Secretary of the Treasury, and ) HILDA L. SOLIS, in her official capacity as the ) Secretary of Labor, ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, in his official capacity ) as the Commissioner of the Social Security ) Administration, ) UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, ) JOHN E. POTTER, in his official capacity as ) The Postmaster General of the United States of ) America, ) DOUGLAS H. SHULMAN, in his official ) capacity as the Commissioner of Internal ) Revenue, ) ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., in his official capacity ) as the United States Attorney General, ) JOHN WALSH, in his official capacity as Acting ) Comptroller of the Currency, and ) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________________)

JOINT AFFIDAVIT OF GERALDINE ARTIS AND SUZANNE ARTIS

Geraldine Artis and Suzanne Artis, being duly sworn, hereby depose and say as follows: 1. Suzanne: I am 40 and have worked for 1 year as a magnet school librarian

in Bloomfield. I obtained a masters degree in Information and Library Science in order to make the transition from teacher to librarian. Prior to working as a librarian, I taught social studies to 7th and 8th grade students in the Hartford Public Schools for 9 years. 2. Geraldine: I am 41 and am currently studying part time to obtain a degree

in school and higher education counseling so that I can ultimately work as a school counselor with college students. Since 1993, I worked for the Connecticut State Department of Developmental Services with disabled adults. In 2002, I sustained a back injury at work. I have had several back procedures and surgeries to repair my broken back and address nerve damage. Unfortunately, I had to file for disability retirement in December 2010 due to the extensive damage

to my back. My income has changed dramatically while I proceed with seeking retirement benefits. The application is under review. 3. Suzanne and Geraldine: As of July 2011, we will have shared a committed

partnership for 17 years. In July 2009, we were fortunate to be able to honor our commitment by legally marrying in the State of Connecticut. We were thrilled to commit to a future together, to take the ultimate step in being a family, and to ensure greater legal and social protections for our children and each other. 4. On July 11, 2009, in the presence of family and friends, we walked a

wedding labyrinth and dedicated a song and poem to one another as symbols of our love. Our sons stood beside us as ring bearers and ceremonial broom bearer and proudly watched as we jumped the broom. 5. Suzanne and Geraldine: Our journey through life together began in 1994.

We lived together in West Hartford for nearly a year before moving to Middletown in 1995. In 1996, we registered as Domestic Partners with the City of Hartford. 6. Suzanne: Later in 1996, I changed my last name to Artis to reflect my

commitment to Geraldine and to convey the familial nature of our relationship. 7. Suzanne and Geraldine: In 2006, we had a civil union performed in

Middletown by a Justice of the Peace. This was a small informal occasion held at a restaurant with our three sons. 8. Suzanne and Geraldine: We had always wanted to have and raise children.

Our eldest son, G.R., was born in 1997 and is now 13. Our 11-year-old twins, Z and G.Z., were born in 1999. Each childs name is drawn from the letters of our names.

9.

Suzanne and Geraldine: We purchased a home together in Middletown

before the birth of our eldest son. As our family grew, we purchased a larger home in Middletown in 2001. 10. Suzanne and Geraldine: Over the years, we have juggled our work

schedules in order to be able to teach our children at home. Our oldest son, G.R., started attending a middle school for 7th grade in the Fall of 2010 and has done an amazing job with his first year achieving honors every marking period, discovering his voice in chorus, performing well on his athletic teams and making new friends. We continue to teach our twins, Z and G.Z., at home, and they have

just completed 5th grade. The twins have excelled academically and athletically, as well. All three children complete work far above their grade level. 11. Suzanne and Geraldine: In 2005, we moved our family from Middletown to

Clinton, Connecticut to be closer to Suzannes mother. All of our extended families live on the shoreline of Connecticut and this enabled us to spend more time with them. As we became more rooted in our community, in late 2010, we moved into a new home in Clinton that affords more space and a yard for our children to enjoy. 12. Suzanne and Geraldine: We have coached soccer and basketball teams on

which our sons and other young people participate both in Middletown and now in Clinton for several years. We view volunteering as an honor and an opportunity to build connections with a variety of families in the community. We believe athletics teaches teamwork, perseverance, and respect for oneself, as well as for teammates and opponents.

Our 2009 Federal Income Taxes 13. Suzanne and Geraldine: Despite being legally married for the 2009 tax

year, we did not file our annual federal income tax return as Married Filing Jointly because of the federal governments non-recognition of our marriage pursuant to DOMA, 1 U.S.C. 7. Instead, we filed two separate 2009 federal returns as if we were unmarried. Following DOMA, Suzannes original 2009 federal return filing status was Head of Household and Geraldines was Single. 14. Suzanne and Geraldine: As a result, for the 2009 tax year, we were

deprived of a tax refund of $1,465 attributable to refundable credits which we would have received had we been permitted to file as a married couple with a Married Filing Jointly filing status, and which a similarly situated opposite-sex married couple would have received for that same tax year. 15. Suzanne and Geraldine: After we timely filed our separate, original 2009

federal income tax returns, we each submitted first amended federal income tax returns for 2009 on IRS Form 1040X, to correct errors made by our tax preparer. Specifically, Suzannes first amended return corrected an overstated refundable education credit and enclosed a payment of $2,505, consisting of $2,430 in federal income taxes and the balance in accrued interest. Suzanne subsequently received a refund check from the IRS in the amount of $25.24, presumably related to overpayment of accrued interest on the first amended return. On Geraldines first amended return, she claimed a refund of $5 related to the refundable Making Work Pay tax credit.

16.

Suzanne and Geraldine: Then, on November 24, 2010, we filed a second

amended federal income tax return for the 2009 tax year, changing our filing status to Married Filing Jointly. The second amended return claimed a refund of $1,465. We explained that, as a married couple under Connecticut law, we should be permitted to file joint returns because DOMA, 1 U.S.C. 7, is unconstitutional. 17. Suzanne and Geraldine: Our second amended 2009 federal income tax

return attached a written statement titled Explanation of Changes, a Form 8275 Disclosure Statement and a Form 8275-R, Regulation Disclosure Statement, in order to explain the grounds for our refund claim and the differences from our first amended federal income tax returns, and to avoid any penalties. The Explanation of Changes states: REFUND CLAIM BASED ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT The taxpayer, Suzanne Artis (###-##-####), a spouse in a same-sex couple, was married under the laws of the (sic) Connecticut as of December 31, 2009. [I]n accordance with the federal law known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the taxpayer filed an individual, federal income tax return as though she were unmarried. The taxpayer believes that being required to file as though she were unmarried amounts to unequal treatment compared to other married persons in Connecticut. The taxpayer believes that her marriage, which is valid under Connecticut law, should be respected for federal tax purposes, just like the Connecticut marriages of heterosexual couples. Although this position is contrary to DOMA, the taxpayer believes DOMA is unconstitutional and that she should be allowed to file this amended joint return with her spouse and receive the refund shown herein. The taxpayers filing position is supported by the following decisions from the U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts: Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, 699 F. Supp. 2d 374 (D. Mass. 2010) and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, 698 F. Supp. 2d 234 (D. Mass. 2010). The decisions in these cases, which found section 3 of DOMA to be unconstitutional,

have been stayed pending the governments appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals in the First Circuit. In particular, if the taxpayer were able to file as married filing jointly, the federal tax refund increases from $234 to $1,699 because the aggregate tax decreases by $1,465. As a result of these adjustments, the taxpayers are due a refund of this $1,465 difference. 18. Suzanne and Geraldine: We received a certified, return receipt from the

U.S. Postal Service confirming that the IRS received their second amended 2009 federal income tax return and refund claim on December 1, 2010. 19. Suzanne and Geraldine: On December 23, 2010, by certified mail, we

requested an immediate denial of our refund claim. The letter stated that where as our refund claim is based on a Constitutional challenge to a federal statute, the taxpayers request that their refund claim be immediately rejected and that a notice of claim disallowance be issued promptly pursuant to Internal Revenue News Release IR-1600 (April 26, 1976). See also Internal Revenue Manual 4512(2)(g) (Jan. 30, 1987); IRS Pub. 556, pg. 15 (Rev. May 2008). 20. Suzanne and Geraldine: On January 30, 2011, by certified mail, we

received a reply from the IRS dated January 19, 2011 to our request for a refund. It states: WHY WE CANNOT ALLOW YOUR CLAIM Please see the enclosed page 22, Part 2, Filing Status, Marital Status from form 2009, Publication 17. It states for federal tax purposes, a marriage means only a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. 21. Suzanne and Geraldine: The money that we were denied because of

DOMA, 1 U.S.C. 7, could have gone toward household expenses and extracurricular activities associated with raising our three growing children.

22.

Suzanne and Geraldine: Moreover, the specific and concrete financial

harm to our household continues to grow with each additional year that DOMA, 1 U.S.C. 7, bars the IRS from recognizing us as a married couple entitled to file our federal income tax returns as Married Filing Jointly. 23. Suzanne and Geraldine: An individual who is married to a person of the

opposite sex is not forced to file his or her federal income tax returns other than as married. Indeed, he or she is required to file in accordance with his or her legal marital status. By contrast, DOMA, 1 U.S.C. 7, forces us to disregard our marital status. This results in a different federal income tax treatment. For us, we received a 2009 federal income tax refund that was $1,465 less than a similarly situated opposite-sex married couple would have received. 24. DOMA is hurtful to us because it artificially divides our family rather than

recognizing we are one entire and complete family.

Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury on this 6th day of July, 2011.

/s/ Geraldine Artis _____________________ Geraldine Artis

/s/ Suzanne Artis _________________ Suzanne Artis

Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on July 15, 2011, a copy of the foregoing Joint Affidavit of Geraldine Artis and Suzanne Artis was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Courts electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Courts CM/ECF System.

/s/ Gary D. Buseck______________ Gary D. Buseck

10