It would be really helpful for everyone in this thread if you’d just stop typing things. You’re totally and completely wrong about the legal consequences of the OP’s actions, or those of any person he knows.
things
things
things
things
.
.
.
.
.
:o
I would like to say that my immediate thought, on reading the OP, was “hey, that’s insurance fraud!”
After reading the thread and doing my own research (googling “marrying for insurance benefits” brings up plenty) I now realize that this isn’t the case!
Ignorance fought!
there’s a simple test for it. Go to her employer or insurance company and tell them the marriage is a fraud and see what happens.
I quoted this just to see what you were trying to link to when you messed up the coding. Even taking it out of format doesn’t show me what you were trying to link to.
(Not that I imagine you actually had a valid cite to offer.)
It’s not a fraud. It would be a legal marriage.
That’s right! Since when on this board are posters expected to back up their claims with facts? NEVER! If anyone doubts the truth to what Magiver is saying, it the responsibility of each of us to boldly go out into the world and speak to the employer of a person referred to in a pseudonym as told by another person posting under his own pseudonym!
Request that Magiver back up any assertion with a factual cite? It is to laugh!
I’m convinced that it’s not fraud.
On the question of taxes, though, is it legal to file as Single in this instance? I would assume they would be required to at least file as Married Filing Separately. If one of them doesn’t pay their taxes properly, could the IRS or state revenue department go after the other?
Other things: I would have to do extra paperwork if I designated a primary beneficiary other than my wife on my employer provided life insurance policy or my 401(k). Not a big deal, but it’s one more bit of bureaucracy to deal with. They’d likely have to pay a lawyer for wills to avoid automatic inheritance of one another’s estates.
I know that neither my employer nor my wife’s pays the premium for family members, only for the employee. What are the premiums your GF will pay to add her new spouse to her insurance? Given the possible legal costs of avoiding the entanglements of marriage beyond the insurance benefits, it might be cheaper for your GF to subsidize her friend’s ACA insurance.
Just seems full of more possible problems than are solved by the marriage.
Getting a license for a marriage that you are not involved in is fraud. You seem to confuse the probability of getting caught with the legality of the act. What the op described is a fraudulent arrangement. Her employer would be paying extra money to insure her.
The two people involved in the marriage would be the people getting the license. Problem solved.
You are wrong. Perhaps you could provide a cite, or stop talking out of your ass.
Aside from the legal aspect everyone seems to have beaten to death I’d really have to take stock re getting in a long term relationship with someone who is applying a sitcom like solution to a complex problem. Unless the professional is impoverished or has a very expensive medical condition the sum benefits of marriage may not be as great as your friend is assuming. Attaching and detaching has costs and marriage has inherent income tax costs vs being single. The relative insurance benefits would have to be overwhelming to justify doing this. Plus there’s the issue of her job (with the benefits) being the driver. If she is fired or quits all this goes away. It’s not like this is some guaranteed benefit.
Beyond this I think you need to step back and re-consider the premise that she is “100% heterosexual”. This may indeed be the case, but the fact that this setup is being seriously entertained by her makes me think you need to confirm this premise. Entering into this marriage seems like something someone would be a lot more comfortable doing if they were bi-sexual than “100% heterosexual”. There’s not a thing wrong with being bisexual but if your expectation is that she is not bisexual you want want to confirm that. That she is 100% heterosexual with *you *means nothing.
It’s brave to be willing to identify yourself as a gay person if you are straight, but if I was considering this person as a serious SO I’d really be asking “This is a stunt. Who does this?” I’m thinking most straight women would not be entertaining a very serious setup like this just out of friendship. And if they were what’s their judgment going to be like on other issues.
I would definitely not consider this a fraud. In fact, as someone with conservative views on homosexuality, I would say that this is the one form of same-sex-marriage which I DO approve of.
I posted the relevant point I was making. Link
The op’s girlfriend is telling him she’s marrying her friend to provide insurance and not part of any relationship. It’s understood that the op represents the person in her intended personal relationship.
The “marriage” means she now shares all her friend’s legal expenses and it invokes specific property rights unless she draws up a binding agreement ahead of time.
Most sham marriages involve attempts at bypassing immigration laws but the principal applies. The op’s girlfriend is trying to defraud an insurance company with this non-relationship.
Plus … and I should have added this to the prior post. Your potential relationship aside. Suppose “100% heterosexual” meets the single man of her dreams, she then has to explain her domestic scenario if she wants to have a serous relationship with him. She won’t be able to go out socially with any PDA without being seen as cheating on her “wife”. Where will you go out where you will not be seen by her co-workers?
And in the fullness of time if she is dating men it is very likely word is eventually going to get back to her peers and work that this whole thing is a setup for the benefits. If she has a political enemy at work this will be jumped on. Legalities aside she will be seen morally as a fraud and a scam artist. That’s not going to endear her to HR or the brass. What are her employment advancement prospects then?
This whole living a lie thing is a delicately balanced spinning plate and a touch will send it crashing down unless everyone is willing to stick to the story. In real life this sort of game playing tends to wind up in the ditch.
Insurance fraud. Insurance fraud occurs when any act is committed with the intent to fraudulently obtain some benefit or advantage to which they are not otherwise entitled or someone knowingly denies some benefit that is due and to which someone is entitled.
Again, you seem to conflate the ability to prove it with the legality of the act.
Unless I overlooked it (quite possible on a mobile platform), your cite does not list under “types” the “getting hitched for coverage” type of fraud. Got any legit links that do cover this?
They’re married; they’re entitled. If someone marries for purposes of hoping to be a trophy wife and be taken care of, that’s a legal marriage. Same with marrying someone who is the other biological parent of the kid, just because you believe a kid should have a mommy and a daddy in the same household. If love and/or sexual activity were requirements for a legit marriage, a whole ton of people would have to divorce.
The point you were making was that the OP would be an accessory to fraud.
You’ve yet to provide a cite that the scenario described would in fact be fraud.
You are wrong, and your cite does not support your argument.
Marriage brings a mix of benefits and responsibilities. I wouldn’t assess the benefit of health coverage alone to be worth all the other risks brought on by marriage. For instance, make sure your girlfriend understands that she will be responsible for any debt incurred by her fake wife during the course of the marriage, including, ironically enough, unexpected medical debt.