State Apportionment Notice Form: Fill & Download for Free

By default, yes. The IRS considers a joint refund to belong jointly to both filers in undivided portions, and will thus apply the entire refund to any levy due against either filer.However, if only one taxpayer is subject to levy, and the non-levied “injured” spouse files an request for “injured spouse” relief using Form 8379, the IRS will only apply the levy against the portion of the refund that the IRS apportions to the levied taxpayer, and will refund the portion apportioned to the injured spouse directly. The apportionment rules are complicated and further depend on whether the state in which the filer(s) reside is a community property or equitable distribution state. See the Instructions to Form 8379 for more information.Do not confuse injured spouse relief with innocent spouse relief. The latter is used when a joint return is fraudulent, but one of the filers was legitimately unaware of the fraud. Injured spouse relief is a routine procedural request that the IRS grants if the filer meets the required criteria. Innocent spouse relief, on the other hand, is a request for leniency and requires the filer to prove to the IRS that fairness demands that they not to be held accountable for filing a fraudulent tax return. Totally different standards, but commonly confused because the names are so similar. It is much easier to get injured spouse relief than innocent spouse relief.Note that filing Form 8379 will generally delay your refund by six to twelve weeks, and will require the IRS to issue any refund check as a hard check (no direct deposit). You can file Form 8379 at the same time as your return or afterwards, including in response to the IRS notice that your refund is being withheld, or any time thereafter up to three years after the return in question was due; thus, it is sometimes possible to recover intercepted refunds up to three years after the fact.

Some people would prefer to change it to various different processes, but usually whichever advantages their particular political bias. Most Americans prefer to keep it as is, or there would have been a proposed amendment in Congress with broad support.Gaming the Electoral CollegeNotice that different methods of allocating "popular" votes lead to different outcomes.The Electoral College - Pros and ConsIn Defense of the Electoral CollegeThe Electoral College is widely regarded as an anachronism, a nondemocratic method of selecting a president that ought to be superseded by declaring the candidate who receives the most popular votes the winner. The advocates of this position are correct in arguing that the Electoral College method is not democratic in a modern sense. The Constitution provides that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.” And it is the electors who elect the president, not the people. When you vote for a presidential candidate you’re actually voting for a slate of electors.But each party selects a slate of electors trusted to vote for the party’s nominee (and that trust is rarely betrayed). Because virtually all states award all their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote in the state, and because the Electoral College weights the less populous states more heavily along the lines of the Senate (two Senators and two Electoral College votes for every state, and then more electoral votes added for each state based on population), it is entirely possible that the winner of the electoral vote will not win the national popular vote. Yet that has happened very rarely. It happened in 2000, when Gore had more popular votes than Bush yet fewer electoral votes, but that was the first time since 1888.There are five reasons for retaining the Electoral College despite its lack of democratic pedigree; all are practical reasons, not liberal or conservative reasons.1) Certainty of OutcomeA dispute over the outcome of an Electoral College vote is possible—it happened in 2000—but it’s less likely than a dispute over the popular vote. The reason is that the winning candidate’s share of the Electoral College invariably exceeds his share of the popular vote. In last week’s election, for example, Obama received 61.7 percent of the electoral vote compared to only 51.3 percent of the popular votes cast for him and Romney. (I ignore the scattering of votes not counted for either candidate.) Because almost all states award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, even a very slight plurality in a state creates a landslide electoral-vote victory in that state. A tie in the nationwide electoral vote is possible because the total number of votes—538—is an even number, but it is highly unlikely.*Of course a tie in the number of popular votes in a national election in which tens of millions of votes are cast is even more unlikely. But if the difference in the popular vote is small, then if the winner of the popular vote were deemed the winner of the presidential election, candidates would have an incentive to seek a recount in any state (plus the District of Columbia) in which they thought the recount would give them more additional votes than their opponent. The lawyers would go to work in state after state to have the votes recounted, and the result would be debilitating uncertainty, delay, and conflict—look at the turmoil that a dispute limited to one state, Florida, engendered in 2000.*2) Everyone’s PresidentThe Electoral College requires a presidential candidate to have transregional appeal. No region (South, Northeast, etc.) has enough electoral votes to elect a president. So a solid regional favorite, such as Romney was in the South, has no incentive to campaign heavily in those states, for he gains no electoral votes by increasing his plurality in states that he knows he will win. This is a desirable result because a candidate with only regional appeal is unlikely to be a successful president. The residents of the other regions are likely to feel disfranchised—to feel that their votes do not count, that the new president will have no regard for their interests, that he really isn’t their president.3) Swing StatesThe winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes induces the candidates—as we saw in last week’s election—to focus their campaign efforts on the toss-up states; that follows directly from the candidates’ lack of inducement to campaign in states they are sure to win. Voters in toss-up states are more likely to pay close attention to the campaign—to really listen to the competing candidates—knowing that they are going to decide the election. They are likely to be the most thoughtful voters, on average (and for the further reason that they will have received the most information and attention from the candidates), and the most thoughtful voters should be the ones to decide the election.4) Big StatesThe Electoral College restores some of the weight in the political balance that large states (by population) lose by virtue of the mal-apportionment of the Senate decreed in the Constitution. This may seem paradoxical, given that electoral votes are weighted in favor of less populous states. Wyoming, the least populous state, contains only about one-sixth of 1 percent of the U.S. population, but its three electors (of whom two are awarded only because Wyoming has two senators like every other state) give it slightly more than one-half of 1 percent of total electoral votes. But winner-take-all makes a slight increase in the popular vote have a much bigger electoral-vote payoff in a large state than in a small one. The popular vote was very close in Florida; nevertheless Obama, who won that vote, got 29 electoral votes. A victory by the same margin in Wyoming would net the winner only 3 electoral votes. So, other things being equal, a large state gets more attention from presidential candidates in a campaign than a small states does. And since presidents and senators are often presidential candidates, large states are likely to get additional consideration in appropriations and appointments from presidents and senators before as well as during campaigns, offsetting to some extent the effects of the malapportioned Senate on the political influence of less populous states.5) Avoid Run-Off ElectionsThe Electoral College avoids the problem of elections in which no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast. For example, Nixon in 1968 and Clinton in 1992 both had only a 43 percent plurality of the popular votes, while winning a majority in the Electoral College (301 and 370 electoral votes, respectively). There is pressure for run-off elections when no candidate wins a majority of the votes cast; that pressure, which would greatly complicate the presidential election process, is reduced by the Electoral College, which invariably produces a clear winner.Against these reasons to retain the Electoral College the argument that it is undemocratic falls flat. No form of representative democracy, as distinct from direct democracy, is or aspires to be perfectly democratic. Certainly not our federal government. In the entire executive and judicial branches, only two officials are elected—the president and vice president. All the rest are appointed—federal Article III judges for life.It can be argued that the Electoral College method of selecting the president may turn off potential voters for a candidate who has no hope of carrying their state—Democrats in Texas, for example, or Republicans in California. Knowing their vote will have no effect, they have less incentive to pay attention to the campaign than they would have if the president were picked by popular vote, for then the state of a voter’s residence would be irrelevant to the weight of his vote. But of course no voter’s vote swings a national election, and in spite of that, about one-half the eligible American population did vote in last week’s election. Voters in presidential elections are people who want to express a political preference rather than people who think that a single vote may decide an election. Even in one-sided states, there are plenty of votes in favor of the candidate who is sure not to carry the state. So I doubt that the Electoral College has much of a turn-off effect. And if it does, that is outweighed by the reasons for retaining this seemingly archaic institution.Correction, Nov. 13, 2012: This piece incorrectly stated that a tie occurred in the Electoral College in 1824. (Return to the corrected sentence.) It also misstated the situation in which candidates would have an incentive to seek a recount if the winner were determined by the popular vote. (Return to the corrected sentence.) Thanks to Texas State Representative Scott Hochberg and Barnard professor Scott Minkoff for the corrections.Richard A. Posner is a judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, and a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

At least one delegate, Governor Morris, liked NPV election, but NPV was only mentioned occasionally in the debates.Election by Congress had support for a while, first with both houses voting separately as usual for a bill, later (August 7) with the two houses pooled and voting together. Election by the Senate alone was not considered.The main concerns were what influences would pull on the Executive.On Avalon Project - Madison Debates - July 17 the convention rejected both popular vote and electors chosen by the states:Question on an election by the people instead of the Legislature; which [FN30] passed in the negative.Mas. no. Cont. no. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. no. Va. no. N.C. no. http://S.C.no. http://Geo.no. [FN31]Mr. L. MARTIN moved that the Executive be chosen by Electors appointed by the several Legislatures of the individual States.Mr. BROOME 2ds. On the Question, it passed in the negative.Mas. no. Cont. no. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. no. http://N.C.no. http://S.C.no. http://Geo.no. [FN32]On the question on the words "to be chosen by the Nationl. Legislature" it passed unanimously in the affirmative.There followed lots of debate on whether the Executive would be too dependent on the Legislature, whether the Executive should be impeachable and how, whether to have a single long term and no reelection allowed or shorter terms and reelection allowed. Eventually the debate came back to the idea of electors.Avalon Project - Madison Debates - July 19Mr. ELSEWORTH moved to strike out the appointmt. by the Natl. Legislature, and [FN11] insert "to be chosen by electors appointed, by the Legislatures of the States in the following ratio; towit-one for each State not exceeding 200,000 inhabts. two for each above yt. number & not exceeding 300,000. and three for each State exceeding 300,000.Mr. BROOME 2ded. the motionMr. RUTLIDGE was opposed to all the modes except the appointmt. by the Natl. Legislature. He will be sufficiently independent, if he be not re-eligible.Mr. GERRY preferred the motion of Mr. Elseworth to an appointmt. by the Natl. Legislature, or by the people; tho' not to an appt. by the State Executives. He moved that the electors proposed by Mr. E. should be 25 in number, and allotted in the following proportion. to N. H. 1. to Mas. 3. to R. I. 1. to Cont. 2. to N. Y. 2. [FN12] N. J. 2. [FN12] Pa. 3. [FN12] Del. 1. [FN12] Md. 2. [FN12] Va. 3. [FN12] N. C. 2. [FN12] S. C. 2. [FN12] Geo. 1.The question as moved by Mr. Elseworth being divided, on the 1st. part shall ye. Natl. Executive be appointed by Electors? Mas. divd. Cont. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. no. [FN13]On [FN14] 2d. part shall the Electors be chosen by [FN14] State Legislatures? Mas. ay. Cont. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. ay. [FN15]The part relating to the ratio in which the States sd. chuse electors was postponed nem. conAvalon Project - Madison Debates - July 24 shifted back to election by Legislature.Question on Mr. Houston's motion that the Executive be appd. by [FN6] Nal. LegislatureN. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. no. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. no. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN7]But more inconclusive debate followed.Avalon Project - Madison Debates - July 25 had Madison speaking in favor of NPV.The remaining mode was an election by the people or rather by the qualified part of them, at large: With all its imperfections he liked this best. He would not repeat either the general argumts. for or the objections agst. this mode. He would only take notice of two difficulties which he admitted to have weight. The first arose from the disposition in the people to prefer a Citizen of their own State, and the disadvantage this wd. throw on the smaller States. Great as this objection might be he did not think it equal to such as lay agst. every other mode which had been proposed. He thought too that some expedient might be hit upon that would obviate it. The second difficulty arose from the disproportion of qualified voters in the N. & S. States, and the disadvantages which this mode would throw on the latter. The answer to this objection was 1. [FN9] that this disproportion would be continually decreasing under the influence of the Republican laws introduced in the S. States, and the more rapid increase of their population. 2. [FN10] That local considerations must give way to the general interest. As an individual from the S. States he was willing to make the sacrifice.Mr. GERRY & Mr. BUTLER moved to refer the resolution relating to the Executive (except the clause making it consist of a single person) to the Committee of Detail - WikipediaMr. WILSON hoped that so important a branch of the System wd. not be committed untill a general principle shd. be fixed by a vote of the House.Avalon Project - Madison Debates - July 26 had Col. Mason summarizing frustration with the interminable debate of various methods, and gave a specific objection to popular election, that the organization of Revolutionary War army officers would dominate it:A popular election in any form, as Mr. Gerry has observed, would throw the appointment into the hands of the Cincinnati, a Society for the members of which he had a great respect; but which he never wished to have a preponderating influence in the Govt.Avalon Project - Madison Debates - August 8 approved ⅗ House apportionment by a large margin of 9 states to 2:Mr. WILLIAMSON moved to strike out "according to the provisions hereinafter after made" and to insert the words "according "to the rule hereafter to be provided for direct taxation" -See Art. VII. sect. 3. [FN16]On the question for agreeing to Mr. Williamson's amendmentN. H. ay. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. no. Pa. ay. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [FN17]However King and Morris followed this with lengthy denunciations of slavery. Morris and Dayton then proposed to change to free inhabitants only, but all states voted against this amendment.The House apportionment and Senate apportionment later determined the EC apportionment.Avalon Project - Madison Debates - August 31 postponed, apparently with little discussion, determination of the presidential election method to a Committee of Eleven:On a motion for postponement the residue of the clause, concerning the choice of the President &c.N. H. no. Mas. ay. Ct. no. N. J. no. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. no. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. no. Geo. no. [FN22]Mr. Govr. MORRIS then moved to strike out the words "choose the President of the U. S. and"-this point, of choosing the President not being yet finally determined, & on this questionN. H. no. Mas. ay. Ct. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. ay Del. ay. Md. divd. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. [FN23] Geo. ay. [FN24]The committee of eleven reported on September 4 with the Electoral method.Avalon Project - Madison Debates - September 5 revisited the presidential election late in the game. Pinckney, Rutledge, Mason all opposed the EC preferring Congress. Madison on the other hand did not want even an inconclusive EC election to be thrown to Congress.