Tax Rules Influence Love, Marriage and Divorce : Finances: Depending on which way your love life turns, you could wind up with a financial benefit or a penalty.

“Put off any wedding plans you have, but speed up the divorce.”

When you’re dealing with a financial counselor, suggestions like those might seem to be out of line. It’s money you want to talk about, not your love life.

But that very advice is commonly offered in personal-finance circles these days, thanks to the elaborate tax rules in this country.

The system contains a built-in “marriage penalty” for many two-income couples that is by no means limited to the well-to-do. At upper-income levels, in fact, the burden has been increased by the 1993 tax law.

This penalty can sensibly affect the timing of a couple’s decisions to wed or split up, if not discourage them from getting married altogether.

“It seems to verge on blasphemy to say it. Nevertheless, economics dictate that we at least mention the marriage tax penalty,” says William Brennan, editor of the Financial Planning Reporter newsletter at the accounting firm of Ernst & Young.

“Two unmarried taxpayers who earn approximately the same income would generally pay less tax than if they were married and filed a joint return.

“If you and your intended spouse plan a late 1993 wedding, consider postponing your marriage until 1994 to avoid the penalty for another year.

“Similarly, divorcing spouses may wish to circumvent another year’s worth of marriage tax penalty by finalizing the divorce before 1993 ends.”

In families with a single income, the rules still make at least a slight accommodation for marriage. For instance, a single individual with $30,000 in taxable income for 1992 had to pay $5,619 in federal tax, while a married couple at the same level owed just $4,504, reflecting the presumption that in the married household more people needed the income to live on.

But as advisers are quick to note, there are fewer and fewer single-income families in this country.

“Our tax laws often have the effect of penalizing working couples for being married,” says Iris Kelley, president of the California Society of Enrolled Agents, a trade group of tax advisers.

To take an oversimplified illustration, suppose two people with identical $30,000 taxable incomes married in late December last year. Instead of owing $5,619 apiece, they promoted themselves to a $60,000 joint income with a tax bill of $12,153.

If they had delayed the ceremony until early January, in other words, they could have had $918 extra to spend on the honeymoon or invest in their first home.

That disparity might seem like relatively small potatoes in the context of a big decision like marriage. At the six-figure altitudes where President Clinton’s new, higher tax brackets heighten the penalty, the extra costs might also seem no great hardship.

But Kelley points out that the effects are felt all across the income spectrum.

The California society cites the case of a single parent with one child and an income of $11,000 a year. After a $2,038 earned income credit, the parent has a tax liability of $129.

Suppose that person contemplates marriage with an individual who has no children and a $20,000 annual income that incurs a tax liability of $2,096.

“If these two people marry, the earned income credit is lost and their federal income tax liability increases by $441,” the society calculates. “Thus, their penalty for getting married is approximately $2,350 per year, slightly more than 7.5% of their combined annual income.”

Marriage-penalty problems also arise for many older people, often widowed or divorced, who live on retirement incomes that don’t offer a lot of leeway for extra tax outlays.

“In a society that stresses family values,” Kelley concludes, “it’s ironic that the tax system would penalize people who get married.”