Last week, the news of Travis Kelce proposing to Taylor Swift swept across fan communities and social media platforms, evoking the charm of a classic fairy-tale union. As the high school quarterback archetype pairs with the quintessential homecoming queen, their engagement has sparked a wave of nostalgia and joy among their admirers. However, amidst the celebration, there's a less romantic detail looming: the potential of a higher tax bill due to the so-called "marriage penalty."

The marriage penalty is a quirk in the U.S. tax code where married couples might end up paying more in income taxes than they would as two single individuals. This issue primarily affects high-income earners and could significantly impact Kelce and Swift. For instance, in 2025, the top federal tax rate of 37% applies to single filers earning over $626,350, but for married couples filing jointly, this rate kicks in at $751,600, not double the amount for singles.

Capital gains tax exhibits similar disparities. A single taxpayer hits the top long-term capital gains tax rate of 20% once their income tops $518,901. However, married couples face this rate at a combined income of just $583,751. Additionally, other deductions and benefits, like the student loan interest deduction and the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, are also affected, not doubling the thresholds for married couples.

These tax intricacies might lead some couples to consider alternatives, such as registering as domestic partners in states that recognize such arrangements, which allows them to file federal taxes as single while still being considered married at the state level. Others, like celebrities Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn, choose cohabitation over marriage to sidestep these tax complications altogether.

Historical precedents like the Boyter v. Commissioner case highlight the lengths some go to avoid the marriage penalty, involving quick divorces and immediate remarriages around tax seasons, practices the IRS scrutinizes closely.

While the likelihood of abolishing the marriage penalty is slim — most marry for love, not tax benefits — understanding and planning can mitigate its impact. For those in high-income brackets, like Kelce and Swift, consulting a tax professional could be a prudent step to forecast and navigate the potential financial implications of their nuptials.

As September progresses and the wedding bells draw nearer for Kelce and Swift, they, along with many other affluent couples, might weigh the financial consequences of their union. Despite the potential for a higher tax bill, the joy of marriage often outweighs the fiscal penalties, but a little planning might just spare them some unnecessary financial discomfort.