# SSR 76-27: SSR 76-27: SECTION 1614(d)(2) and 1614(f)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1382c(d)(2) and 1382c(f)(1)) -- SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME -- MARITAL RELATIONSHIP > Federal · Rulings · In force URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_76_27 ## Section - **Citation:** SSR 76-27 - **Heading:** SSR 76-27: SECTION 1614(d)(2) and 1614(f)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1382c(d)(2) and 1382c(f)(1)) -- SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME -- MARITAL RELATIONSHIP - **Jurisdiction:** Federal - **Kind:** Rulings - **Status:** In force - **Text as of:** August 14, 2026 - **Source:** Compiled text - **Location:** Social Security Rulings / SSI / Eligibility / SSR 76-27 ## Text 20 CFR 416.1003(b) and (c) and 416.1005(a) SSR 76-27 The general issue is whether the claimant is a "husband" under section 1614(d)(2) of the Social Security Act, as amended, and if so, is the claimant affected by the deeming provisions of section 1614(f)(1) of the Social Security Act, as amended. The specific issues to be decided are: Whether the claimant and a woman who are holding themselves out as man and wife to the community in which they reside, are husband and wife under the Social Security Act; and what effect would a State's nonrecognition of a common-law marriage have in the final determination as to whether they are husband and wife? The claimant, an obviously disabled individual, appeared at the hearing with a woman whom he identified as his wife, Eve. Claimant admitted at the hearing that he considered Eve to be his wife and that they had lived together holding themselves out to the community as man and wife since 1971. He indicated that there had never been a formal marriage ceremony binding them but that they looked upon one another as husband and wife. Eve also indicated in her testimony at the hearing that the claimant's testimony was substantially correct. Both indicated that the child now living with them was the natural son of the claimant and Eve. Section 1614(d)(2) of the Social Security Act provides that: Section 416.1005(a) of Regulations No. 16 reads in part as follows: Section 416.1003(b) and (c) of Regulations No. 16 in this regard reads as follows: r testimony at the hearing that the claimant's testimony was substantially correct. Both indicated that the child now living with them was the natural son of the claimant and Eve. Section 1614(d)(2) of the Social Security Act provides that: Section 416.1005(a) of Regulations No. 16 reads in part as follows: Section 416.1003(b) and (c) of Regulations No. 16 in this regard reads as follows: Claimant does not contest the factual situation in the case but disagrees with the legal application of the Law and Regulations dealing with the legal definition of husband and wife and the application of deeming provisions. Claimant's main contention is that since the State of Kentucky does not recognize common-law marriages that this would preclude the Federal Government, specifically the Social Security Administration, from recognizing their common-law marriage, and thus finding that claimant and Eve were husband and wife and further finding that the deeming provisions of the Social Security Act would apply. Since claimant and Eve have conceded that they have held themselves out as husband and wife in the community, and have considered themselves to be husband and wife since 1971, the question for decision is, what effect does the State of Kentucky's refusal to recognize common-law marriage have on the Federal Government's recognition of the claimant and Eve as husband and wife? The answer is found in the above cited Section 1614(d)(2) of the Social Security Act. s husband and wife in the community, and have considered themselves to be husband and wife since 1971, the question for decision is, what effect does the State of Kentucky's refusal to recognize common-law marriage have on the Federal Government's recognition of the claimant and Eve as husband and wife? The answer is found in the above cited Section 1614(d)(2) of the Social Security Act. This section of the Act is intended to inform us that whether or not a State recognizes a common-law marriage is not the criteria by which the Federal Government will ultimately decide whether or not a man and woman are truly husband and wife. This section indicates that if a State were to find a common-law relationship between a man and woman and were to recognize such relationship as a valid marriage, the Federal Government would accept this in determining that they were man and wife. This section indicates that if a State were to find a common-law relationship between a man and woman and were to recognize such relationship as a valid marriage, the Federal Government would accept this in determining that they were man and wife. In the reverse situation where no valid marriage is recognized by a State, the Federal Government, more specifically the Social Security Administration, is directed to look at the specific relationship between the man and woman themselves, i.e., do they treat one another as man and wife, do they indicate to others in the surrounding area in which they live that they are man and wife? Once it is determined that claimant and Eve are husband and wife, whether common-law or otherwise, or whether or not recognized by the State in which they reside, the application of the deeming provisions of the Social Security Act must follow. Subject to certain exclusions in the Social Security Act, the income and resources of Eve will be deemed to the claimant. they are man and wife? Once it is determined that claimant and Eve are husband and wife, whether common-law or otherwise, or whether or not recognized by the State in which they reside, the application of the deeming provisions of the Social Security Act must follow. Subject to certain exclusions in the Social Security Act, the income and resources of Eve will be deemed to the claimant. In view of the above premises, the Hearing Examiner concludes that the claimant and Eve are husband and wife and have been husband and wife, according to their own testimony, since 1971 and, will continue to be husband and wife. Furthermore, since they are husband and wife, as defined by Section 1614(d)(2), Social Security Act, as amended, they automatically are subject to the income and resources deeming provisions of Section 1614(f)(1) of the Social Security act, as amended, which provides: It is the decision of the Hearing Examiner that the claimant and Eve are husband and wife as defined by Section 1614(d)(2) of the Social Security Act, as amended, and as such they are subject to the income and resources deeming provisions of Section 1614(f)(1) of the Social Security act, as amended. ## Nearby sections - [SSR 75-32 SSR 75-32: Rescinded 1981](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_75_32.md) - [SSR 76-7 SSR 76-7: SECTION 1611(e)(1)(A) and (B) (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)(A) and (B)) -- SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME -- ELIGIBILITY DUE TO INSTITUTIONAL STATUS](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_76_7.md) - [SSR 76-27 SSR 76-27: SECTION 1614(d)(2) and 1614(f)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1382c(d)(2) and 1382c(f)(1)) -- SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME -- MARITAL RELATIONSHIP](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_76_27.md) - [SSR 76-28 SSR 76-28: SECTIONS 1611(b)(2), 1612(a), and 1614(b) (42 U.S.C. 1382(b)(2), 1382a(a), and 1382c(b)) -- SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME -- AMOUNT OF BENEFITS -- RELATIONSHIP](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_76_28.md) - [SSR 76-41 SSR 76-41: SECTION 1614(b) (42 U.S.C. 1382c(b)) -- SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME -- DEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE SPOUSE](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_76_41.md) - [SSR 76-42 SSR 76-42: Rescinded 1985](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_76_42.md) - [SSR 77-10 SSR 77-10: SECTION 1611(e)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 1382(c)(1)(A)) -- SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME -- ELIGIBILITY -- STATUS OF INSTITUTION](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_77_10.md) - [SSR 77-20 SSR 77-20: SECTION 1611(e)(1) (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)) -- SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME -- ELIGIBILITY -- INSTITUTIONALIZATION THROUGHOUT A MONTH](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_77_20.md) - [SSR 78-9 SSR 78-9: Rescinded 1982](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_78_9.md) - [SSR 79-5c SSR 79-5c: Rescinded 1982](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_79_5c.md) - [SSR 79-6 SSR 79-6: SECTION 1611(e)(1)(A) (42 U.S.C. 1382(e)(1)(A)) SUPPLEMENTAL SECURITY INCOME -- ELIGIBILITY -- EFFECT OF BRIEF ABSENCES FROM PUBLIC INSTITUTION](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_79_6.md) - [SSR 79-8 SSR 79-8: Rescinded 1986](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_79_8.md) - [SSR 79-16 SSR 79-16: Rescinded 1986](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_79_16.md) - [SSR 79-25 SSR 79-25: Rescinded 1982](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_79_25.md) --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SSA_SSR_SSI_SSR_76_27. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.