Articles Posted in CPAVille

Published on:

Dear Carolyn:

My ex and I share the children fifty-fifty.  We have three children.  I make approximately $25,000 more than the other parent.  I pay child support even though I have them half the time.  Our child support order says nothing about who gets the dependency exemptions, and I get in a fight with my ex every year over the dependency exemptions.  Who should get the three dependency exemptions?

Carolyn Answers….

Published on:

Forget it!

Forget about the alimony deduction for all new decrees or instruments post-2019. (See Part I for modification of pre-2019 alimony orders and agreement, as modification has a separate set of rules.) The deduction is gone absent a congressional miracle. That means on December 31, 2018, or before you must have alimony that qualifies under IRC Section 71 before it is repealed. The alimony must meet the terms of Section 71, pre-TCJA and pre-2019, which are as follows:

a. You must have a qualifying decree or instrument;

Published on:

Previously, we examined the paragraph and subparagraphs defining “divorce or separation instruments.” Now let’s take a look at which sections of TCJA incorporate these subparagraphs.

Sections incorporating all three subparagraphs of the definition of divorce or separation instrument Post-2018.

The two sections of TCJA that adopt all three subparagraphs of the definition of divorce or separation instrument post-2018 are as follows:

Published on:

The repeal of the alimony tax sections for the inclusion of income and deduction has an ancillary impact on other divorce tax issues. The effective date for all ancillary issues discussed in this article is December 31, 2018, the same as the alimony repeal. These December 31, 2018, changes shall be referred to herein as “post-2018” changes.

The law before TCJA will be referred to as “pre-2019.”

In this first section, we’ll look at what a divorce or separation instrument is.

Published on:

Divorce was hard enough, and now alimony tax reform. Do you feel good or bad about alimony? No matter your answer, this alimony tax reform revolutionizes the divorce arena, and you need to know how it may affect you and your clients. Judges need to know how it might affect those whose appear before them as litigants. So let’s dig in.

This article is Part I of three parts. Part I deals with the basics of the alimony taxation changes under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”), referred to herein as the “new Alimony Statute.” Multiple sections of the Internal Revenue Code related to alimony are changed under the TCJA. The new Alimony Statute is contained in Section 110151 named “Repeal of Deduction for Alimony Payments” in PL 115-97, HR1, December 22, 2017, 131 Stat 2054.  When I refer from now on to the “old Alimony Statute,” I am referring mainly to Internal Revenue Codes Sections 71 and 215 as they existed before the TCJA.

Part II will deal with ancillary federal tax considerations of the new Alimony Statute, of which there are many.  Part III will discuss considerations of the new Alimony Statute under North Carolina domestic relations law and explore creative possibilities for the use of the new Alimony Statute.

Published on:

By Carolyn J. Woodruff, North Carolina Family Law Specialist

In re Lawson, 570 B.R. 563 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 2017)

Facts: A husband and wife filed divorce proceedings in Ohio. Among the marital assets was the husband’s defined contribution retirement plan. The parties read into the record in the Ohio action an agreement that awarded the wife 50% of the plan account. The court approved the agreement. No DRO was immediately entered.

Published on:

By Carolyn J. Woodruff, North Carolina Family Law Specialist

In re Jeffers, No. 14-52328,    B.R., 2017 WL 2838104 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio June 30, 2017)

Facts: A husband and wife divorced in Ohio. The divorce decree awarded the wife an interest in the husband’s retirement benefits.

Published on:

Garcia-Tatupu  v.  Bert  Bell/Peter  Rozelle  NFL  Player  Ret.  Plan,  No.  CV 16-11131-DPW,     F. Supp. 3d   , 2017 WL 1398645 (D. Mass. Apr. 18, 2017)

Facts: The husband, a former NFL football player, was divorced from his wife in Massachusetts in 1997. No DRO was entered at the time. The husband died in 2010; he had not remarried. In 2012, the Massachusetts court issued a DRO, nunc pro tunc back to 1997.

The wife requested benefits from the plan under the DRO, the plan denied benefits, and the wife sued the plan. The plan filed a motion to dismiss.

Published on:

Dullea v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 241 F. Supp. 3d 155 (D.D.C. 2017)

Background: There are two ways in which state courts can make a deferred future division of retirement benefits. The traditional method is the shared interest approach, which awards the nonowning spouse a portion of each future payment received by the owning spouse.

A less traditional but also permissible option is the separate interest approach. With the separate interest approach, the nonowning spouse is awarded a separate and distinct set of benefits under the plan, with a value equal to a stated percentage of the actuarial value of the owning spouse’s benefits. (Actuarial value is the total future benefits expected, times the chance of death before receiving them.) The owning spouse’s benefits are then reduced proportionately.

Published on:

Patterson v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 845 F.3d 756 (6th Cir. 2017)

Facts: A divorce decree awarded the wife an interest in the husband’s retirement and survivor benefits, expressly ordering him not to elect a survivor beneficiary other than the wife. The wife did not obtain a QDRO.

Upon retirement, the husband elected to receive retirement benefits without survivor benefits, thereby violating this provision. The wife sought to enforce the decree by sending a copy to the plan. The plan refused to comply with the decree, finding that the decree did not meet the requirements for a QDRO.