North Carolina Divorce Lawyers Blog

Articles Posted in CPAVille

Published on:

Carolyn Woodruff, J.D., C.P.A, C.V.A.
By

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?

Continue reading →

Published on:

Carolyn Woodruff, J.D., C.P.A, C.V.A.
By

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 That means on December 31, 2018, or before you must have alimony that qualifies under IRC Section 71 before it is repealed.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: Continue reading →

Published on:

Carolyn Woodruff, J.D., C.P.A, C.V.A.
By

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.

Continue reading →

Published on:

Carolyn Woodruff, J.D., C.P.A, C.V.A.
By

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. Continue reading →

Published on:

Carolyn Woodruff, J.D., C.P.A, C.V.A.
By

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. Continue reading →

Published on:

Carolyn Woodruff, JD, CPA, CVA
By

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. Continue reading →

Published on:

Carolyn Woodruff, JD, CPA, CVA
By

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. Continue reading →

Published on:

Carolyn Woodruff, J.D., C.P.A, C.V.A.
By

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. Continue reading →

Published on:

Carolyn Woodruff, J.D., C.P.A, C.V.A.
By

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. Continue reading →

Published on:

Carolyn Woodruff, J.D., C.P.A, C.V.A.
By

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. Continue reading →