I’M GONNA WASH THAT MAN RIGHT OUT OF MY HAIR
New Jersey has civil unions, which from a cynical point of view, means more business for divorce attorneys and forensic accountants. We were called in on exactly that type of situation, where after about 30 years or so of being together, these two men “tied the knot” in a civil union ceremony, and for all intents and purposes, certainly for all state financial and procedural issues, were now the equivalent of husband and wife. Unfortunately, they had a falling out and we were called in to assist in reviewing their finances. The interesting issue here was the cause of the falling out – which supports what our female staff had said when the case came to us – and that was “a man is a man is a man.” What prompted that wry comment was that what broke up this 30+ year relationship, was that the now 55 year old dominant of the two took up with a lovely young 17 year old boy. I’m not sure what the age of consent is under these circumstances, but that wasn’t our concern
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Kal's Kweries**
KWERY:
My husband and I have been in divorce litigation for a couple of years now, and my business has suffered badly because of the recession. As a result, it’s worth a lot less now than it was when we started the divorce action. Am I looking at having to share a value which no longer exists?
RESPONSE:
This is a very difficult area, with no simple answer. Generally speaking, if the decline in value is substantial and expected to be somewhat permanent (as contrasted with the value is down somewhat today and will come back tomorrow), then you and your team need to put forth, if you will, your worst foot and show that value is really down, and convince the other side (or the Court) that it would be inequitable to expect you to carve up a value which no longer exists.
My husband and I have been in divorce litigation for a couple of years now, and my business has suffered badly because of the recession. As a result, it’s worth a lot less now than it was when we started the divorce action. Am I looking at having to share a value which no longer exists?
RESPONSE:
This is a very difficult area, with no simple answer. Generally speaking, if the decline in value is substantial and expected to be somewhat permanent (as contrasted with the value is down somewhat today and will come back tomorrow), then you and your team need to put forth, if you will, your worst foot and show that value is really down, and convince the other side (or the Court) that it would be inequitable to expect you to carve up a value which no longer exists.
Tax Tip of the Week*
UNALLOCATED
This is a very interesting word, and sometimes its relevance is that it is not even stated (that is you will not see the word “unallocated”). What this means is that there are payments in support of a spouse and children but that there is no definitive separation between how much is for the spouse and how much is for the children. That is, the payment is unallocated (there is no allocation between spouse and child). When that language (or absence of such language) exists, the entirety of the payments are considered traditional alimony – taxable to the recipient and deductible to the payor. It does not matter if the language says that the payment is for the support of the spouse and children – unless there is a specific carve-out as a dollar or percentage on behalf of the children.
This is a very interesting word, and sometimes its relevance is that it is not even stated (that is you will not see the word “unallocated”). What this means is that there are payments in support of a spouse and children but that there is no definitive separation between how much is for the spouse and how much is for the children. That is, the payment is unallocated (there is no allocation between spouse and child). When that language (or absence of such language) exists, the entirety of the payments are considered traditional alimony – taxable to the recipient and deductible to the payor. It does not matter if the language says that the payment is for the support of the spouse and children – unless there is a specific carve-out as a dollar or percentage on behalf of the children.
Wednesday, December 8, 2010
Anecdote of the Week
ABSURD MINUTIAE
Doing lifestyle analyses has become fairly commonplace, in part to establish how the family lived and of course to assist relevant to determining alimony. Sometimes though, counsel as well as the experts, can get carried away, doing an extent of fine-tuning detail that makes no sense. In one of our lifestyle cases, the other side had asked its expert to break out the lifestyle expenses by person. Somebody got the bright idea that the best way to do that was (since the husband and wife had separate checking accounts), to treat the expenses based on who paid for them. Thus, we had the ingenious conclusion that one of the parties to this divorce case was living on $8 per month for food
Doing lifestyle analyses has become fairly commonplace, in part to establish how the family lived and of course to assist relevant to determining alimony. Sometimes though, counsel as well as the experts, can get carried away, doing an extent of fine-tuning detail that makes no sense. In one of our lifestyle cases, the other side had asked its expert to break out the lifestyle expenses by person. Somebody got the bright idea that the best way to do that was (since the husband and wife had separate checking accounts), to treat the expenses based on who paid for them. Thus, we had the ingenious conclusion that one of the parties to this divorce case was living on $8 per month for food
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Tax Tip of the Week*
HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD
Generally speaking, the most advantageous way to file a tax return is married jointly, and the least advantageous is married filing separately. Somewhat better than the latter is single, and somewhat better than single but not quite as good as married jointly is filing as head of household. As a general comment, when going through a divorce, you are either going to file jointly (as you typically have over the years) or you are going to be filing married filing separately. However, if there are dependent children, then there is the possibility of filing as head of household – but that is only available to the custodial parent. Who is entitled to take the exemptions is not relevant to the issue of who is entitled to claim head of household. Thus, in a stereotypical situation where the children stay with the wife, she may be entitled to file head of household, but the husband would not, and would probably have to file married filing separately.
Generally speaking, the most advantageous way to file a tax return is married jointly, and the least advantageous is married filing separately. Somewhat better than the latter is single, and somewhat better than single but not quite as good as married jointly is filing as head of household. As a general comment, when going through a divorce, you are either going to file jointly (as you typically have over the years) or you are going to be filing married filing separately. However, if there are dependent children, then there is the possibility of filing as head of household – but that is only available to the custodial parent. Who is entitled to take the exemptions is not relevant to the issue of who is entitled to claim head of household. Thus, in a stereotypical situation where the children stay with the wife, she may be entitled to file head of household, but the husband would not, and would probably have to file married filing separately.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Anecdote of the Week
CAIN & ABEL
What most of us in the forensic accounting field will tell you is that a business breakup among family – a shareholder’s suit let’s say between brothers – can make a bitter divorce battle over a business seem like a discussion at a knitting circle. In dealing with a shareholder suit among two brothers who owned a supply business, our client bitterly complained that his brother was a thief (the words he used were somewhat more colorful), and was stealing from the business. Figuring that in-your-face candor was the best route to take, we suggested to our client that his brother was doing nothing different than he was – they were both stealing from the business, they were both stealing from each other. As only a guiltless thief can say with a straight face, our client responded “Yes, that’s true, but he’s stealing more than I am.” These two brothers, who by the way were no youngsters – they were both in their 70s – were so angry with each other, and so irrational, that during the litigation, when their mother died, they couldn’t agree on anything having to do with the funeral or the mourning period
What most of us in the forensic accounting field will tell you is that a business breakup among family – a shareholder’s suit let’s say between brothers – can make a bitter divorce battle over a business seem like a discussion at a knitting circle. In dealing with a shareholder suit among two brothers who owned a supply business, our client bitterly complained that his brother was a thief (the words he used were somewhat more colorful), and was stealing from the business. Figuring that in-your-face candor was the best route to take, we suggested to our client that his brother was doing nothing different than he was – they were both stealing from the business, they were both stealing from each other. As only a guiltless thief can say with a straight face, our client responded “Yes, that’s true, but he’s stealing more than I am.” These two brothers, who by the way were no youngsters – they were both in their 70s – were so angry with each other, and so irrational, that during the litigation, when their mother died, they couldn’t agree on anything having to do with the funeral or the mourning period
Friday, November 19, 2010
Kal's Kweries**
KWERY:
I’ve been married for 20 years, and have my own business. I had the business before we got married, but I’m concerned that my wife in our divorce is going to get half of my business. Is my concern reasonable?
RESPONSE:
Generally speaking, for a business that existed prior to a marriage, your wife is only entitled to a share of the increase in value (if any) during the marriage. That is under the assumption that the interest in the business is an active asset (generally one in which you make a significant contribution). The percentage that your wife will get will vary dramatically based on jurisdictions as well as whether or not she contributed in any way to that business.
I’ve been married for 20 years, and have my own business. I had the business before we got married, but I’m concerned that my wife in our divorce is going to get half of my business. Is my concern reasonable?
RESPONSE:
Generally speaking, for a business that existed prior to a marriage, your wife is only entitled to a share of the increase in value (if any) during the marriage. That is under the assumption that the interest in the business is an active asset (generally one in which you make a significant contribution). The percentage that your wife will get will vary dramatically based on jurisdictions as well as whether or not she contributed in any way to that business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)