Posts by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA

June / July 2019 : Oldie But Goodie – Tailored Installment Payments To Balance The Scales Without Breaking The Bank

Posted by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA

View / Download June-July 2019 Article – PDF File

Tax Trends and Developments Column – Michigan Family Law Journal

In a recent case in which I was involved, the problematic settlement issue was how the business owner could afford to pay the other spouse’s marital interest in the company within a reasonable time frame.

As in that case, it is not uncommon that the value of a closely held business or professional practice dwarfs the value of other marital assets. If there are not sufficient suitable assets to award the non-owner spouse to offset the business value, the problem is how to make the settlement work.

Usually in such situations, installments payments are used to balance the settlement. In structuring such payments, two objectives often compete with one another:

  1. Don’t Kill the Golden Goose—It is important not to impose an undue strain on the owner’s cash flow, part of which may also be required for spousal and/or child sup-port.
  2. Don’t Make Me Wait ‘Til I’m Old and Gray—On the other hand, it is generally not fair to require the non-own-er spouse to wait a long period of time to receive his or her share of the marital value of the business.

As noted years ago in this column, tailoring installment payments around other divorce obligations is a way to achieve both objectives.

Example

As part of their divorce settlement, H and W have agreed that he will pay her $200,000 for her half interest in his business. He will also pay combined transitional alimony and child support for their youngest child totaling $30,000 for each of the next three years.

H receives an annual salary of $70,000, supplemented by a bonus depending on company profit. He proposes that he pay the $200,000 by transferring a sufficient amount of his 401(k) plan to net W $50,000 after tax and that the $150,000 balance be paid over 15 years with interest at 4%, resulting in monthly payments of $1,110.

W responds that this is unacceptable; that it is unreasonable to expect her to wait so long for her share of the marital value of the business. She demands payment over seven years, resulting in monthly payments of $2,050, almost twice what H proposed.

However, H claims he cannot afford to pay that much since the business has not been able to pay bonuses of late and the near future looks no brighter. And, he’ll be strapped for cash the next few years with the alimony and child support obligations.

The attorneys meet with their joint CPA expert and work out the following payment terms to achieve both objectives.

  • No payments of principal and interest for three years. Adding the $19,655 of unpaid compound interest brings the principal to $169,655 as of the beginning of the fourth year.
  • Years four and five – $1,500 per month
  • At end of year five – $50,000 balloon payment
  • Years six and seven – $2,000 per month
  • At end of seven years – $55,500 balloon payment.

Tailored to Fit – The above illustrates how payments can be tailored to accomplish both objectives. The use of balloon payments enables the non-owner spouse to receive his or her share within a reasonable time frame. It also gives the owner spouse time to make arrangements to fund the balloon payments.

Practice Pointers

  • Provide for Acceleration – It is generally advisable to provide for acceleration of the balance due in the event the owner sells his interest in the business or the company receives a substantial influx of cash available to the owner, such as from refinancing.
  • Restrictions May Be in Order – In addition to normal security provisions, it is sometimes advisable to place restrictions on (1) the amount of compensation and/or distributions to the owner spouse and (2) the investment of business funds in non-operating assets (e.g., cabin up north or Florida condo “used for business”). Usually this can be only done if the owner spouse has a controlling interest.
  • Provide for Prepayment Option – Finally, it is often appropriate to provide for prepayment of the obligation at the option of the owner spouse.

Saving the Interest Deduction

The IRS has taken the position that interest paid on a divorce related obligation from one ex-spouse to the other is “personal” interest and, hence, non-deductible. This results in a tax “whipsaw” since the payee ex-spouse receiving the interest must report it as taxable income notwithstanding that the payer cannot deduct it.

Aware of the IRS’ position, H’s CPA in the above example suggests that there is a way to avoid the loss of the interest deduction as follows:

Use “imputed” interest at a rate approximating the after-tax equivalent of the agreed upon interest rate. The IRS and U.S. Tax Court have ruled that the imputed interest rules otherwise applicable to below market or no interest loans do not apply to divorce related obligations between ex-spouses.

So, H’s CPA proposes using 2.75% unstated, “baked in” interest rate as the approximate after-tax equivalent of 4.00%. This is done by running the amortization schedule with 2.75% as the interest rate to determine the payments. And, in the settlement agreement, the obligation to make the resulting payments is stated without reference to any interest rate.

Substituting 2.75% for 4% on the $150,000 obligation results in the following changes – within the target seven year period:

2.75% 4%
Payments years 1-3 0 0
Payments years 4 and 5 1, 500 1,500
Ballon at end of year 5 40,000 50,000
Payments years 6 and 7 2,000 2,000
Ballon at end of year 7 40,219 55,500

A prepayment provision with unstated, “baked in” interest would include a prepayment discount equal to the unstated rate of interest (2.75% in this case) applied to the outstanding balance at the time of prepayment over the period during which the balance was otherwise scheduled to be paid.

About the Author

Joe Cunningham has over 25 years of experience specializing in financial and tax aspects of divorce, including business valuation, valuing and dividing retirement benefits, and developing settlement proposals. He has lectured extensively for ICLE, the Family Law Section, and the MACPA. Joe is also the author of numerous journal articles and chapters in family law treatises. His office is in Troy, though his practice is statewide.

Download the PDF file below… “Oldie But Goodie – Tailored Installment Payments To Balance The Scales Without Breaking The Bank”
View / Download June-July 2019 Article – PDF File

Complete Michigan Family Law Journal available at: Michigan Bar website – Family Law Section (subscription required)

Read More “June / July 2019 : Oldie But Goodie – Tailored Installment Payments To Balance The Scales Without Breaking The Bank”

May 2019 : Food for Thought on Treatment of Appreciation in Value of a “Separate” Business During Marriage

Posted by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA

View / Download May 2019 Article – PDF File

Tax Trends and Developments Column – Michigan Family Law Journal

Background

This article considers the treatment of appreciation in value during marriage of a business enterprise that was owned by one party at the time of marriage.

Many seem to consider appreciation during marriage of value of a “separate” business as either 100% active – thereby marital – or 100% passive – thereby separate (assuming no commingling, etc.).

This “either/or” characterization seems overbroad and generally based on little or no analysis of the factors driving the increase in value. It is also out of sync with the equitable nature of divorce and the corresponding objective of address-ing the unique circumstances of each case as they are versus a “one size fits all” basis.

In previously writing on this issue, I presented an example similar to the following;

  • A and B own identical rental property management companies – with one exception – which they operate as LLCs.
  • The exception – A manages his company and draws a $50,000 salary. B has always used a full-time manager who is paid $50,000 a year by the company. B works at a machine shop earning $50,000 annually.
  • At the time of A’s and B’s respective marriages, their companies were each worth $100,000; and, at the time of their divorces each was valued at $250,000. The growth of both is attributable to (1) pay down of debt, (2) inflation, and (3) increase in market values exceeding inflation.
  • Both companies have always been owned separately by A and B, respectively. Company income was always de-posited in their separate accounts from which funds were drawn solely to pay taxes on company income.
  • Though A and B had essentially the same earnings, business values, and appreciation during the marriage, arbitrary application of “either/or” active/passive characterization results in the $150,000 appreciation treated as marital in A’s divorce but separate in B’s divorce.

Why this anomalous result? Because 100% of the appreciation of A’s company is attributed to her activity as the rental property manager notwithstanding that she brings no particular “value-adding” skills to the job. As noted, the appreciation in value is due to other factors, which are “passive” (except arguably income used to pay down debt).

This example does not address whether the income from the separate property is separate or marital or, correspondingly, as noted, whether the reduction of debt by use of such income is separate or marital. Rather, the purpose is to illustrate the fiction that, if the owner is actively involved, 100% of the appreciation in value is attributable to his/her efforts and thereby marital.

Michigan Case Law on the Issue

The following discussion focuses on pertinent decisions of Michigan Court of Appeals (Court) regarding the subject issue.

Hanaway, 208 Mich App 278 (1995)

The principal issue regarding the family business (Company) was whether Ms. Hanaway (W) contributed to its “acquisition, improvement, or accumulation.” The trial court ruled that she had not, apparently focusing on “direct” contribution. The Court ruled, essentially, that W, did in fact, contribute by tending to the household and the parties’ four children thereby enabling Mr. Hanaway (H), “the company president,” to devote “himself to the business, working long work weeks.” This case established the principle that “contribution” could be indirect as well as direct in the family partnership.

The Court stated that although H received the business as a gift from his father, “… the increased value of that interest necessarily reflected defendant’s investment of time and effort in maintaining and increasing the business, an investment that was facilitated by plaintiff’s long-term commitment to remain home to run the household and care for the children.”

The Court ruled that the appreciation was marital.

Observations
  • The Court made no attempt to identify factors for the increase in value other than H’s intensive efforts as the Company’s CEO who worked long hours in this capacity.
  • Also, the apparent demanding role served diligently by W – which was front and center as the prime issue of the case – likely had some effect on the ruling on appreciation in value.

Reeves, 206 Mich. App. 490 (1997)

In this case, Mr. Reeves (H) owned a minority interest in a shopping center before his marriage to Ms. Reeves (W). H also owned a condominium that he and W lived in and two rental properties that he purchased in both parties’ names while they co-habited before marriage.

The Court ruled that appreciation in value of the shopping center was separate because H’s interest was “wholly passive.” In so ruling, the Court noted – “[i]t cannot be stated, as was done in Hanaway, supra at 294, that the property appreciated because of defendant’s efforts, facilitated by plaintiff’s activities at home.”

Observations
  • In Reeves, the Court did not need to parse reasons for the increase in value because H had no involvement whatsoever. All appreciation was obviously due to passive factors.
  • The Court’s use of the term “wholly passive” described H’s relationship to the shopping center investment which supported its ruling.
  • Thus, because H had no involvement whatsoever in the asset at issue, this case sheds no light on a situation where there may be some involvement by the owner, however minimal.
  • The Court included as marital the appreciation during marriage of the value of the jointly owned rental properties.

Dart, 460 Mich. 573 (1999)

The principal issue in this Michigan Supreme Court case was jurisdiction involving enforceability of an English judgment.

The Court also addressed a claim by W that she was entitled to share in the appreciation in value during marriage of a large family company, Dart Container Corporation (Dart), at which H was employed. H also had a beneficial interest in a trust to which substantial gifts of Dart stock had been made. The English court had rejected W’s claim.

The Court noted that it was possible “that plaintiff might have shown a nexus between defendant’s work at the company and the underlying trust assets.” … “However, we conclude that the possibility of prevailing was remote.”

The Court also noted that, apparently under general separate property principles, “[t]he trust income from the Dart Container Corporation was never marital property.”

Observations
  • Though the Court did not need to decide whether H’s active involvement at Dart was sufficient to include appreciation during marriage, the fact that it stated that there needs to be a “nexus” between the two is significant. Though not an express statement to this effect, it indicates that it may take more than active involvement to result in active appreciation.
  • The Court’s statement regarding trust income from Dart is noteworthy since there is little definitive law on the status of separate property income that is not commingled.

Uygur, Mich. App. No. 258207 (6/8/2006)

H was an executive at Giffels, a large company. He owned Giffels stock before his marriage to W. The Court ruled that, despite H’s active, high level involvement, appreciation in value during the marriage of his pre-marital Giffels stock was passive, hence, his separate property.

In supporting its decision, the Court stated:

“The value of defendant’s stock rose and fell based on the net worth of Giffels. The success of the company, and thus its stock value, rested on all of the company’s employees, of which defendant was only one. Because defendant worked for the company, his performance necessarily affected the company’s success to some degree. However, we cannot conclude that defendant’s employment caused the stock values to appreciate. Because the defendant’s ability to affect the company’s stock value was limited, the nexus between defendant’s employment and the company’s success was necessarily attenuated.” (Emphasis added.)

Observations
  • The Court ruled that the appreciation was passive notwithstanding that H actively worked at the Company at a high level and, further, that his work “necessarily affected the company’s success to some degree.”
  • Also, the Court indicated that there must be a nexus between the owner’s activity and the success – that is, increase in value – of the company.
  • Thus, according to this court, simply being actively involved does not automatically result in “active” appreciation.
  • This case is significant for the acknowledgement that factors other than the owner spouse’s active involvement may be responsible for increase in value.

Henderson, Mich. App. No. 295765 (6/9/11).

H was actively involved on a day-to-day basis in a management capacity at a family company founded by his father.
In this regard the Court stated:

“Plaintiff worked a regular schedule and maintained an office at the company. He oversaw multiple departments and performed necessary functions.”

H’s counsel relied on Uygur in support of his claim that the appreciation was passive. The Court did not consider Uygur, in large part, apparently, because it is an unpublished opinion.

The Court noted that, unlike with the shopping center in Reeves, H’s position at the company was not “wholly passive at all times.” And, further, that he “was not merely one of several employees at BNP. As co-CEO, the record demonstrates that plaintiff bore responsibility for many of the company’s major functions.”

Thus, the Court reversed the trial court decision saying that the “trial court clearly erred in finding that the appreciation was passive and could not be classified as marital property.” The case was remanded for further proceedings.

Observations
  • This appears to be an excellent case for allocating increase in value to various factors, one of which is H’s active involvement. The Court did not expressly rule that all of the appreciation was marital.
  • The Court’s reference to “wholly passive” from Reeves is unfortunate since it is not at all clear that the court in Reeves intended anything more by that phrase than to describe the undisputed lack of any involvement of Mr. Reeves in the shopping center.

About the Author

Joe Cunningham has over 25 years of experience specializing in financial and tax aspects of divorce, including business valuation, valuing and dividing retirement benefits, and developing settlement proposals. He has lectured extensively for ICLE, the Family Law Section, and the MACPA. Joe is also the author of numerous journal articles and chapters in family law treatises. His office is in Troy, though his practice is statewide.

Download the PDF file below… “Food for Thought on Treatment of Appreciation in Value of a “Separate” Business During Marriage”
View / Download May 2019 Article – PDF File

Complete Michigan Family Law Journal available at: Michigan Bar website – Family Law Section (subscription required)

Read More “May 2019 : Food for Thought on Treatment of Appreciation in Value of a “Separate” Business During Marriage”

April 2019 : IRC Section 529 Plans Expanded to Include K through 12 Public, Private, and Religious School Tuition

Posted by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA

View / Download April 2019 Article – PDF File

Tax Trends and Developments Column – Michigan Family Law Journal

Section 529 Plans – Prior to 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Changes (Tax Reform Act)

Internal Revenue Code Section 529 allows states to establish a tax-advantaged savings program that permits a person to contribute to an account for a designated beneficiary’s qualified higher education expenses (QHEE).

Distributions from such accounts – including earnings – are not taxable provided such distributions do not exceed the
beneficiary’s QHEE.

QHEEs include tuition, fees, books, supplies, and equipment – including technology equipment – required for attendance at a qualified institution of higher education (as defined in the 1998 Amendment to the Higher Education Act of 1965 – generally, any public college or university).

Distributions for QHEE are limited to $10,000 per beneficiary annually. If there is more than one Section 529 account for a beneficiary – e.g., one maintained by each set of grandparents – the $10,000 limit applies to distributions from all accounts on a combined basis.

Funds in a Section 529 account can be rolled into another Section 529 account for another beneficiary. So, if an account’s
funds exceed a beneficiary’s QHEE at time of graduation, the excess funds can be transferred to another beneficiary.

Grandparents, as well as parents, often use Section 529 plans to fund future educational expenses of loved ones.

Tax Reform Act Changes to Section 529 Plans

Under the Tax Reform Act, effective in 2018, tuition – and only tuition – for kindergarten through high school qualifies for the tax benefits under Section 529.

Further, this expansion applies to public, private, and religious school tuition for K through 12.

The definition of qualified expenses remains broader for post-secondary education.

Michigan Education Savings Program

Michigan has established the Michigan Education Savings Program (MESP) – a Section 529 program. Some features of the MESP:

  1. Investment Options – The MESP offers many investment options for differently aged beneficiaries. The investment risk level options include Aggressive, Moderate, and Conservative.
  2. Tax Benefits – A person filing as single can deduct up to $5,000 in MESP contributions annually for Michigan income tax purposes. The limit is $10,000 for a couple filing a joint Michigan income tax return.
  3. So, at Michigan’s 4.25% tax rate, every $1,000 of contributions saves $42.50 in Michigan taxes.
  4. Of course, the primary tax saving is the exclusion from federal income tax of the earnings in the account.
  5. Fees – There are no enrollment or account maintenance fees. There is a modest program management fee and a fee on underlying investments.
  6. Not Restricted to Michigan Educational Institutions – Distributions for QHEE can be for an educational institution
    outside Michigan

Relevance to Divorce

Provision for educational expenses – particularly K-12 private school and post-secondary education – is often an objective in divorce settlements. Use of Section 529 may offer a tax-advantaged way of doing so – particularly now for K-12 private school tuition.

Private or Religious Grade & High School Example:

  • Dad agrees to pay a child’s private school tuition of $10,000 annually.
  • Using a 529 plan to do so saves $425 of Michigan tax each year.
  • And, any earnings in the account are tax free if all used for qualified education expenses.

For public college and university expenses, it is advantageous to start when children are young and, hence, the savings horizon is long enough to establish significant funds for education.

College Example:

  • Contributing $250 a month for a 5 year-old child, invested at 2%, will result in over $44,000 at the child’s age 18.
  • The $8,000 earnings will be free of federal and state income tax if used for qualified education expenses.
  • And, the Michigan tax savings total $1,530 over the 13 years.

About the Author

Joe Cunningham has over 25 years of experience specializing in financial and tax aspects of divorce, including business valuation, valuing and dividing retirement benefits, and developing settlement proposals. He has lectured extensively for ICLE, the Family Law Section, and the MACPA. Joe is also the author of numerous journal articles and chapters in family law treatises. His office is in Troy, though his practice is statewide.

Download the PDF file below… “IRC Section 529 Plans Expanded to Include K through 12 Public, Private, and Religious School Tuition”
View / Download April 2019 Article – PDF File

Complete Michigan Family Law Journal available at: Michigan Bar website – Family Law Section (subscription required)

Read More “April 2019 : IRC Section 529 Plans Expanded to Include K through 12 Public, Private, and Religious School Tuition”

March 2019 : Tribute to Norm Robbins

Posted by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA

View / Download March 2019 Tribute – PDF File

Tribute to Norm Robbins

Norm Robbins died in late January at age 99. He was a pioneering luminary in Michigan family law.

Norm and a handful of other prestigious family law attorneys founded the Family Law Section of the State Bar in the 1970s. I believe Norm served as the first chairperson of the Section and was instrumental in its successful launch. From that initial small core of attorneys, the Section grew to 3,000 and became active on many fronts.

Norm was also the first to be honored with the Section’s Lifetime Achievement Award—a recognition of his many high-level contributions to the practice of family law in Michigan.

To wit, he was largely responsible for establishing the Michigan Family Law Journal as one of the state’s best section periodicals. Norm was the initial editor of the MFLJ and served in that capacity for over forty years. Doing so was a labor of love for Norm. He was extremely dedicated to maintaining and improving its high quality.

Norm maintained two columns for many years – his insightful “Commentary” and his delightful “Quid Pro Quo” – “Did You Know” column.

In 1981, Norm asked me to begin my Tax Trends and Developments column. As the first regular MFLJ columnist other than Norm, I was deeply honored.

This also gave me an opportunity to deepen my friendship with Norm, which I have cherished these many years.
Norm was more than an exceptional, pioneering family law attorney. He was kind and considerate. He brought civility and moderation to fractious situations. He was an “old school” lawyer in the best sense of the term.

Norm was a gentleman and a gentle man. He was exem-plary of the many virtues of the Greatest Generation to which he belonged

While Norm will be dearly missed, his prodigious legacy – as one of the founders of the Family Law Section and longtime editor of the highly regarded Michigan Family Law Journal – will survive him well into the future.

All of us in the Michigan family law arena are better off because of Norm. It was an honor to know him.

Download the PDF file below… “Tribute to Norm Robbins”
View / Download March 2019 Tribute – PDF File

Complete Michigan Family Law Journal available at: Michigan Bar website – Family Law Section (subscription required)

Read More “March 2019 : Tribute to Norm Robbins”

February 2019 : Tips on Providing for Joint Tax Refunds, Overpayments, and Estimated Taxes in a Divorce Context

Posted by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA

View / Download February 2019 Article – PDF File

With the tax return filing season getting into high gear, the following are tax matters often overlooked in divorce settlements. Where applicable, simply providing a copy of this article to a client with the recommendation to consult with a tax advisor is a potentially valuable service.

Joint Tax Refunds

Address on Tax Return— Most divorce settlements provide for the division of a tax refund on the final joint return. The check will be sent to the address on the return and will be payable to both parties. Thus, delay in receipt of a refund may result if the principal residence is used on the return and the refund is sent after the marital home is sold and the effective “forwarding address” period has expired. If this is foreseeable, use another address on the return (e.g. in care of the CPA/tax preparer).

Notification and Documentation— It is advisable to provide that the party who receives the refund check must notify the other party, provide documentation of the refund, and make payment of the other party’s share within a specified time frame – e.g., one week.

Take Away— Consider potential logistical problems concerning receipt and division of a joint tax refund and make appropriate arrangements, and provide for notification, documentation, and payment.

Joint Tax Overpayments Applied to Estimated Tax

Advantage of Applying an Overpayment— Many taxpayers apply for extensions rather than filing by April 15. And most with income not subject to withholding – LLC income; S Corporation income; investment income – must make estimated tax payments due April 15, June 15, September 15, and January 15 each year.

An overpayment from a prior year is deemed received by the IRS as of the April 15 initial due date even if the return is filed six months later at or near the October 15 extended due date. Thus, it is often advantageous to apply an overpayment to the succeeding year tax liability, especially if a taxpayer realizes late in the year when the return is filed that preceding estimated payments are insufficient to avoid the underpayment tax liability. This can be done with the entire overpayment, or just part of it with the balance refunded.

Parties Can Each Apply Part of Overpayment— Parties are free to agree on the application of an overpayment on a joint return to the next year’s tax. If the amount so applied is allocated 100% to the husband, nothing needs to be done on either spouse’s succeeding year tax return. However, if the overpayment is to be divided equally, husband will need to make an after-tax payment to wife to square things off.

If any of the overpayment is to be applied to wife’s tax, she must enter husband’s SSN in the appropriate space on page one of her Form 1040 followed by “DIV”. If wife has remarried, she must enter ex- husband’s SSN at the bottom of Form
1040 page one, again followed by “DIV”.

Take Away— If either party relies on estimated tax payments and an overpayment is possible, make provisions in advance for potential advantageous use of the overpayment.

Estimated Taxes

New Requirement for Many— Many recipients of taxable spousal support provided in pre-2019 divorce settlements have never needed to make quarterly estimated tax payments. However, since no income tax is withheld on spousal support payments, estimated tax payments are generally necessary to avoid (1) a large April 15 payment and (2) corresponding underpayment of tax penalties. This applies to both federal and state income taxes.

The underpayment penalty may be avoided if the amount paid in – via wage withholding or estimated tax payments – exceeds the party’s hypothetical prior year tax based solely on his or her individual income and deductions. This often applies in the first year of receipt of spousal support, but not generally to subsequent years.

Take Away— Attorneys should advise clients awarded taxable spousal support to contact his or her tax advisor regarding estimated tax payment requirements.

About the Author

Joe Cunningham has over 25 years of experience specializing in financial and tax aspects of divorce, including business valuation, valuing and dividing retirement benefits, and developing settlement proposals. He has lectured extensively for ICLE, the Family Law Section, and the MACPA. Joe is also the author of numerous journal articles and chapters in family law treatises. His office is in Troy, though his practice is statewide.

Download the PDF file below… “Tips on Providing for Joint Tax Refunds, Overpayments, and Estimated Taxes in a Divorce Context”
View / Download February 2019 Article – PDF File

Complete Michigan Family Law Journal available at: Michigan Bar website – Family Law Section (subscription required)

Read More “February 2019 : Tips on Providing for Joint Tax Refunds, Overpayments, and Estimated Taxes in a Divorce Context”