Uncategorized

June / July 2020 : Division of Pensions – Court of Appeals Upholds Equal Division of Two Pensions Having Different Features. Reed v Reed App No. 346520 (2/13/20) (Unpublished)

Posted by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA

View / Download June-July 2020 Article – PDF File

Tax Trends and Developments Column – Michigan Family Law Journal

Facts

  • H and W both had pensions to divide after a nineteen year marriage.
  • W had a Michigan county pension and H a Michigan public school pension.
  • A CPA testified that there were two basic differences in the pensions:
    1. H’s school pension included an automatic COLA provision (MIP) by which it would increase by 3% a year. W’s county pension had no such provision.
    2. Also, H’s school pension allowed an alternate payee to access his/her share before the participant retired.
      W’s county pension, however, did not allow alternate payee access until the participant actually retired.
  • H, 45 years old, could retire at age 48 and intended to do so. He was free to seek other employment after retiring. W, also 45, had to wait until age 60 to retire.
  • The CPA proposed a partial offset method to adjust for the differences in the two pensions.
  • The trial court ruled that “the most equitable method for division” was to award each party a 50% interest in the other’s pension.
  • H appealed, claiming in part that when he retired at age 48, he could not live on half of his pension.
  • He also claimed that his ability to work after retiring would be relevant only if the court were determining an award for spousal support.

Court of Appeals Ruling

  • The Court upheld the lower court’s decision.
  • Essentially, the Court ruled that both pensions, with their respective features, were marital assets and that dividing them equally was appropriate.
  • The Court also noted that earnings ability is relevant to property distribution as well as to spousal support.

Comments on the Case

  • Since H stated no reason (e.g., health) why he could not work after retiring at age 48, his claim was not very persuasive.
  • Determining the present values of the two pensions would not likely have provided a workable solution in this case. Reason – H’s pension would probably have been far more valuable than W’s pension – making an offset not feasible because:
    1. It was payable from age 48 for life vs. W’s being payable from age 60 for life.
    2. The twelve extra years were earlier, more valuable years in the present value calculation.
    3. H’s pension increased each year whereas W’s did not.
  • Though not an issue in the Reed case, whenever dealing with a Michigan public school pension, one needs to be mindful of recoupment.
    Recoupment occurs if (1) the alternate payee begins drawing his/her share before the participant (1) is age 60 and (2) retires, and (2) the participant works beyond normal retirement age of 60. The resulting reduction of the participant’s bene.t is drastic.
    A way to prevent recoupment is to provide that the alternate payee cannot begin drawing before the participant reaches age 60.

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… “Division of Pensions – Court of Appeals Upholds Equal Division of Two Pensions Having Different Features. Reed v Reed App No. 346520 (2/13/20) (Unpublished)”
View / Download June-July 2020 Article – PDF File

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

Read More “June / July 2020 : Division of Pensions – Court of Appeals Upholds Equal Division of Two Pensions Having Different Features. Reed v Reed App No. 346520 (2/13/20) (Unpublished)”

December 2016 : Nontaxable/Nondeductible Designation of Payments

Posted by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA
Michigan Family Law Journal : TAX TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS Feature

by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA

Excerpt:

General

A question put to me recently was, essentially – Can payments that may qualify as taxable/deductible be stipulated as nontaxable/nondeductible with assurance they will be so treated for tax purposes?

The answer is “yes”, pursuant to IRC 71(b)(1)(B). Just as it is important to include a “tax intent” provision when payments are intended to be taxable/deductible, the same is advisable when they are intended to be nontaxable/nondeductible. Tax intent provisions prevent misunderstandings down the road. Sometimes a tax preparer may suggest payments are deductible by the payer when such was not intended. A tax intent provision prevents this.

The following is sample generic language for a nontaxable/nondeductible tax intent provision:

“Defendant’s payments of [property/spousal support] to Plaintiff provided in paragraph [ ] are hereby designated by the parties, pursuant to IRC Section 71(b)(1)(B), as not includable in Plaintiff’s income under IRC Section 71 and, correspondingly, not deductible by Defendant under IRC Section 215. Plaintiff and Defendant agree that neither will file an income tax return on which subject payments are reported inconsistently with their expressly designated nontaxable/nondeductible status.”

Other Uses

Lump-Sum Payable on Death of Payer — The nontaxable/ nondeductible designation can be used to ensure that payments of life insurance proceeds or a lump-sum settlement from the estate of a deceased spousal support payer, which is not deductible as alimony on an estate’s income tax return, will not be taxable to the payee. This prevents the possibility of one party being taxed on a sizable payment for which there is no corresponding deduction by the other’s successor-in-interest.

It is common after the death of an alimony payer to con- vert the balance of the obligation to its lump-sum, present
value, after-tax equivalent (using the payee’s tax rate) and pay it in full with insurance proceeds. The nontaxable designation accommodates this practice.

Lump-Sum Payable for Other Reasons
……

Continued in PDF file below… “Nontaxable/Nondeductible Designation of Payments”
View / Download December 2016 Article – PDF File

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

Read More “December 2016 : Nontaxable/Nondeductible Designation of Payments”

November 2016 : Federal Income Tax Filing Tips and Related Info

Posted by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA
Michigan Family Law Journal : TAX TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS Feature

by Joseph W. Cunningham, JD, CPA

Excerpt:

As the end of the year approaches, income tax ling questions frequently arise. The following are selected tax filing tips and related information.

Joint Income Tax Returns

It is widely known that if a couple is legally married as of December 31, they may file a joint tax return for the year. This is often beneficial if one spouse has substantially more income than the other – usually resulting in the higher level income taxable in a lower tax bracket. In such situations, it is not uncommon for divorces concluding late in a calendar to defer entry of a judgment into the succeeding year to take advantage of joint tax return filing one last time.

However, under current tax rules – including the pernicious alternative minimum tax – it is generally advisable to “run the numbers” assuming, alternatively, joint tax return filing and separate tax return filing, to determine which will result in the lower combined tax. If the latter would result in the lower tax, entering the judgment in the current year should be considered.

Whenever a joint return may be filed for a year and it is certain the parties will be divorced in the following year, the following matters may be also relevant considerations:

Joint and Several Liability

If a joint return is filed, the parties will be jointly and severally liable for unpaid taxes and/or deficiencies later arising from an IRS tax examination. So, if it is suspected that one spouse is underreporting income and/or claiming excessive deductions, it is generally advisable that the other spouse not agree to file a joint tax return.

While Innocent Spouse Relief protects some unwary joint filers from liability, such protection may not be available if a spouse had reason to believe that income is understated or deductions are padded.

Take Away – Consider potential liability before deciding to file jointly to achieve tax savings.

Joint Tax Refunds

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 house 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).

Take Away – Consider any potential logistical problems concerning receipt of a joint tax refund and make appropriate arrangements.

Joint Tax Overpayments Applied to Estimated Tax

……

Continued in PDF file below… “Federal Income Tax Filing Tips and Related Info”
View / Download November 2016 Article – PDF File

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

Read More “November 2016 : Federal Income Tax Filing Tips and Related Info”