Tax Cuts and Job Cuts Act: A Game Changer for Alimony and Tax Planning
As we are reading and watching the news over the past few days, Congress has approved and the president is signing into law H.R. 1 of the 115th U.S. Congress, the much debated tax bill set to reshape the federal tax system.
December 22, 2017 at 11:26 AM
3 minute read
As we are reading and watching the news over the past few days, Congress has approved and the president signed into law H.R. 1 of the 115th U.S. Congress, the much-debated tax bill set to reshape the federal tax system. We've read about the sweeping changes being made with pass through entities, the SALT deduction and the estate tax. And as we await the implementation of the new law and the affect it will have on everyday life, we will learn the details contained in the bill's 400-plus pages. One of those details will substantially affect alimony recipients and payors in the future: Effective Jan. 1, 2019, alimony will no longer be taxable income to those who receive it or tax deductible for those who pay for it.
The tax bill, specifically Section 1309, repeals the tax deduction available to tax payors for alimony payments. For those who are paying alimony presently, the section is not retroactive. It provides that this repeal will effect those who have a divorce or separation instrument (as defined by section 71(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986) executed after Dec. 31, 2018. However, for those who get divorced after this date, depending on your circumstances, this legislation will be a game changer.
As alimony payors typically are in higher tax brackets than alimony recipients, the present law allowed parties to more easily resolve divorces by allowing alimony to be structured tax efficiently and soften the blow of what can be a very high number paid for a very long time. With this new law, alimony recipients will no longer report alimony as taxable income, akin to child support.
There is a growing discussion among law and tax professionals that such a change will make divorce matters more litigious and difficult to resolve by removing a key tool in negotiating cases with tax planning. With this tool now gone going forward, only time will tell if this tax change really will make divorce matters involving alimony issues more difficult to resolve. It is important to discuss the pros and cons of this change and what it may mean to an individual's situation with an attorney or tax professional experienced in these areas.
There is also growing discussion throughout Florida about whether this change may jump-start discussion on alimony reform once again, a topic which has been debated for several years in Tallahassee and subject of two recent bills that were both vetoed by Gov. Rick Scott. As with all the provisions in this sweeping piece of legislation from Washington, only time will tell how it will affect our everyday life and the consequences of those changes.
Henny L. Shomar and Douglas H. Reynolds are directors at Tripp Scott in Fort Lauderdale. Shomar practices in the areas of commercial and complex business litigation, marital and family law, probate litigation and creditor's rights. Reynolds is board certified in business litigation and marital and family law.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250