The New Tax Code's Impact on Divorce: A Mediator's Perspective
The most sweeping federal tax code overhaul in decades, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, was signed into law on Dec. 22, 2017. New provisions in the law affect both businesses and individuals. Many of these changes will have a direct impact on the practice of family law, specifically in the area of divorce.
May 22, 2018 at 02:30 PM
6 minute read
The most sweeping federal tax code overhaul in decades, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), was signed into law on Dec. 22, 2017. New provisions in the law affect both businesses and individuals. Many of these changes will have a direct impact on the practice of family law, specifically in the area of divorce. Generally, the provisions in the TCJA took effect on Jan. 1, 2018, but the most significant change in the law with respect to divorcing parties, however, has not yet taken effect. This dramatic change will apply to situations where alimony/spousal maintenance is paid pursuant to divorce or separation agreements executed after Dec. 31, 2018. Thus, it is critical that parties contemplating divorce, family law practitioners counseling them, and mediators assisting them understand the changing law and can intelligently weigh the risks and benefits of negotiating and filing for divorce in 2018, while the deductibility and taxability of alimony remains in effect. Likewise, while the change in the alimony deduction won't affect existing alimony orders, other changes in the TCJA may render previously negotiated divorce settlements and pre-nuptial agreements inequitable or no longer reflective of the parties' intentions. It may be advantageous to make modifications to these prior agreements in 2018, while the alimony deduction remains available, and in light of the TCJA changes.
Alimony Provisions
In instances where there is a sufficient disparity in the income of divorcing spouses, alimony/spousal maintenance may be a part of a negotiated settlement or ordered by a court. Previously, Section 215 of the tax code allowed alimony payments to be deductible by the payor-spouse. Section 11051 of the TCJA, entitled “Repeal of Deduction for Alimony Payments,” eliminates Section 215. Under the TCJA, alimony payments are no longer deductible by the payor-spouse and are not included in income to the recipient-spouse. Such payments have been removed from the definition of gross income found in Section 61 of the tax code. Income used for alimony/spousal maintenance will be taxed at the (higher) rate of the payor-spouse and not the previous (lower) rate of the recipient-spouse. Alimony payments will be treated the same as child support and will not be deductible by the payor nor taxable to the payee.
The new alimony provisions under the TCJA apply to: (1) any divorce or separation instrument (as defined in Section 71 (b) (2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986…) executed after Dec. 31, 2018, and (2) any divorce or separation instrument (as so defined) executed on or before such date and modified after such date if the modification expressly provides that the amendments made by this section apply to such modification.
In New York, there are written guidelines and factors that govern the distribution of marital assets in a divorce. Courts, counsel and mediators will, inter alia, consider investments and savings, relative incomes, the parties' lifestyle, educational background, past employment, the ability to work, health, length of the marriage, and the number and age of any children. Historically, in setting child support and determining whether alimony/spousal maintenance is warranted, judges, counsel and mediators focus on the pre-tax income of each spouse.
Deductions
When alimony payment deductions are permitted, the (higher tax bracket) payor-spouse receives a deduction that is higher than the amount the recipient (lower tax bracket) spouse has to pay on the alimony as taxed income. This after-tax net savings is, thus, available to the payor for the support of the payee. Additional monies from an alimony deduction will soon no longer be available. Likewise, the change in alimony deductibility and taxability will soon change the total net income of the parties under child support guidelines. Clearly, courts, counsel and mediators will then have to look to the after-tax income of each spouse to determine the appropriate amount of any alimony/spousal support and child support payments.
The change in the treatment of alimony will, no doubt, impact future divorce negotiations and settlements and the way spousal and child support needs are analyzed. Commentators have argued about whether the repeal of the alimony deduction in the TCJA will favor the payor (typically the higher income husband) or the recipient (typically the lower income wife). Commentators point to the fact that recipients will no longer be taxed as evidence of the change benefitting women. Some fear that because payor-husbands will lose the deduction, they will ultimately be ordered to pay less. Of course, such concerns presume that parties won't act collaboratively to obtain and share the best net tax outcome for their families. Nonetheless, a review of the numerous changes contained in the TCJA suggests that its net effect will not be much different.
With the elimination of the alimony deduction, the IRS will tax the higher-earning spouse at the higher rate. Additionally, the IRS will no longer face administrative and tax loss problems resulting from alimony deductions taken on the payee's return but not reported as income on the recipient's return. Theorists will debate whether the alimony deduction functions as a tax payer subsidy benefitting divorcing couples or whether its repeal constitutes a divorce tax.
Substantial changes and benefits in the TCJA will blunt the effect of the change in the tax treatment of alimony. The most significant TCJA change is the lowering of tax rates for individuals and the adjustment of bracket amounts. This should provide most higher-earning spouses with more income to meet the needs of their supported spouses and children. Additionally, the standard deduction and the child tax credit have been nearly doubled; the list of qualified expenses for Section 529 education plans has been increased; and estate and gift tax exemptions have been substantially expanded. Another significant change under the TCJA is the tax treatment of pass-through income from a business. Taxing this income at individual tax rates less a significant deduction will dramatically reduce the tax rate on this income and provide greater income for spousal and child support.
Conclusion
Now is the perfect time to review with a tax planner how numerous changes in the tax code will specifically impact 2018 and future returns and effect previously negotiated and anticipated divorce settlements as well as pre-nuptial agreements. With the assistance of a mediator and counsel, parties can modify portions of or entire prior agreements that no longer equitably reflect their intentions or best interests. Similarly, parties contemplating divorce may determine that it is beneficial to negotiate and file for divorce in 2018. Both can act while the tax deductibility of alimony and the enhanced changes are simultaneously in effect, only in 2018. Working with a mediator will provide an efficient, time saving, less costly, and less stressful confidential process in which to resolve these issues.
Caroline Antonacci is a neutral with JAMS in New York.
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 AllArt of the Settlement: Trump Attorney Reveals Strategy in ABC Lawsuit
Evolving Legal Standards to Combat Disqualification of Arbitrators for Failing to Disclose Conflicts of Interest
8 minute readCourt of Appeals Holds that Arbitration Agreements Can Be Formed Through ‘Clickwrap’ Process
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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