20-3-1528 Mills v. Mills, N.J. Super. Ch. Div-Ocean Cty., (L.R. Jones, J.S.C.) (29 pp.) This case presents legal issues involving an alimony obligor’s loss of employment, and interpretation of recent 2014 amendments to New Jersey’s alimony statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34- 23(k). Specifically, defendant seeks a reduction of his alimony obligation to plaintiff, based upon losing his prior long-term employment, and subsequent obtaining of a new job at a significantly reduced salary. In turn, plaintiff opposes a reduction in alimony. For the reasons set forth in this opinion, the court grants defendant’s application for a reduction in his alimony obligation, and holds the following: (1) Under the recent 2014 amendments to New Jersey’s alimony statute, and newly enacted subsection N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(k), a court may reduce an alimony obligation when the obligor loses his or her prior W-2 employment, and thereafter makes reasonable attempts to find substitute employment; (2) In interpreting and applying the new statutory language to a case when an obligor loses his job and obtains replacement employment at a substantially lower salary, a fundamental approach to addressing such a situation inherently involves two questions of equity: (A) Was the supporting spouse’s choice in accepting particular replacement employment objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances? (B) If so, what if any resulting adjustment in support is fair and reasonable to both parties under the facts of the case? (3) The terms and spirit of part of the 2014 amended alimony statute, N.J.S.A. 2A:34-23(k) are relevant and applicable in this case, where the parties were divorced prior to September 10, 2014, but where (a) the parties’ agreement contained no contractual provision defining or 2 limiting the standards for reviewing a modification of support based upon loss of employment and decrease in financial circumstances, and (b) the issue has not already been litigated and adjudicated by the court in prior post-judgment proceedings. (Approved for Publication)
35-5-1544 Bank of Am. Consumer Card Holdings v. Dir., Div. of Taxation, Tax Ct. (Cimino, J.T.C.) (76 pp.) Taxpayers are in the credit card business. The issue is the allocation of receipts from credit card accounts for purposes of determining the proper amount of Corporation Business Tax owed by taxpayers. The court held that the interest from New Jersey credit card accounts is fully allocable to New Jersey. The court also held that the interchange generated from transactions of New Jersey credit card accounts constitutes Original Issue Discount, or interest and is also fully allocable to New Jersey. As to fees, the court allocated the fees from credit card accounts in accordance with the Director’s regulation, which allocates fifty percent to the location of the account holder. The court also upheld the Corporation Business Tax Act as constitutional. [Filed Oct 6, 2016) (Approved for Publication)
