Pa. High Court Amends Support Guidelines Due to Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
Major amendments to the Internal Revenue Code resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 became effective on Jan. 1. One of the most significant changes brought about by those amendments is that, for new support order entered on or after Jan. 1, payors of alimony pendente lite (monetary support to a spouse during divorce litigation, also known as spousal support) and alimony can no longer deduct their payments.
February 08, 2019 at 01:51 PM
6 minute read
Major amendments to the Internal Revenue Code resulting from the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 became effective on Jan. 1. One of the most significant changes brought about by those amendments is that, for new support order entered on or after Jan. 1, payors of alimony pendente lite (monetary support to a spouse during divorce litigation, also known as spousal support) and alimony can no longer deduct their payments. In addition, payees are no longer required to report such payments as income, for tax purposes.
As Pennsylvania's Support Guidelines were based on the prior reality that spousal support payments were deductible by the payor and reportable by the payee, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court entered an order on Dec. 28, 2018, which amended the guidelines effective Jan. 1, 2019. Among other things, these amendments are focused on revising the formulas for determining how spousal support is calculated to account for the fact that such payments are no longer tax deductible for new orders entered on or after Jan. 1.
It is helpful to review examples of calculations both pre- and post-amendment.
Starting with the pre-amendment guidelines, consider a scenario where the only issue is spousal support and where the payor earns $10,000 per month net, and the payee earns $5,000 per month net. Based on the amount of gross income that the payor would need to earn to net $10,000 per month, assume that the payor pays roughly 19 percent of his gross income for federal income taxes.
Under the prior guidelines, the payee's $5,000 per month net is subtracted from the payor's $10,000 per month net resulting in a difference of $5,000. That difference is then multiplied by 40 percent to yield a spousal support amount of $2,000 per month. As this amount would be tax deductible under the prior guidelines, then the payor would receive a 19 percent or $380 tax benefit for being able to deduct a $2,000 spousal support payment. Therefore, as a practical matter, it would only “cost” the payor $1,620 to pay $2,000 of spousal support.
Under the amended guidelines, the calculation is slightly different.
Using the same income amounts, the payor's proportionate share of spousal support is 33 percent of the payor's monthly net income of $10,000, or $3,300. Whereas, the payee's proportionate share of spousal support is 40 percent of the payee's monthly net income of $5,000, or $2,000. The payor's proportionate share of spousal support of $3,300 is then subtracted from the payee's proportionate share of spousal support of $2,000 to result in a nondeductible monthly spousal support obligation of $1,300.
As a consequence, the payor does substantially better under the amended guidelines which result in a $1,300-per-month spousal support payment which is not tax deductible. Conversely, under the prior guidelines, the payor's obligation would be $2,000 per month, but with a $380 tax deduction, resulting in the payor being out of pocket approximately $1,620 per month (i.e., $2,000—$380 = $1,620). Therefore, the payor essentially saves $320 per month (i.e., the difference between $1,620 and $1,300) by operation of the amended guidelines in comparison to the payor's obligation under the prior guidelines. In this example, the operation of the amended guidelines results in a windfall to the payor.
The benefit to the payor when child support is also involved, however, is not nearly as significant.
Based on the pre-amendment guidelines, a payor who nets $10,000 per month would be required to pay child support for one child of $1,223 per month to a payee who nets $5,000 per month. The spousal support obligation is calculated by subtracting the payee's $5,000 per month from the payor's $10,000 per month which results in a difference of $5,000. The payor's child support obligation (i.e., $1,223) is then subtracted from the $5,000 difference to yield a sum of $3,777 which is then multiplied by 30 percent resulting in a spousal support obligation of $1,133 per month.
As that spousal support payment is tax deductible under the prior guidelines, the payor will get a tax deduction of roughly 19 percent or $215. Therefore, while the payor's total child support and spousal support obligation would be $2,356 per month under the prior guidelines (i.e., $1,223 per month child support + $1,133 per month spousal support = $2,356), it will really only cost the payor $2,141 per month after considering the tax deductibility of the payor's spousal support obligation (i.e., $2,356 – $215 = $2,141).
Under the amended guidelines, when child support is involved, the payor's spousal support obligation is $1,000 per month. This amount is calculated by determining the payor's proportionate share of spousal support by multiplying the payor's $10,000 monthly net income by 25 percent resulting in the sum of $2,500. The payor's proportionate share of spousal support is then calculated by multiplying the payee's $5,000 monthly net income by 30 percent to result in the amount of $1,500. The payor's proportionate share of spousal support of $2,500 is then reduced by the payee's proportionate share of spousal support of $1,500 to result in a spousal support payment of $1,000 per month.
After considering the payor's spousal support obligation, the resulting child support amount for one child is an additional $1,100 for a total of $2,100 per month. As can be seen, this amount is fairly close to the payor's total child and spousal support obligation under the prior guidelines, after considering the tax deductibility of the payor's spousal support obligation (i.e., $2,141 per month under the prior guidelines after account for tax deductibility versus $2,100 per month under the post-amendment guidelines).
Based on these examples, a payor who is obligated to pay just spousal support substantially benefits from the amended guidelines whereas a payor who is obligated to pay both child support and spousal support ends up in a very similar position under both the pre- and post-amendment guidelines. Results will, of course, vary from case to case as there is a multitude of factors and considerations that must be accounted for and analyzed. Of critical importance, it must be further noted that there are different considerations under the amended guidelines for the subsequent modification of support orders entered before Jan. 1, and also different considerations for alimony awards which are not addressed by the post-amendment guidelines.
David J. Draganosky is a partner at Shemtob Draganosky Taylor. He focuses his law practice on family law matters including divorce, equitable distribution, custody and support.
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
© 2025 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 AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
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