Support Guidelines Change in Light of Trump's New Tax Laws
Effective Jan. 1, 2019, Section 11051 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 amended the Internal Revenue Code by repealing the alimony deduction from the payor's gross income and the inclusion of alimony in the payee's gross income when filing federal income tax returns.
February 13, 2019 at 03:50 PM
7 minute read
Effective Jan. 1, 2019, Section 11051 of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 amended the Internal Revenue Code by repealing the alimony deduction from the payor's gross income and the inclusion of alimony in the payee's gross income when filing federal income tax returns. This new law applies to all new spousal support/alimony pendente lite/alimony orders entered after Jan. 1, 2019. For modifications of orders entered prior to Jan. 1, the taxability and deductibility of the spousal support/alimony pendente lite/alimony payments remains (unless otherwise agreed upon by the parties).
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed into law in 2017. However, the provision pertaining to the deductibility and inclusion of alimony in one's income did not take effect until a year later (Jan. 1, 2019). Therefore, the family law community braced for the new law to take effect on Jan. 1. Litigants and attorneys scurried toward the end of 2018 to secure spousal support/alimony pendente lite/alimony orders by Dec. 31, 2018, so that such payments remained deductible to the payor and included in the income of the payee. Further, attorneys and the court continued to keep their eyes open as to when the Pennsylvania support guidelines would be amended to be in sync with the new tax law. With each passing day in December 2018, and no new guidelines promulgated by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, the concerns grew.
Luckily, on Dec. 28, 2018, the Supreme Court entered an order promulgating amended guidelines addressing, inter alia, the calculation of spousal support/alimony pendente lite in light of the new tax law. The amended guidelines became effective Jan. 1. As reflected in the amended guidelines, there are now two methods of calculating spousal support/alimony pendente lite. There is one set of calculations for modification of orders entered prior to Jan. 1, 2019, and another set of calculations for new initial orders entered after Jan. 1, 2019. For modification of orders entered prior to Jan. 1, 2019, the method of calculation remains as it has been previously which is either 30 percent of the difference of the parties' net incomes minus child support, or 40 percent of the difference of the parties' net incomes if there is no child support order. The second method of calculating spousal support/alimony pendente lite (i.e., for initial orders entered after Jan. 1, 2019) also affects the calculation of child support. Prior to the amended guidelines, the calculation of child support occurred before the calculation of spousal support or alimony pendente lite. Under the new method, spousal support/alimony pendente lite is calculated first. Instead of using a percentage of the difference of the parties' net incomes, the new guideline takes different percentages of the incomes of payor and the payee and then subtracts the two from each other to arrive at a spousal support/alimony pendente lite order. In cases where there is no child support to be calculated, 40 percent of the payee's income is subtracted from 33 percent of the payor's net income. In cases where there is also child support to be calculated, 30 percent of the payee's income is subtracted from 25 percent of the payor's net income, and then the result is subtracted from the payor's net income and added to the payee's net income in calculating child support. This new form of calculation results in lower spousal support/alimony pendente lite orders to compensate for the non-deductibility/taxability of spousal support/alimony pendente lite under the new tax law.
Concerns have been raised that the computer systems in the courts will not be updated to be consistent with the new calculation method for new initial orders. However, the calculations will be run outside of the computer system until the systems are updated. It is strongly advisable for attorneys to bring calculations with them to court to assist in reaching the final calculation for spousal support/alimony pendente lite and child support.
Prior to the new tax laws, if a support order that contained both spousal support/alimony pendente lite and child support and the order did not allocate which portion was for spousal support/alimony pendente lite and which portion was for child support, the entire order was treated as tax deductible to the payor and taxable to the payee. The new amendments to the support guidelines remove the provisions pertaining to the allocation of support orders and considerations that flow from the same, as spousal support/alimony pendente lite are no longer taxable/deductible.
Contained in the amended guidelines is another big change that is not related to the new tax law. This change pertains to the allocation of additional expenses, such as private school and camp expenses when spousal support/alimony pendente lite is being paid in addition to child support. Prior to the amended support guidelines, the parties would divide these expenses in accordance with their proportionate shares of their combined monthly net incomes. Under the amended guidelines, the parties' proportionate shares are calculated after shifting the spousal support/alimony pendente lite payment from the net income of the payor to the net income of the payee. However, this will only apply in cases where there is a spousal support/alimony pendente lite payment being made. Therefore, in cases where only child support is being paid, the amount of child support being paid will not be shifted from the payor's net income and added to the payee's net income for purposes of apportioning additional expenses.
The amended guidelines also addressed another important issue. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court case of Hanrahan v. Bakker, 186 A.3d 958 (Pa. 2018), decided on June 19, 2018, mandated a discrete reasonable needs analysis in all high income child support cases pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-3.1. It was assumed that the rationale of Hanrahan applied to all high income spousal support/alimony pendente lite cases since high income spousal support/alimony pendente lite cases and high income child support cases are governed by the same rule, Pa.R.C.P. 1910.16-3.1. The logical extension of Hanrahan to high income spousal support/alimony pendente lite cases became a reality when the Supreme Court promulgated the amended guidelines on Dec. 28, 2018, by including the official note directing all to the Hanrahan case when calculating child support, spousal support and alimony pendente lite. The note can be found under Rule 1910.16-2(e)(2).
There are other adjustments to the guidelines contained in the amended guidelines issued on Dec. 28, 2018, and, therefore, all should carefully review the same. Now that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has remedied the concerns of the bar and the bench as to whether the amended guidelines would be promulgated in time for the effective date of the new tax law, the family law community can breathe a sigh of relief, until the next big issue arises that causes all concern.
Michael E. Bertin is a partner at the law firm of Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel. Bertin is co-author of the book “Pennsylvania Child Custody Law, Practice, and Procedure.” He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, the chair-elect of the family law section of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, former chair of the family law section of the Philadelphia Bar Association, and the current co-chair of its custody committee. Contact him at 215-665-3280 or [email protected].
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 AllFederal 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 readSupreme Court's Ruling in 'Students for Fair Admissions' and Its Impact on DEI Initiatives in the Workplace
6 minute readMembership Has Its Privileges: Bankruptcy Court Examines LLC's Authority to File Bankruptcy
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
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