Wright v. Wright
45% tax rate for maintenance determination was within the range of the expert’s testimony.
In Re Marriage of Scheuer v. Scheuer
The court did not have to consider the tax consequences of husband’s withdrawal from his IRA to make the equalization payment since it was anticipated that he would sell or refinance the homestead. Husband’s choice to raise funds through a method which resulted in a penalty is his erroneous exercise of discretion, not the court’s.
In Re Marriage of Rumpff v. Rumpff
Court did not need expert testimony to reduce value of pension by twenty percent. In absence of an expert, the court can use its own knowledge and experience to engage in reasonable speculation regarding anticipate tax impact.
In Re Marriage of Preuss v. Preuss
No error by not considering potential tax consequences of sale of family farm as wife testified that she has no plans to sell the farm. Evidence does not show that a sale is probable or imminent.
In Re Marriage of Schorer v. Schorer
Trial court’s refusal to take into consideration tax consequences of sale of stock in closely held corporation is affirmed as there is no evidence in the record that any sale of the business is imminent.
In Re Marriage of Fowler v. Fowler
Where the parties did not present the trial court with any evidence or other reliable data as to the tax consequences of the court’s decision, the court does not abuse its discretion in failing to take those consequences into consideration.
In Re Marriage of Liddle v. Liddle
Reduction of stock portfolio for taxes was reasonable, as evidence supported a finding that stocks would probably be sold, as husband would be unable to make property division payments out of earned income.
In Re Marriage of Laribee v. Laribee
Reduction of pension for taxes by 25% affirmed. Future taxes clearly impact on the present value of retirement plans.
In Re Marriage of Ondrasek v. Ondrasek
Trial court improperly considered capital gains tax in determining the sale of real estate and a building owned by service corporation. Nothing in record supports that a sale is imminent.
Wright v. Wright
Failure of a trial court to consider tax consequences may constitute an abuse of discretion.
Wahl v. Wahl
No abuse of discretion in refusing to consider the theoretical tax consequences of sale of corporation where sale is neither necessary nor probable. However, where award of property is a taxable event, capital gains consequences must be considered.
Marlin G. Springer v. CIR
Annual Payments were deductible as alimony even though divorce decree was silent on whether liability would survive death of the payee. If the instrument is not clear, whether liability terminates at death is determined by operation of state law.
Friedman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Innocent spouse rule applies to taxpayer who was aware of tax shelter that gave rise to improper deduction, but did not understand their implications.
Heller v. Commissioner
Divorce instrument which reduces future spousal support by any court ordered increase in child support does not constitute a contingency related to a child.
Arnes v. U.S.
Redemption by a corporation of wife’s stock, which was jointly held by divorcing spouses, is not a taxable event.
Preston v. Commissioner
Payments must terminate upon payor’s death to be deductible. If state law automatically terminates payments upon death, the document need not expressly so state.
Hovis v. Hovis
A divorcing spouse’s potential tax liability may be considered in valuing marital assets only where such liability is reasonably ascertainable.
Matter of Marriage of Drews
Discounting value of husband’s pension by 40% for future income tax liability is affirmed as expert testified that tax rates of individuals in economic circumstances like the husband (a dentist) usually remained the same upon retirement.
Matlock v. Matlock
Where there was no evidence that a sale of the family business (a car dealership) was pending, it was error to value the business by deducting the capital gains tax which would be incurred upon a sale.
Shuck v. Shuck
No discount for potential capital gains for business as there was no evidence of a sale in the near future.
- 1
- 2