NJSBA Family Law Section

 View Only
Cosmo Lex
Back to discussions
Expand all | Collapse all

Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

  • 1.  Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-25-2018 12:42 AM
    READ THIS.

    As we're all aware, alimony becomes non-deductible as of January 1, 2019. It's designed to shift $6.9 billion per year onto the middle class (as taxes will now be paid on that income at the higher rate of the payor rather than the lower rate of the recipient).

    The statute has a land mine that will be a boon to malpractice attorneys if we don't act on it immediately on all pending alimony cases.

    In sum, it looks like we need to do "consent orders entering final judgment as to alimony." I know some of us are doing this already, but I'm seeing a lot of confusion over the issue that could be seriously costly.

    The idea of getting a written agreement now (before 1/1/2019) to protect deductibility isn't mine. It originates with the X-treme CLE seminar in October ("Family Law – The New Tax Code and Its Impact on the Matrimonial Practice"), hosted by Withum Smith & Brown, Judge Lougy, Judge Fitzpatrick (I think), and led by Jennifer Zoschak of Oswald & Zoschak. As per that seminar, Section 11051(c) of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act provides: Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section [removing the deductibility / includability of alimony] shall apply to – (1) any divorce or separation instrument (as defined in section 71(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act) executed after December 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.

    So, the changes apply to "any divorce or separation instrument (as defined in section 71(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986...) executed after December 31, 2018."

    As per IRS Circular 504 (which mirrors section 71(b)(2) of the Code), https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p504.pdf defines a divorce or separation instrument as "A decree of divorce or separate maintenance or a written instrument incident to that decree, A written separation agreement, or A decree or any type of court order requiring a spouse to make payments for the support or maintenance of the other spouse. This includes a temporary decree, an interlocutory (not final) decree, and a decree of alimony pendente lite (while awaiting action on the final decree or agreement)."

    The key phrase is in the last sentence: "This includes a temporary decree, an interlocutory (not final) decree, and a decree of alimony pendente lite (while awaiting action on the final decree or agreement)."

    This interpretation - and the necessity of entering into a consent order now to maintain deductibility after 12/31/2018 has been adopted by many attorneys, and Family-specialized CPA's like Lois Fried of Capaldi Reynolds and Morrison & Co. It is also the position put forth by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. whose president, Peter M. Walzer, said "You've got to have a signed agreement before the end of the year if you want your permanent support to be tax-deductible and -includable." It's also the position adopted by the media at large, including MSNBC's tax commentary section ("Divorce professionals are feeling the heat as couples scramble to get written agreements [not final judgments] in under the wire.") - https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/29/new-divorce-tax-rules-could-result-in-a-big-financial-disadvantage.html . Written agreements, not judgments, are at issue and, for purposes of rebutting a later-made IRS claim that something was back-dated (which could cause clients to incur unnecessary fees if there's an audit), a consent order (which is obviously "a temporary decree, an interlocutory (not final) decree, and a decree of alimony pendente lite.") is preferable. Additionally, making at least one payment in 2018 so it shows on a 2019 return will, according to a retired IRS agent, greatly lessen the chances of the computers suggesting an audit (as they will look for cases where the first alimony deduction is reported in 2020).

    Additionally, the new law says that later modifications to alimony will relate back and be deductible so long as the order (consent or otherwise) doesn't render them non-deductible ("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.") Technically, we could (and probably should) all get consent orders setting alimony at $1.00 per week in any pending case where alimony is a potential issue, knowing we can modify it to the real amount later. Keep in mind, this is tax law, not some vague "what was their intent" question. The IRS slavishly follows the exact wording of the statute, which is clear.

    If you don't do this, you're going to face serious malpractice liability. I think the best way to protect oneself from potential liability if one's adversary won't sign a consent order is to make a clear paper trail of offers to enter into one now. If the adversary wants to "stick to their guns" and refuses, there will be malpractice liability on their side only.

    And the damages will be significant in a high-income case. For example, if someone offers to pay $12,000 per month, they (under current law) could be able to deduct almost 50% of it. So, say someone paying $12,000 per month could deduct $5,000 of it on a five year (60 month) obligation. That's $300,000 the payor wouldn't have had to pay to the IRS - gone, lost from the marital estate. I can't imagine a panelist, arbitrator, or trial court not taking that from the share of the party who refused to enter into a consent order with good cause. Frank Louis' oft-asserted "fiduciary duty to a spouse and the martial estate" comes to mind.

    So - if anyone can show me where I'm wrong, I'd appreciate it, but otherwise - there's some work to do in the next couple of days.

    <x-sigsep></x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
    Hopewell, NJ 08525
    Voice: 609-466-1222
    Fax: 609-466-1223



  • 2.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-25-2018 03:58 AM
    I rarely chime into the fray but before my brother's and sisters have a meltdown over David's latest posting, I need to comment. 


    While getting a one dollar per week alimony consent order on December 26 may be a great hot tip, it may also ultimately be disallowed by the service as a transparent tax dodge putting the reasonable matrimonial Lawyer in malpractice/ conspiracy to tax evade Heaven.  Lets keep in mind that no malpractice claim can be effective without a credible expert witness opining that the alleged conduct is a deviation from the standard of care a lawyer owes their client. Having been an expert witness in the area of family law on more occasions that I would like to admit, I find it highly u likely that any expert opining this theory would sustain cross examination.   


    Everyone go back to enjoying their Xmas holiday. 

    Cary B. Cheifetz
    25 Deforest Ave. 
    Suite 105
    Summit, N.J.  07901
    (908) 273-6300

    Diplomate American College of Family Trial Lawyers
    Fellow American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
    Member Best Lawyers in America (Family Law)

    Sent from my iPad



    Original Message


  • 3.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-25-2018 04:49 PM
    Cary -
    <x-tab>        </x-tab>Thanks for chiming in. Believe me, I want someone to tell me I'm wrong.
    <x-tab>        </x-tab>But - "a tax dodge"? That's not my understanding of tax law. A dodge would be, for instance, disguising child support as alimony (under the soon-to-be "old rules") where there's otherwise no reasonable alimony liability. This, by contrast, is simply applying the letter of the law. If there's an actual alimony issue, it's no more a "tax dodge" than is a 1031 exchange to avoid taxes on a real estate transfer.
    <x-tab>        </x-tab>This is applying black-letter law to maximize the tax benefits of a real alimony obligation. If, for example, there was no legitimate basis for an alimony obligation and counsel were to craft an agreement in order to make a child support or equitable distribution transfer deductible, I'd see what you're saying. Here, I don't. Using the letter of the law by putting a "place holder" amount of alimony into a written agreement (or, preferably, a consent order) in order to maximize the tax benefits is just good lawyering and reading the law. And, certainly, failing to get a written agreement with a realistic amount (if it later modified after discovery) would seem mandatory.
    <x-tab>        </x-tab>I've also acted as an expert in legal malpractice cases, giving Affidavits of Merit, writing expert reports, and testifying. I'd give an Affidavit of Merit in a heartbeat over this issue.
    <x-tab>        </x-tab>Please, tell me where I'm wrong, but provide some authority for the answer when reading the black-letter law seems pretty clear -- something that would justify a summary judgment application to dismiss a malpractice action.

    <x-sigsep></x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
    Hopewell, NJ 08525
    Voice: 609-466-1222
    Fax: 609-466-1223




    Original Message


  • 4.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-25-2018 07:13 AM
    I am curious as to the panic about the new tax law. Same-sex couples have been "tax-affecting " support payments for years to make up for inequities in non-recognition of domestic partnerships and civil union by the federal government. Fair solutions are not hard to find. I agree with Carey that a hasty solution could bring all sorts of issues. We are not without a remedy though if you simply look at the tax implications and factor that into the final solution. The sky is not falling. 

    ================================
    Debra E. Guston, Esq.

    Immediate Past President - Academy of Adoption & Assisted Reproduction Attorneys 
    201-447-6660 w
    201-417-8252 c



    Original Message


  • 5.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-25-2018 07:41 AM
    Merry Christmas!

    Sent from my iPad


    Original Message


  • 6.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-26-2018 09:31 PM
    Are we actually saying that one should rush their client into entering a consent order that may not be in their best interests and may very well be in the absence of full disclosure? And our reasoning should be that we needed to evade the new tax law? Now that sounds like malpractice to me!

    Lisa Steirman Harvey, Esq.


    Original Message


  • 7.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-26-2018 10:14 PM
    I don't like to drop names, especially without asking first, but here's just some of the people saying getting a consent order in place before 1/1/2019 is the way to avoid malpractice here: Frank Louis, Brian Paul, James Yudes, President of the AAML Peter M. Walzer, and Family Law specialized accountant Lois Fried. But regardless of who is advocating for it, the reason is the same: Read the statute. The relevant sections are below and aren't long. This is tax law, it goes by what's written, not some touchy-feely Family Part determination of intent. For example, the IRS has long approved of 1031 real estate exchanges to avoid taxes... an obvious "tax dodge" if that's how it was viewed. But the IRS doesn't view it that way. Black and white. You're in compliance with the tax law or you're not.

    The law is clear:

    1. Section 11051(c) of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act provides: The amendments [removing deductibility] made by this section shall apply to–(1) any divorce or separation instrument (as defined in section 71(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect before the date of the enactment of this Act) executed after December 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.

    2. The referenced section 71(b)(2) and IRS Circular 504 ( https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p504.pdf ) define a "divorce or separation instrument" as "A decree of divorce or separate maintenance or a written instrument incident to that decree, A written separation agreement, or A decree or any type of court order requiring a spouse to make payments for the support or maintenance of the other spouse. This includes a temporary decree, an interlocutory (not final) decree, and a decree of alimony pendente lite (while awaiting action on the final decree or agreement)."

    So, there's two choices:

    1. Enter into a consent order now that sets a pendente lite obligation, even a good-faith guesstimate (Having re-read his post, I agree with Cary that, if there's a danger, doing a $1 per week consent order as a place holder wouldn't be a good idea). Make it without prejudice to completion of discovery. Boom - you just protected deductibility. And should the completely unsupported (and -- respectfully -- complete wrong) statements here saying it won't work be proven correct, the payor simply doesn't claim the deduction.

    <x-tab>        </x-tab>or

    2. Ignore this, and don't enter into "a temporary decree, an interlocutory (not final) decree, and a decree of alimony pendente lite (while awaiting action on the final decree or agreement)." You just cost the marital estate tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars that will now go to the IRS. And which you'll owe (via a malpractice suit) back to the client.

    There will be litigation over this - I guess that's clear. Claims of having wasted the marital estate. Malpractice claims for failing to take advantage of the tax law changes when there was time. I guess we can all choose what side we'll be on. I have the issue in four active cases. In three, counsel read the law and we've done consent orders. In one, the other side is refusing, without providing any basis. I guess we'll see how it shakes out, but I damned well know what side of the above two options I'd rather be on. I've given an Affidavit of Merit in two malpractice cases this year. Next year is shaping up to look busy with them.

    <x-sigsep></x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
    Hopewell, NJ 08525
    Voice: 609-466-1222
    Fax: 609-466-1223




    Original Message


  • 8.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-26-2018 10:27 PM
    Well.  I certainly have a basis.  (1) my adversary waited until mid-November to file; (2) my adversary's client refused to provide my client money to retain me until two weeks ago; (3) I have received only an unexecuted Case Information Statement filled by my adversary with so many rushed mistakes it doesn't even make sense; and (4) the only "discovery" I received from a commission based obligator were tax returns (showing not only "taxable" income, but interest, dividends, capital gains) without ANY attachments..NONE!
    Sure, let me jump into rushing and basically forcing  a consent order under those circumstances!.....As Frank has been "name dropped", don't I have a "fiduciary duty" and legal duty not to force a consent order under such ridiculous circumstances?
    Honestly, threatening malpractice?  Aren't we all on the same side here?!


    ------------------------------
    Lisa Harvey Esq.
    Edison NJ
    (732)529-6937
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 9.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-26-2018 11:50 PM

    I would be happy to address those and why they're irrelevant to getting a place-holder $12,000 per month pendente lite consent order in place, but I'm not sure this belongs here - let's take it off-list. My comments were general, not specific to a case.


    <x-sigsep></x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
    Hopewell, NJ 08525
    Voice: 609-466-1222
    Fax: 609-466-1223




    Original Message


  • 10.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-26-2018 11:49 PM

    David-  Your post is not accurate.  For the record, I never said that I believed an attorney would be committing malpractice if they didn't advise their client to enter into a consent order to make alimony tax deductible prior to year end.  To the contrary, I agree with Cary Cheifetz that the failure to do so would not be deviating from the standard of care a lawyer owes their client, and I would not provide an Affidavit of Merit on the issue if I was asked to do so.

     

    _____________________________________

    Brian G. Paul, Esq.

    Certified Matrimonial Law Attorney

    Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, P.C.

    101 Grovers Mill Road

    Lawrenceville, New Jersey  08648

    Phone:  609-275-0400

    Direct Fax:  609-779-6065

    [email protected]

     

     

     




    Original Message


  • 11.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-27-2018 01:45 AM
    Brian - I sincerely apologize. While we'd discussed it being a good idea to get this done, the supposition that it would definitely lead to malpractice liability was mine, based on my (apparently incorrect) take-away from our communication and my conversations about the topic with a certified civil trial attorney who has successfully handled a number of significant legal malpractice cases. But I shouldn't have used your name (or others) without checking. I apologize.

    While I deeply respect what you and Cary say, and perhaps it should set us at ease somewhat, I'm still not comfortable with any action that diminishes the marital estate by tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars going to the IRS that could be preserved for the family. And the ability to do that (necessity of doing that) was really the focus, the "this would be malpractice" aspect was just added a tangential impetus / urgency to get it done.

    But, again, I'm sincerely sorry for implying you agreed. I thought you had, but stand corrected.

    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
    Hopewell, NJ 08525
    Voice: 609-466-1222
    Fax: 609-466-1223

    </x-sigsep>



    Original Message


  • 12.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-27-2018 07:53 AM

    David-  While it is always commendable to set up a win-win transaction that saves both clients thousands of dollars over the length of an alimony award, it is quite a stretch to argue that the failure to enter into such an arrangement deviates from the standard of care the attorney owes their client and constitutes legal malpractice.  Our alimony statute provides the court with wide latitude and discretion when awarding alimony, including the ability to designate it taxable or non-taxable (see factor 12, "The tax treatment and consequences to both parties of any alimony award, including the designation of all or a portion of the payment as a non-taxable payment").  Do you think a trial court would have abused its discretion and committed reversible error if it, prior to December 31, 2018, chose to make an alimony award non-taxable resulting in additional taxes being paid?  If your answer is "yes", then at least one Appellate Division panel disagreed with you, since I have specific recollection of Judge Conley, before she retired, authoring an unpublished Appellate Division opinion where a trial court's award of non-taxable alimony was affirmed over the husband's objection on the basis the non-taxable award was authorized by statute and within the court's discretion.

     

    _____________________________________

    Brian G. Paul, Esq.

    Certified Matrimonial Law Attorney

    Szaferman, Lakind, Blumstein & Blader, P.C.

    101 Grovers Mill Road

    Lawrenceville, New Jersey  08648

    Phone:  609-275-0400

    Direct Fax:  609-779-6065

    [email protected]

     

     

     




    Original Message


  • 13.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-27-2018 08:17 AM
    David,

    I have been watching the incessant posts to the forum and your emails to my firm pressuring Lisa Steirman Harvey to settle alimony by Monday on a case in which your client is a high income earner with a deferred compensation structure and has failed to produce adequate discovery of his income.  Yet you continue to argue that THE SKY IS FALLING - WE HAVE TO SETTLE NOW OR WE'RE COMMITTING MALPRACTICE!    These posts are nothing more than an attempt to convince Lisa to change her position and convince her that we're committing malpractice by not doing things your way.  I am left wondering: Why won't you take no for an answer? Do you have nothing else to do?  It's Christmas time and New Year's eve is in a few days.  How about we give this a rest.  Lisa's answer is no, we are not settling alimony on this case by Monday.  No is a complete sentence.  No.  (Note period at end of sentence). 

    Happy New Year!

    ------------------------------
    Christina Previte, Esq.
    Previte & Nachlinger, P.C.
    6 Wills Way, Building 2
    Piscataway, New Jersey 08854
    (732) 529-6937 Phone
    (732) 909-2701 Fax
    http://www.pnlawnj.com
    Email: [email protected]
    ------------------------------

    Original Message


  • 14.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-27-2018 08:42 AM
    Thank you Christine for your commentary which is spot on.  

    Not for nothing, David seems to be of the opinion that a court will award the same level of alimony on an after tax basis  as it did on awards made pretax. At least that seems to be inferred in his damage calculation. We all know that will not be the case after Jan 1 because the tax consequences will be taken into account to see what each party is left with for disposable income. That isn't to say the net will be exactly equal but except for the extreme case, it is most likely to be of a difference that doesn't justify a malpractice litigation assuming a deviation even occurred.  


    If you think about the consequences of a disallowance of a place holder order or consider what language you would need to put in such an order to protect the dependent spouse the transparency needed is problematic in itself and probably enough to disallow the order. My head would explode. Always remember that no good deed ever goes unpunished. 




    Cary B. Cheifetz
    25 Deforest Ave. 
    Suite 105
    Summit, N.J.  07901
    (908) 273-6300

    Diplomate American College of Family Trial Lawyers
    Fellow American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
    Member Best Lawyers in America (Family Law)

    Sent from my iPad



    Original Message


  • 15.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-27-2018 08:55 AM
    David

    Now you posts are becoming offensive.  It is unethical and potentially malpractice to do a "sham" order or agreement prior to 1/1/2019 if there is truly no agreement between the parties that (a) Alimony should be paid in the first instance; and (b) what that amount should be.

    Please stop with this nonsense.

    Alice M. Plastoris, Esq.
    (973) 538-7070

    Sent from my iPad



    Original Message


  • 16.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-27-2018 08:58 AM

    We're all members of the bar and all practice family law.  Trust your instincts to do what's right to protect your client's interests.  If you're new or just unsure, conference the issue with someone in your firm or with a trusted colleague.

     

    Dan Lane

     




    Original Message


  • 17.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-27-2018 04:03 PM
    Sent from my iPhones


    Original Message


  • 18.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-28-2018 12:00 PM
    Christine: I didn't even know Lisa was on this list when I posted. Yes, it was the ongoing issue in our case that led to the initial post here. It's the only one I have where someone isn't agreeing to protect the marital estate by entering into a consent order on an "of course" basis so as to protect the deductibility of spousal support. After writing the extensive email to Lisa (with copies of the relevant statutes) when she surprised the hell out of me by refusing without explanation to sign, I changed it over to the post here as it seemed to be an urgent issue of general concern that perhaps others weren't aware of: Have a compliant writing by 12/31/2018 or the marital estate takes a huge tax hit. I was under the impression people cared about not causing a monumental loss to the marital estate, regardless of whether we face malpractice liability, and still believe most of us do.

    And, since you've brought a private case onto this public list - I get it that's it's a solid "no" on entering into one on our case. And actions and decisions have consequences. I get what others are saying that it may not rise to the level of malpractice. It's still horribly wrong. Perhaps our case will resolve some other way, or perhaps we'll have a more definitive answer to whether this is malpractice. But according to (this time quoted with permission) certified civil trial attorney Marty Indik of Indik & McNamara, who handles malpractice cases, there's enough there for him to look at when the case is resolved if there's an unnecessary loss to the marital estate.

    And there's zero question there will be a loss: $12,000 per month in his income range would be roughly 45% deductible to him, meaning it would cost him $5,400 per month. $12,000 per month to her will put her in the 24% tax bracket. After the $12,000 standard deduction, she'll benefit roughly $9,300 per month on the $5,400 per month he'd have paid. Or, rather, that's what she would have if you'd cared about protecting the parties' mutual best interests. Instead, just to show how tough you are and willing to standing up to being "bullied" to act in the parties' best interests, you're willing to set fire to $3,900 per month (probably $250,000 in total over the length of the obligation). The amount is specifically, as per the proposed consent order, without prejudice to future adjustment. Even if discovery showed a higher amount of support is appropriate, there will still be a significant loss to the marital estate (in fact, if it is higher, there would be a greater loss to the marital estate).

    You could still, before Monday is over, enter into a "written divorce agreement" setting pendente lite support and preventing this. But you won't. Congratulations on standing up for... what you think you're standing up for.

    ____________________

    Cary - I deeply respect you and your opinions and have for many years, but the issue here is not a belief that a court will award the same level of alimony on an after tax basis as it did on awards made pretax. I certainly do not believe that. It's that, for no benefit except to show how "tough" they are, my adversary is willing to waste a quarter of a million dollars.

    And I agreed with you that a $1 per week placeholder could be problematic. You were right. But the text of the statute is clear that a "divorce instrument" setting a temporary alimony obligation will retain its deductibility if later modified. While my initial post was meant to be a general warning to folks who might not have been aware of the issue, in the case where someone just wants to prove how obnoxious they can be just by saying "no" when it inflicts a huge loss on the marital estate, $12,000 per month is hardly a "place holder" and it wasn't based on the assumption that alimony will be the same. Whether the ultimate call is an amount higher, lower, or the same, the tax benefits will be lost and significant funds wasted.

    ____________________

    Alice: I'm sorry you find my posts offensive. Your quasi-illiterate and silly statement that "it is unethical and potentially malpractice to do a "sham" order or agreement prior to 1/1/2019 if there is truly no agreement between the parties that (a) Alimony should be paid in the first instance; and (b) what that amount should be. Please stop with this nonsense" demonstrates that you have absolutely no grasp whatsoever of what's being discussed. Feel free to filter all future messages from me directly to your spam folder so you don't have to read them, and I'll advise the president of the AAML (and everyone else who's actually taken the time to read the statutes) that his advice that we secure a temporary alimony agreement to ensure deductibility is a "sham." I have no idea who you are and you're invited not to ever respond to anything I say.

    ____________________

    Final words on the topic: The #TaxScam section that makes alimony deductible (even if later modified after the completion of discover) includes a "separation agreement" so long as its executed before 1/1/2019  (    Section 11051(c) and https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p504.pdf ). While a consent order would be better protection against a later IRS claim of back-dating, I hope folks will at least get a written agreement in place and ensure the first alimony check is cut by Monday.

    <x-sigsep>

    David Perry Davis, Esq.
    ----------------------------------------------------
    www.FamilyLawNJ.pro
    ----------------------------------------------------
    57 Hamilton Avenue -- Suite 301
    Hopewell, NJ 08525
    Voice: 609-466-1222
    Fax: 609-466-1223

    </x-sigsep>



    Original Message


  • 19.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-28-2018 12:09 PM

    Interesting that David respectfully disagrees with Cary but Alice is quasi-illiterate and silly.

     

     

    Christina Previte, Esq.

    CEO & Co-Owner

    NJ Divorce Solutions (Previte Nachlinger PC)

    510 Thornall Street, Suite 270

    Edison, NJ 08837

    732-529-6937 Phone

    732-909-2701 Fax

    http://www.CentralJerseyFamilyLaw.com

     

     

     




    Original Message


  • 20.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-28-2018 12:15 PM

    Well....hoping everyone has a happy new year.  Lets all remember for 2019 that you can't put the toothpaste back in the tube...especially on the internet. 

     

    Dan Lane

     

    Sent from Mail for Windows 10

     




    Original Message


  • 21.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-28-2018 12:17 PM
    Agree with Dan.  Thanks for the insight everyone.  We can all take it from here 

    Sent from my iPhone, please excuse any typos or words that don't belong in a sentence.  
    #darnspellcheck.  



    Original Message


  • 22.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-28-2018 12:28 PM
    The list serve  banter really needs to be stopped. It's disruptive. 



    Original Message


  • 23.  RE: Serious malpractice warning with new Trump Tax law / ACTION MAY BE REQUIRED ASAP

    Posted 12-28-2018 12:47 PM
    For all the dinosaurs in the room, I was around when the tax law changed and forbid Lesterizing support orders, ie,creating unallocated alimony and child support awards that were fully deductible to the payor and taxable to recipient. Although gentler times,  I don't remember any of my colleagues being sued for malpractice for not getting in under the wire  nor did the sky fall. 


    Happy holidays. 

    Cary B. Cheifetz
    25 Deforest Ave. 
    Suite 105
    Summit, N.J.  07901
    (908) 273-6300

    Diplomate American College of Family Trial Lawyers
    Fellow American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers
    Member Best Lawyers in America (Family Law)

    Sent from my iPad



    Original Message