Navigation Bar
< Home Page[About Us]


Why?
Subsription Access to some research documents (those we license from independent legal research companies) are restricted to subscribers. To gain access to ALL of these documents, you must subscribe. If you are already a subscriber, you may sign in before you begin your research. (Why Subscribe?)

Cases of Interest: Tax Consequences
National Legal Research Group, Inc.

ALASKA: Dodson v. Dodson, 955 P.2d 902 (Alaska 1998).
The trial court did not err when it discounted the value of a 401(k) plan to account for taxes that the wife would have to pay before she could use the plan's funds.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

ARKANSAS: Killough v. Killough, 72 Ark. App. 62, 32 S.W.3d 57 (2000).
The wife argued that the trial court's decision not to include the retained earnings of the husband's professional association in its determination of the marital assets was error. The wife also argued that the trial court erred in its decision to order the wife to pay one-half of any additional income taxes owed by the husband's failure to report income.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Bernard v. Bernard, 730 A.2d 663 (D.C. 1999).
The trial court's failure to mention the husband's substantial individual tax liability required remand for consideration of what effect the debt should have on the distribution of marital property and debts.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

FLORIDA: Vaccaro v. Vaccaro, 677 So. 2d 918 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996).
A party who seeks consideration of tax consequences should present the tax consequences for all of the tax-burdened assets, not just for a single asset.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

FLORIDA: Livingston v. Livingston, 633 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. DCA 1994).
The trial court erred in calculating the amount of a tax surcharge which the husband owed to the marital estate for federal income taxes it paid on the husband's separate investment income during the marriage.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

FLORIDA: England v. England, 626 So. 2d 330 (Fla. DCA 1993).
Evidence did not support the trial court's decision to consider potential capital gains taxes in determining the value of the business awarded to the husband.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

INDIANA: Knotts v. Knotts, 693 N.E.2d 962 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
The value of the husband's unexercised stock options should not have been reduced by the amount of estimated capital gains taxes.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

INDIANA: Hiser v. Hiser, 692 N.E.2d 925 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998).
The value of the husband's stock options was properly reduced to account for taxes paid at the time when he exercised them and sold the stock during the dissolution proceedings.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MINNESOTA: Lund v. Lund, 615 N.W.2d 860 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
A division of property was reversed when it rested on a finding of fact that a farm operator could avoid the tax consequences of a property division and that finding of fact was not supported by the record.
Subscription Read More About This Case

MINNESOTA: Kriesel v. Gustafson, 513 N.W.2d 9 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).
A parent's right to claim the couple's dependent children as an income tax exemption is not "property" with a present value for purposes of dividing the marital estate.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

MONTANA: In re Marriage of DeBuff, ___ Mont. ___, 50 P.3d 1070 (2002).
The trial court was not required to award postjudgment interest on a monetary award at the statutory judgment rate. It could choose to award interest at a lesser rate, which was reasonable under the facts.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Bogdan v. Bogdan, ___ A.D.2d ___, 688 N.Y.S.2d 255 (1999).
The parties should be required to share equally the marital debt.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Geisel v. Geisel, ___ A.D.2d ___, 659 N.Y.S.2d 511 (1997).
The husband's inherited funds were transformed to marital property when he placed them in a mutual fund account and stock shares in the parties' names as joint tenants.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Teich v. Teich, ___ A.D.2d ___, 658 N.Y.S.2d 599 (1997).
The husband could not be ordered to file a joint income tax return with the wife in place of the separate returns already filed or to cooperate in filing amended joint returns, but any adverse financial consequences of his failure to sign the joint or amended returns proffered by the wife could be taken into account in distributing the parties' marital property.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NEW YORK: Hartog v. Hartog, ___ A.D.2d ___, 605 N.Y.S.2d 749 (1993).
Wife's distributive award must be reduced by her equitable share of taxes to be paid on the profit from the sale of marital assets that would have to be sold to satisfy her award.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Holterman v. Holterman, ___ N.C. App. ___, 488 S.E.2d 265 (1997).
The wife failed to carry her burden of proof to show that the parties' investments were traceable to her separate property; moreover, the evidence showed that the wife intended her inherited assets to be a gift to the marital estate.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH CAROLINA: Harvey v. Harvey, 112 N.C. App. 788, 437 S.E.2d 397 (1993).
Husband's partnership interest should not have been valued on an after-tax basis, where he had not withdrawn from the partnership and the distribution would not require him to do so.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

NORTH DAKOTA: Kostelecky v. Kostelecky, 537 N.W.2d 551 (N.D. 1995).
Because the parties' divorce decree did not specify how required distributions were to be structured or who would be liable for the resulting taxes, the decree was ambiguous and clarification was appropriate.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

OREGON: In re Marriage of Drews, 153 Or. App. 126, 956 P.2d 246 (1996).
The trial court did not err in discounting the value of the husband's retirement accounts by 40% for future income tax liability.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

OREGON: Rykert v. Rykert, 146 Or. App. 537, 934 P.2d 519 (1997).
The trial court did not err by applying a 39% tax discount to the husband's termination benefits while not applying any tax discount to the expected capital gain on the sale of the family home.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

SOUTH CAROLINA: Hudson v. Hudson, ___ S.C. ___, 530 S.E.2d 400 (Ct. App. 2000).
Is dependent tax exemption an asset subject to equitable distribution?
Subscription Read More About This Case

TEXAS: Harris v. Holland, 867 S.W.2d 86 (Tex. Ct. App. 1993).
Husband should not have been allowed an offset for the hypothetical tax consequences associated with the property he received.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

VIRGINIA: Arbuckle v. Arbuckle, ___ Va. App. ___, 470 S.E.2d 147 (1996).
The trial court erred in considering the tax consequences of a hypothetical sale when valuing the husband's dental practice.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

WASHINGTON: In re Marriage of Hay, ___ Wash. App. ___, 907 P.2d 334 (1995).
If tax consequences are imminent, or arise directly from the trial court's property disposition, and the amount is not speculative, such consequences are proper to consider when valuing marital assets.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

WEST VIRGINIA: Boyle v. Boyle, ___ W. Va. ___, 459 S.E.2d 401 (1995).
A third party seeking intervention in the parties' divorce proceeding for the purpose of protecting a property right failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating an interest that outweighed the parties' substantial privacy interests.
SubscriptionRead More About This Case

Go to: Cases of Interest by Category
Go to: Previous Page


State Home Archives Bulletin Menu Chat Rooms Family Law Links Publications Menu Dictionary


About Us | Monthly Newsletter | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Statement | Contact Us | Advertising

The information contained on this page is not to be considered legal advice. A lawyer should always be consulted in regards to any legal matters. Divorce Source, Inc. is also not a referral service and does not endorse or recommend any third party individuals, companies, and/or services. Divorce Source, Inc. has made no judgment as to the qualifications, expertise or credentials of any participating professionals. Read our Terms & Conditions.

© 1996 - 2012 Divorce Source, Inc. All Rights Reserved.