Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
Maurice B Foley 360x1000
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
LillianFaderman
499
2confidencegames
2lafayette
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
Edmund Burke 360x1000
Brendan Beehan 360x1000
2falsewitness
199
4confidencegames
2jesusandjohnwayne
storyparadox3
2albion
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
2defense
storyparadox2
2transadentilist
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
1lookingforthegoodwar
1lafayette
Tad Friend 360x1000
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
Gilgamesh 360x1000
3defense
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
1empireofpain
1theleasofus
3albion
Samuel Johnson 360x1000
1albion
Storyparadox1
1defense
Learned Hand 360x1000
13albion
1lauber
4albion
6confidencegames
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
lifeinmiddlemarch2
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000
7confidencegames
8albion'
Betty Friedan 360x1000
1transcendentalist
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
1madoff
1gucci
3confidencegames
2lookingforthegoodwar
1falsewitness
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
3paradise
Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
Maria Popova 360x1000
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
3theleastofus
George F Wil...360x1000
2paradise
12albion
1jesusandjohnwayne
1trap
2gucci
AlexRosenberg
299
1confidencegames
11albion
lifeinmiddlemarch1
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000
5confidencegames
7albion
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
6albion
14albion
5albion
1paradide
9albion
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
Richard Posner 360x1000
399
2theleastofus
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
2trap
11632
10abion

This was originally published on PAOO June 27, 2010.

Gratisography at Pexels

There are quite a few developments in the last few months I am hoping to spout about, but I am going to skip straight to PLR 201024005. The situation is not a common one, but it is a good starting point for a discussion of the tax aspects of divorce. The taxpayer held securities that were qualified replacement property from the sale of stock to an ESOP. The requested ruling, which is favorable, holds that the transfer of the securities to the taxpayer’s spouse will not trigger gain recognition 

All well and good. The question that intrigues me is whether taxpayer’s spouse knows the implications of the settlement. In my fantasy spouse will turn the securities over to a money manager who will sell them all and end up being shocked with the resulting tax bill. There used to be a joke that there are three ways to get out of a burned-out tax shelter. The first was to put the interest into a defective grantor trust and then cure the defect. It was a really neat idea. It doesn’t actually work, but it was clever. Then there was dying. Pretty drastic, but it worked (until this year anyway). Finally, there is giving it to your spouse and getting a divorce. Still works.

The important thing to remember is that property received in a divorce has the same basis that it had to the couple. So if one spouse gets a pile of money and the other spouse gets a pile of low basis assets of equal gross value, there really hasn’t been an even split. If the couple has significant assets, this could be a much more important issue than who gets the dependency deduction. The dependency deduction seems to garner much more attention than it is worth. Ironically, despite all the attention it is not unusual to neglect to follow through on the requirement that non-custodial parents obtain a release form.

Filing joint returns, in my experience, seems to usually be taken as a given. In situations where you have reason to believe that your spouse has unreported income or even when they have a high exposure return, the smart thing could be to forgo some savings in the interest of peace of mind.

Finally, if alimony is involved you need to be aware that there are fairly complex rules to prevent alimony treatment for payments that are more in the nature of property settlement or child support.