Articles Posted by James McGlew II

Tax season is now descending upon all of us and for individuals either planning to file for divorce, or those who are presently in the midst of divorce litigation, understanding how your current marital status can impact your tax liability is of significant importance. While each individual’s specific circumstances are unique, this article intends to provide general guidance to assist you in your decisions. By highlighting several areas where Divorce and Tax Law intersect you can make informed choices that will help to ensure that you’re not paying more than your fair share of taxes owed.

For individuals contemplating separation or divorce, tax planning prior to these events can often result in significant savings during the divorce process. Consulting a tax professional to discuss the pros and cons of filing joint or separate tax returns is always advisable for individuals who plan to divorce in the coming months. With respect to previous year’s tax filings, regardless of whether they were filed individually or jointly, gathering copies of these documents today will expedite the discovery phase of your divorce case and help to reduce your overall divorce costs.

Do you and your spouse own your own business? In situations where a business operates as a cash business it is important to collect and maintain information as to the businesses’ monthly income. This information will be important for the valuation and eventual equitable distribution of marital assets. Depending upon your particular circumstances, pre-planning and consultation with your attorney and accountant can often result not only in tax savings but ensuring your overall financial protection.

Published on:
Updated:

A recent New York Times article discussed the increasing national trend of older couples divorcing.  In New Jersey, as well as nationally, “Grey Divorces” are becoming more common and, as a result, more socially acceptable. Over the last 15 years there has been a marked increase in the number of individuals over the age of 50 who are divorcing their spouse and for individuals over the age of 65, the divorce rate increase has been even greater.

For the majority of older individuals many of the more common divorce issues no longer remain. Issues such as child custody, time-sharing, child support and those surrounding the raising of children have all been resolved. Rather, for senior couples preparing to divorce the issues of alimony and equitable distribution remain vitally important along with a myriad of other related late-life divorce questions.

Below I have outlined some of the major considerations that should be examined by older couples who intend to divorce.

Published on:
Updated:

By: James McGlew

The perils of getting married without a prenuptial agreement were made clear this week with the news of the divorce of billionaire Harold Hamm.  Mr. Hamm, Chief Executive Officer of Continental Resources, was ordered to pay nearly $1 billion to his now ex-wife in one of the largest US divorce judgments ever.  The order requires Mr. Hamm to pay his ex-wife one-third of the settlement, about $320 million, by the end of 2014 and the remainder to be paid in monthly installments of at least $7 million.  This award will help to make the former Ms. Hamm one of the 100 wealthiest women in the United States.

As I'm sure you can tell by now, Mr. and Mrs. Hamm had no prenuptial agreement.

Published on:
Updated:

By: James McGlew

On September 10, 2014, Governor Christie signed into law A845 which makes significant changes to New Jersey alimony law.  The reformed alimony statute will dramatically impact the way spousal support is calculated going forward.  

Important changes to New Jersey alimony include:

Published on:
Updated:

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent landmark decision in , the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) ruled that same-sex marriages will be recognized for federal tax purposes, even if the married couple is domiciled in a state that does not recognize same-sex marriage. For example, lawfully married same-sex couples in New York will be treated as married for federal tax purposes, even if they permanently relocated to New Jersey or Florida, states that currently do not recognize same-sex marriage.

The decision struck down Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (which excluded same-sex couples from the federal definitions of “marriage” and “spouse”) as unconstitutional. Yet the Court’s decision raised the issue of whether federal benefits would extend to same-sex married couples domiciled in states that do not recognize same-sex marriage.

 For federal tax purposes, the terms “spouse,” “husband and wife,” “husband,” and “wife” include an individual married to a person of the same sex if the individuals are lawfully married under state (including any foreign jurisdiction having the legal authority to sanction marriages) law, and the term “marriage” includes such a marriage between individuals of the same sex, regardless of an individual’s place of domicile. Significantly, however, these terms do not cover registered domestic partnerships, civil unions, or other similar formal relationships recognized under state law for federal tax purposes.

Published on:
Updated:
Contact Information