Deducting a Divorce

I am looking at two points on a case:

(1)  The IRS wanted $1,760,709; and

(2)  The only issue before the Court was a deduction for legal and professional fees.

That is one serious legal bill.

The taxpayer was a hedge fund manager. The firm had three partners who provided investment advisory services to several funds. For this they received 1.5% of assets under management as well as 20% of the profits (that is, the “carry”). The firm decided to defer payment of the investment and performance fees from a particular fund for 2006, 2007 and 2008.

2008 brought us the Great Recession and taxpayer’s spouse filing for divorce.

By 2009 the firm was liquidating.

The divorce was granted in 2011.

Between the date of filing and the date the divorce was granted, taxpayer received over $47 million in partnership distributions from the firm.

You know that point came up during divorce negotiations.

To be fair, not all of the $47 million can be at play. Seems to me the only reachable part would be the amount “accrued” as of the date of divorce filing.

He hired lawyers. He hired a valuation expert.

Turns out that approximately $4.7 million of the $47 million represented deferred compensation and was therefore a marital asset. That put the marital estate at slightly over $15 million.

Upon division, the former spouse received a Florida house and over $6.6 million in cash.

He in turn paid approximately $3 million in professional fees. Seems expensive, but they helped keep over $42 million out of the marital estate.

He deducted the $3 million.

Which the IRS bounced.

What do you think is going on here?

The issue is whether the professional fees are business related (in which case they are deductible) or personal (in which case they are not). Taxpayer argued that the fees were deductible because he was defending a claim against his distributions and deferred compensation from the hedge fund. He was a virtual poster boy for a business purpose.

He has a point.

The IRS fired back: except for her marriage to taxpayer, the spouse would have no claim to the deferred compensation. Her claim stemmed entirely because of her marriage to him. The cause of those professional fees was the marriage, which is about as personal as an event can be. The tax Code does not allow for the deduction of personal expenses.

The IRS has a point.

The tax doctrine the IRS argued is called origin-of-the-claim. It has many permutations, but the point is to identify what caused the mess in the first place. If the cause was business or income-producing, you may have a deduction. If the cause was personal, well, thanks for playing.

But a divorce can have a business component. For example, there is a tax case involving control over a dividend-paying corporation; there is another where the soon-to-be-ex kept interfering in the business. In those cases, the fees were deductible, as there was enough linkage to the business activity.

The Court looked, but it could not find similar linkage in this case.

In the divorce action at issue, petitioner was neither pursuing alimony from Ms [ ] nor resisting an attempt to interfere with his ongoing business activities.

Petitioner has not established that Ms [ ] claim related to the winding down of [the hedge fund]. Nor has petitioner established that the fees he incurred were “ordinary and necessary” to his trade or business.

While the hedge fund fueled the cash flow, the divorce action did not otherwise involve the fund. There was no challenge to his interest in the fund; he was not defending against improper interference in fund operations; there was no showing that her action led to his winding down of the fund.

Finding no business link, the Court determined that the origin of the claim was personal.

Meaning no deduction for the professional fees.

NOTE: While this case did not involve alimony, let us point out that the taxation of alimony is changing in 2019. For many years, alimony – as long as the magic tax words were in the agreement – was deductible by the payor and taxable to the recipient. It has been that way for my entire professional career, but that is changing. Beginning in 2019, only grandfathered alimony agreements will be deductible/taxable, with “grandfathered” meaning the alimony agreement was in place by December 31, 2018.

Mind you, this does not mean that there will be no alimony for new divorces. What it does mean is that one will not get a deduction for paying alimony if one divorces in 2019 or later. Conversely, one will not be taxed upon receiving alimony if one divorces in 2019 or later.

The Congressional committee reports accompanying the tax change noted that alimony is frequently paid from a higher-income to a lower -income taxpayer, resulting in a net loss to the Treasury. Changing the tax treatment would allow the Treasury to claw back to the payor’s higher tax rate. Possible, but I suspect it more likely that alimony payments will eventually decrease by approximately 35% - the maximum federal tax rate – as folks adjust to the new law.

Our case this time was Sky M Lucas v Commissioner.

Losing An Alimony Tax Deduction

There are certain tax topics that repeat – weekly, monthly, ceaselessly and without end. One such is the tax issues surrounding divorce. I have often wondered why this happens, as divorce is surely one of the most lawyered life events an average person can experience. I will often skip divorce tax cases, as I am just tired of the topic.

But a recent one caught my eye.

The spouses were trying to work something out between them. It was clear to me that they solicited no tax advice, as they plunged off the bridge without checking the depth of the water below.

John and Beatrix were married. They legally separated in 2008 and divorced in 2013. In the interim John agreed to make 48 monthly maintenance payments of $2,289. There was a clause stipulating that payments were to be taxable to her and deductible by him, and the payments were to cease upon her remarriage or death.

John found himself unemployed. His payments were to begin in 2010. Presumably concerned about his financial situation, he and Beatrix agreed in 2009 to transfer his IRA worth $38,913.

John did not deduct the IRA as an alimony payment on his 2009 tax return.

Why not? Because Beatrix was to start withdrawing $2,289 monthly from the IRA the following year, presumably until the $38,913 was exhausted. It made more sense to John that those monthly payments would trigger the alimony.

There is some rhyme or reason to his thinking.

It appears his finances improved, as in 2010 he was able to directly pay Beatrix $6,920.  

In 2010 he deducted $27,468 ($2,289 times 12) as alimony.

The IRS disallowed all but $6,920.

Off to Tax Court they went.

There are four key statutory requirements before any payment can be deductible as alimony:

(1)  The payment must be required under a divorce or separation decree.

(2) The decree cannot say that the payments are not deductible/taxable.

(3)  The two individuals cannot be members of the same household.

(4) There cannot be any requirement to continue the payments after the death of the payee spouse.

It is amazing how often someone will fail one of these. A common story is one spouse beginning payments before the court issues the order, or a spouse paying more than the court order. Do that and the payment is not “required.” Another story is presuming that the payment is deductible because the decree says that it is. The IRS does not consider itself bound because one included such language in the decree.

Then there are the softer, non-key requirements.

For example, only cash payments will qualify as alimony.

If you think about this one for a moment, it makes sense. The Code already allows spouses to transfer property in a divorce without triggering tax (Code section 1041). This allows spouses to transfer the house, for example, as well as retirement benefits under a QDRO order. The Code views these transactions as property settlements – meaning the ex-spouses are simply dividing into separate ownership what they previously owned together.

COMMENT: It is highly debatable whether John’s IRA is “cash.”  Granted, there may be cash in the IRA, but that not is not the same as saying the IRA is cash or a cash equivalent. It would make more sense to say that it is the equivalent of stocks or mutual funds. This would make it property, not cash.

Let’s next go back to rule (4) above. A way to rephrase that rule is that the payee spouse cannot be enriched after death. Obviously, if maintenance payments were to continue after death, then the payee-spouse’s estate would be enriched. That is not allowed.

In our situation, Beatrix now owned an IRA. Granted, the expectation may have been that she would outlive any balance in the IRA, but that expectation is not controlling. If she passed away, the balance in the IRA would be hers to transfer pursuant to her beneficiary designation.

She was enriched. She had something that continued past her (albeit hypothetical) death.

Another issue was whether John should get credit for IRA withdrawals by Beatrix in 2010. Why?  John transferred the IRA to her in 2009. The account was no longer his. It was hers, and he could no longer piggyback on anything the IRA did. If he was going to deduct anything, he would have had to deduct it in 2009.

Which, by the way, he could not because of rule (1): it was not required under the decree. The decree called for payments beginning in 2010, not in 2009.

The Tax Court decided that John had a 2010 alimony deduction for $6,920, the amount he paid Beatrix directly.

Why did John do it this way? 

If John was less than 59 1/2, so he could not get into his IRA without penalty.  He could QDRO, but that is just a property settlement. John wanted an alimony deduction. If he kept the IRA, he would have income on the withdrawal and a deduction for the alimony. That is a push - except for the 10% penalty on the early withdrawal. John was in a tough spot.

Then again, maybe he didn't think of tax matters at all.