• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

To allsaidanddone

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

LdiJ

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? irrelevant for this thread.

On your previous thread, which was closed, you received some advice that your alimony was not alimony in the eyes of the IRS. I recommended that you use caution in determining that, and that you get a tax professional to research it for you.

This reason why I advised this is because you need someone to do the research and take a position on it by signing your tax return. This is not a simple situation and before you stop putting the money on your tax return as income, you need a tax professional signing that return and accepting liability for it as well.

I am not sure whether its alimony for IRS purposes or not. I do know that you should not take the risk of not including it on your tax return unless you have a tax professional willing to accept the liability of signing off on your return.
 


Bali Hai

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? irrelevant for this thread.

On your previous thread, which was closed, you received some advice that your alimony was not alimony in the eyes of the IRS. I recommended that you use caution in determining that, and that you get a tax professional to research it for you.

This reason why I advised this is because you need someone to do the research and take a position on it by signing your tax return. This is not a simple situation and before you stop putting the money on your tax return as income, you need a tax professional signing that return and accepting liability for it as well.

I am not sure whether its alimony for IRS purposes or not. I do know that you should not take the risk of not including it on your tax return unless you have a tax professional willing to accept the liability of signing off on your return.
Good advice. From what I've read in that thread, the alimony IS alimony and IS taxable to her. Her ramblings about VERBALLY taking on more debt to keep the alimony figure from being reduced etc. etc., apparently was not incorporated into the final divorce decree.

If she chooses to hire a tax professional that advises her NOT to include the alimony as income on her return, and, the IRS subsequently found that she did indeed owe the tax, who owes the tax, her or the tax professional?
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Good advice. From what I've read in that thread, the alimony IS alimony and IS taxable to her. Her ramblings about VERBALLY taking on more debt to keep the alimony figure from being reduced etc. etc., apparently was not incorporated into the final divorce decree.

If she chooses to hire a tax professional that advises her NOT to include the alimony as income on her return, and, the IRS subsequently found that she did indeed owe the tax, who owes the tax, her or the tax professional?
She would owe the tax. However the tax professional would have an obligation to cover any penalties she received (that is standard practise in the industry) and the tax professional could be fined by the IRS if the IRS believes that the professional took a position that was not valid.

Before I myself would be willing to take any strong position on something like this, I would need to read all court documents and agreements regarding their divorce, and then I would research case law. Her case is simply not clear cut. I sounds pretty clearly that she is collecting alimony, but the fact that no one checked the box that says it ends with her death is problematic.
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
She would owe the tax. However the tax professional would have an obligation to cover any penalties she received (that is standard practise in the industry) and the tax professional could be fined by the IRS if the IRS believes that the professional took a position that was not valid.

Before I myself would be willing to take any strong position on something like this, I would need to read all court documents and agreements regarding their divorce, and then I would research case law. Her case is simply not clear cut. I sounds pretty clearly that she is collecting alimony, but the fact that no one checked the box that says it ends with her death is problematic.
Alimony ALWAYS ends upon the death of either party. If not, it is not called an alimony award. In my state it would be called a distributive award.

Clearly the judge in OP's case is unsure of the law regarding his ability to modify the alimony or not and is grasping at straws when he uses the unchecked box as a possible reason that it may not be modifiable.

OP is receiving alimony as defined by the IRS whether the box is checked or not.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
I absolutely agree. I would think it was nothing more than a clerical oversight.
I agree as well. However another tax professional who posted on that thread clearly state that it was NOT alimony in the eyes of the IRS. Hence my warning of caution.
 
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? irrelevant for this thread.

On your previous thread, which was closed, you received some advice that your alimony was not alimony in the eyes of the IRS. I recommended that you use caution in determining that, and that you get a tax professional to research it for you.

This reason why I advised this is because you need someone to do the research and take a position on it by signing your tax return. This is not a simple situation and before you stop putting the money on your tax return as income, you need a tax professional signing that return and accepting liability for it as well.

I am not sure whether its alimony for IRS purposes or not. I do know that you should not take the risk of not including it on your tax return unless you have a tax professional willing to accept the liability of signing off on your return.
Thank you LD for responding back again. No Comment on why my other thread was closed. :rolleyes:

I was looking forward to some of her thoughts as to the USO and the actual decree language as I know Ohio family law is very similiar to Michigans but it's ok.

Not to worry as to what I may do or not do but I appreciate the "caution" warning. As I mentioned before, this is not something I plan on doing even if it is an option for me at the moment. I absolutely understand that I cannot just stop declaring it because of a "belief" I might have. However, I'm of the belief that knowledge is power and if he ever comes back at me again, i wouldn't mind having something to work with if it is in my favor.

I"ve spoken with a tax pro of 15 years. After alot of researching we discovered that there is some fine print which states, that even though alimony may still be payable after death (as in the decree stating that it did not end upon death), it is only the alimony paid (to whomever is establish I guess) after death that is not deductible. With this, I still have questions. It's been along time since I did taxes but I am very familiar with the "tests" that are involved in qualifying or not given the scenario. These "tests" are pretty clear cut just as, everything I've read (up until now)regarding this matter. Basically, If I can be blunt about the tests, it is what it is and there is usually no deviation. I certainly could be wrong but I think that it deserves more investigation which we are doing. I would appreciate your thoughts on this if you would.

Thanks for hanging in there with me.
 
Alimony <b>ALWAYS<b> ends upon the death of either party. If not, it is not called an alimony award. In my state it would be called a distributive award.

Clearly the judge in OP's case is unsure of the law regarding his ability to modify the alimony or not and is grasping at straws when he uses the unchecked box as a possible reason that it may not be modifiable. The judge has only just received the briefings from both parties. No one knows if he is grasping at straws or not as we have not been back to court yet. The box being unchecked has nothing to do with whether my alimony is modifiable or not. The unchecked box itself is another issue of it's own. My lawyers argument is that the USO overrides the decree in that it does not state that alimony is modifiable.

OP is receiving alimony as defined by the IRS whether the box is checked or not. You have contradicted yourself with this statement and your first statement. Which is it? While I have a problem with the USO contradicting itself (clerical error or not), I certainly would like to hear a judges take on this. There are actually alot of errors in our decree. If we go back on everything as to what the "intent" was we would probably have to write a whole new decree
Just sayin'
 
Good advice. From what I've read in that thread, the alimony IS alimony and IS taxable to her. Her ramblings about VERBALLY taking on more debt to keep the alimony figure from being reduced etc. etc., apparently was not incorporated into the final divorce decree.

If she chooses to hire a tax professional that advises her NOT to include the alimony as income on her return, and, the IRS subsequently found that she did indeed owe the tax, who owes the tax, her or the tax professional?
Just to clarify, my taking on all the debt had nothing to do with the amount of alimony I received, never. As I mentioned before, I only made that point to offset that while he did give me the full retirement (which was modest), I took on all the debt. With that, after he "VERBALLY" agreed not to change the alimony figures after I told him that I was hired permanently, I "VERBALLY" agreed to pay for everything else for our girls (using of course the extra money he allowed me to keep). I could have went after him for the full 90% of the medical, dental, optical etc. Actually, I could have also taken him to court when I learned he was making 25K more that was SS and CS was initially calculated at. As it was, I had already agreed to not include 13K of that in the figure. So yes, when we initially figured everything out, I did not include his disability income or his income from a second job as a professor. Maybe this is why he didn't want to include my income when I became a permanent hire. Who knows back then.

And yes, none of this was in the actual decree and this is why I continue to respond to your posts. Not to correct you for my benefit, but for others who may be following this thread in hopes that they realize that even good intentions need to be documented and "spelled" out. Otherwise, they could be facing a 10K+ lawyer bill down the road if one of the spouses happens to get spiteful.
 

Bali Hai

Senior Member
Just to clarify, my taking on all the debt had nothing to do with the amount of alimony I received, never. As I mentioned before, I only made that point to offset that while he did give me the full retirement (which was modest), I took on all the debt. With that, after he "VERBALLY" agreed not to change the alimony figures after I told him that I was hired permanently, I "VERBALLY" agreed to pay for everything else for our girls (using of course the extra money he allowed me to keep). I could have went after him for the full 90% of the medical, dental, optical etc. Actually, I could have also taken him to court when I learned he was making 25K more that was SS and CS was initially calculated at. As it was, I had already agreed to not include 13K of that in the figure. So yes, when we initially figured everything out, I did not include his disability income or his income from a second job as a professor. Maybe this is why he didn't want to include my income when I became a permanent hire. Who knows back then.

And yes, none of this was in the actual decree and this is why I continue to respond to your posts. Not to correct you for my benefit, but for others who may be following this thread in hopes that they realize that even good intentions need to be documented and "spelled" out. Otherwise, they could be facing a 10K+ lawyer bill down the road if one of the spouses happens to get spiteful.
IF one of the spouses happens to get spiteful is incorrect. WHEN one or both spouses become spiteful is correct. You are adversaries, look up its meaning. The court system is not set up to reward good intentions. It is set up to reward those who know how to win and play to win. That's why you hire a professional to handle your case.

Being nice is not one of the prerequisites for winning your case. Being a good liar and able to convincingly present fiction as fact could put you in the winners circle.
 

tuffbrk

Senior Member
IF one of the spouses happens to get spiteful is incorrect. WHEN one or both spouses become spiteful is correct. You are adversaries, look up its meaning. The court system is not set up to reward good intentions. It is set up to reward those who know how to win and play to win. That's why you hire a professional to handle your case.

Being nice is not one of the prerequisites for winning your case. Being a good liar and able to convincingly present fiction as fact could put you in the winners circle.
As much as I hate to agree with Bali's statement, I found it to be quite true. I had believed doing the right thing, being honorable, "being able to look at myself in the mirror" was important.:rolleyes: I believed issues wouldn't come back to haunt me, that my sons would never have reason to be ashamed of me and truly believed that as long as I had supporting documentation for my position that the truth would come out and all would work out in the end. That is SO not the case. Slime is slime - it creeps under doors faster than we can unlock and open them. Slime wins. :(
 
As much as I hate to agree with Bali's statement, I found it to be quite true. I had believed doing the right thing, being honorable, "being able to look at myself in the mirror" was important.:rolleyes: I believed issues wouldn't come back to haunt me, that my sons would never have reason to be ashamed of me and truly believed that as long as I had supporting documentation for my position that the truth would come out and all would work out in the end. That is SO not the case. Slime is slime - it creeps under doors faster than we can unlock and open them. Slime wins. :(
tuff/bali,

I didn't want "to go there", because I didn't want to misconstrue that he might have been telling me to be the slime. (In order to win my case). I am the woman after all and we know where he stands with that. (Could he possibly be helping??)

But certainly, I agree with his and your assesment. And this is why I am having a very hard time considering if I now should consider being the slime. Because "I can", to be honest.

I wanted to win this on the truth and I have proved my case over and over and over again. He even admitted to it in his deposition. How much more should it take??? Ultimately, we have a judge that should be barred. He has been suspended before and continues with not only my case but many others, in not making a timely ruling or any ruling at all. (search judge halloran).

If I lose, I will have no other choice but to file for bankruptcy. With that point I may as well file for an appeal. I have always had the best of credit and have alot of room on my cc to do so. Its really shame, for a difference of $150 a month, that he started this to begin with, especially after telling him that I would be up to reevaluating everything after I bought a home for me and the girls. So much for verbal agreements all the way around. Little did I know then just how much our mutual friend (his gf now) would work into our picture. Time does change things.....

Not sure what I will do.....time will tell.
 
Last edited:

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top