There are differences in the tax implications between child support and spousal maintenance.
Child support is not considered income to the payee for tax purposes, nor is it deducted from the gross income of the payor.
However, spousal maintenance (many times referred to as alimony), is taxable income to the payee, and is deducted from the taxable income of the payor.
A knowledge of this helps in guiding clients as to what is the most financially advantageous resolution to their matter. Receiving or paying $1500.00 in total (meaning spousal maintenance and child support combined) a month can have dramatically different tax ramifications depending upon how much of the total is made up spousal maintenance and how much is made up of child support.
If you have questions regarding a potential divorce please feel free to contact me.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Religion and Divorce Update
I recently made a post entitled "Religion and Divorce", and I found this article on Huffingtonpost.com that is a follow-up:
A high-profile divorce case was resolved by a Cook County judge Tuesday, as a man who claims he returned to his Catholic roots after divorcing a Jewish woman was granted permission to take his 3-year-old daughter to Catholic church, despite his ex-wife's wishes.
Joseph Reyes, who baptized his 3-year-old daughter without her mother's permission, faced jail time after a Cook County judge granted his ex a temporary restraining order barring him from exposing the child to any religion other than Judaism.
But on Tuesday, Cook County Judge Renee Goldfarb said Reyes can take his daughter to "church services during his visitation time if he so chooses," she wrote in the divorce decree. "This court will also order that Joseph have visitation with Ela every year on Christmas and Easter." The Chicago Sun-Times reports:
Goldfarb said her decision to let Reyes take his daughter to church was based on "the best interest of the child."
The judge said she found "no evidence . . . that taking 3-year-old Ela to church during Joseph's visitation time is or would be harmful to Ela. She is three years old and, according to Joseph, while at church she waves at the other children, looks around and giggles. This court found that testimony credible."
The problems started after Rebecca Reyes, the child's mother, became upset that Joseph started taking their daughter to church despite an agreement they reportedly made to raise the child in the Jewish faith. The Sun-Times reported in February:
While Joseph Reyes said he converted to Judaism after his daughter was born, he insists they never agreed to raise the girl in the Jewish faith, that they never kept a kosher home, rarely observed the Sabbath and only went to services a few times together with the child.
Though the judge ruled in favor of Joseph Reyes, she was critical of how he handled the situation:
"Joseph chose to make three-year-old Ela the center of his own media event, as seen on every local news channel, print media and national news channels during his visitation," Goldfarb wrote. "Joseph chose to dispense three-year-old Ela's picture to the media."
Story continues below
Though Rebecca Reyes has been publicly silent throughout the ordeal, her lawyer Stephen Lake spoke to Good Morning America a few months back:
"Number one, it wasn't just a religious thing per se, it was the idea that he would suddenly, out of nowhere without any discussion ... have the girl baptized," Lake said. "She looked at it as basically an assault on her little girl."
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
A high-profile divorce case was resolved by a Cook County judge Tuesday, as a man who claims he returned to his Catholic roots after divorcing a Jewish woman was granted permission to take his 3-year-old daughter to Catholic church, despite his ex-wife's wishes.
Joseph Reyes, who baptized his 3-year-old daughter without her mother's permission, faced jail time after a Cook County judge granted his ex a temporary restraining order barring him from exposing the child to any religion other than Judaism.
But on Tuesday, Cook County Judge Renee Goldfarb said Reyes can take his daughter to "church services during his visitation time if he so chooses," she wrote in the divorce decree. "This court will also order that Joseph have visitation with Ela every year on Christmas and Easter." The Chicago Sun-Times reports:
Goldfarb said her decision to let Reyes take his daughter to church was based on "the best interest of the child."
The judge said she found "no evidence . . . that taking 3-year-old Ela to church during Joseph's visitation time is or would be harmful to Ela. She is three years old and, according to Joseph, while at church she waves at the other children, looks around and giggles. This court found that testimony credible."
The problems started after Rebecca Reyes, the child's mother, became upset that Joseph started taking their daughter to church despite an agreement they reportedly made to raise the child in the Jewish faith. The Sun-Times reported in February:
While Joseph Reyes said he converted to Judaism after his daughter was born, he insists they never agreed to raise the girl in the Jewish faith, that they never kept a kosher home, rarely observed the Sabbath and only went to services a few times together with the child.
Though the judge ruled in favor of Joseph Reyes, she was critical of how he handled the situation:
"Joseph chose to make three-year-old Ela the center of his own media event, as seen on every local news channel, print media and national news channels during his visitation," Goldfarb wrote. "Joseph chose to dispense three-year-old Ela's picture to the media."
Story continues below
Though Rebecca Reyes has been publicly silent throughout the ordeal, her lawyer Stephen Lake spoke to Good Morning America a few months back:
"Number one, it wasn't just a religious thing per se, it was the idea that he would suddenly, out of nowhere without any discussion ... have the girl baptized," Lake said. "She looked at it as basically an assault on her little girl."
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
What is ADR and is it Useful?
ADR stands for Alternative Dispute Resolution.
Rule 66 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure states that parties in family court have a duty to confer about utilizing Alternative Dispute Resolution.
There are several types of ADR processes, including but not limited to arbitration, appointment of a parenting coordinator, mediation and a settlement conference.
The most common type of ADR is a settlement conference. A settlement conference is a confidential process, in which parties to a dispute meet with a judge, commissioner, or judge pro tempore (lawyer filling in as a judge for purposes of a settlement conference) acting as a neutral third party to engage in settlement discussions.
In my experience, settlement conferences result in complete resolution of a case over 50% of the time. As such, I encourage that my clients agree to participate in a settlement conference.
It is almost always better to settle a case than to take it all the way to trial. First, there is a substantial cost to preparing and attending a trial. Secondly, agreeing to a settlement means you had control over the final disposition of your case as opposed to leaving it in the hands of a Judge who you may have seen once or twice before in your life, and who has wide latitude in how they rule.
The ADR division of the Maricopa County Superior Court lists the following as benefits of ADR:
* ADR can save participants time and money. It allows the courts to wisely conserve trial resources for those cases where there is truly a need for litigation.
* Often, parties are able to preserve their relationships after ADR; in trial there is a winner and a loser.
* ADR provides more open, flexible, and responsive processes that are tailored to the unique needs of the parties.
* ADR outcomes address the real needs of each party in an informal process that offers customized solutions and enhances community involvement in dispute resolution.
* Using ADR instead of litigation often results in greater participant satisfaction.
Overall, ADR is a very useful service offered by the Courts and one that I highly recommend to all of my clients.
If you have questions regarding ADR please feel free to contact me.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Rule 66 of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure states that parties in family court have a duty to confer about utilizing Alternative Dispute Resolution.
There are several types of ADR processes, including but not limited to arbitration, appointment of a parenting coordinator, mediation and a settlement conference.
The most common type of ADR is a settlement conference. A settlement conference is a confidential process, in which parties to a dispute meet with a judge, commissioner, or judge pro tempore (lawyer filling in as a judge for purposes of a settlement conference) acting as a neutral third party to engage in settlement discussions.
In my experience, settlement conferences result in complete resolution of a case over 50% of the time. As such, I encourage that my clients agree to participate in a settlement conference.
It is almost always better to settle a case than to take it all the way to trial. First, there is a substantial cost to preparing and attending a trial. Secondly, agreeing to a settlement means you had control over the final disposition of your case as opposed to leaving it in the hands of a Judge who you may have seen once or twice before in your life, and who has wide latitude in how they rule.
The ADR division of the Maricopa County Superior Court lists the following as benefits of ADR:
* ADR can save participants time and money. It allows the courts to wisely conserve trial resources for those cases where there is truly a need for litigation.
* Often, parties are able to preserve their relationships after ADR; in trial there is a winner and a loser.
* ADR provides more open, flexible, and responsive processes that are tailored to the unique needs of the parties.
* ADR outcomes address the real needs of each party in an informal process that offers customized solutions and enhances community involvement in dispute resolution.
* Using ADR instead of litigation often results in greater participant satisfaction.
Overall, ADR is a very useful service offered by the Courts and one that I highly recommend to all of my clients.
If you have questions regarding ADR please feel free to contact me.
Jason Pistiner, Esq.
SINGER PISTINER, P.C.
602-264-0110
jp@singerpistiner.com
www.singerpistiner.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)