The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Family Law Tip #3 – Should I keep the vacation home?
Written by Elizabeth J. Fineman
In my prior installment of this series (Family Law Tip #2), I discussed the substantial reduction in the allowable amount of mortgage interest which is now tax deductible on any mortgage taken out after December 15, 2017. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act reduced the deductible amount by $250,000 on homes purchased after the cut off date - capping the allowable interest deduction to mortgage principal of $750,000 (reduced from $1,000,000 prior to December 15, 2017). Beyond the lower mortgage cap, another big change is that, in general, the interest on home equity lines of credit is no longer deductible (with some very limited exceptions). This is true regardless of whether the home equity line of credit was taken out before or after the change in tax law.
These changes to the allowable mortgage interest deduction will have a bearing on the decision of divorcing parties as to whether to keep their second residence post-divorce. In the past, people often kept the second residence, in part knowing that they were able to deduct the mortgage and home equity line of credit interest on their tax returns and the maximum amount of $1,000,000 in indebtedness allowed for flexibility. In the advent of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, some will have to rethink this decision. If the expenses related to their vacation homes cannot be deducted, the cost to maintain the home will be higher.
While there was some back and forth in the various drafts of the tax code revisions, ultimately the deductions for the mortgage interest apply to both the primary residence and a second home as well. However, as stated above, the $750,000 cap makes it more likely that parties will not be able to deduct all of the interest on the mortgages for the primary residence and secondary residence when those amounts are combined. Consulting your attorney and accountant will help you to determine the actual increase in the cost of maintaining your vacation home so that you can make an informed decision.
Businesses and their employees struggle to navigate complicated laws and the economic realities related to restrictive covenants, including non-competes; non-solicitation agreements; confidentiality agreements and trade secret protection laws. AMM has experience counseling employees and employers on restrictive covenants, competitive hiring and trade secret issues. We also have represented both employers and employees in litigation in state and federal courts related to those matters.
We have experience counseling and defending employees who are subject to restrictive covenants. We can help with negotiating restrictive covenants and negotiating a release from the obligations of the restrictive covenant, navigating restrictions in place, and defending claims brought by employers.
AMM can assist employers with drafting enforceable agreements and protecting their client relationships, proprietary information and trade secrets. We can also provide counseling to assist businesses in hiring employees subject to such agreements and in protecting the business when employees leave. And, when necessary, we can act swiftly and efficiently to enforce restrictive covenants and protect trade secrets.
BULLETS:
• Restrictive Covenants
• Non-Competition Agreements
• Non-Solicitation Agreements
• Trade Secret and Confidentiality Obligations
• Competitive Hiring
• Temporary Restraining Orders and Preliminary injunctions
Forensic Accounting and Complex Commercial Litigation
Written by Patricia Collins
Reprinted with permission from the Spring 2018 Issue of the Pennsylvania CPA Journal
My partners and I were retained for a recent case that highlighted the value of tax and accounting expertise in litigation. We represented shareholders in a precious metals business who were embroiled in a difficult intrafamily dispute. The work illustrated a successful marriage of lawyers and accounting experts in a very complicated commercial case.
A platinum recycling company owned by three brothers – I’ll call them O, S, and K – acquired an interest in a company in Gibraltar and another company in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Their creditor was a South African platinum company.
Trouble started in 2008. The company fell behind in payments to its South African creditor, and the brothers fought over their company’s future and strategies to repay their creditor. Litigation ensued.
Suits erupted in four different jurisdictions: in the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) in the High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (Chancery case), venued in London, England; in Bucks County, Pa.; in Burlington County, N.J.; and in federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Brother S and the company sued Brother K in New Jersey for failure to pay funds due under a loan from the company. The loan was to permit Brother K to purchase the UAE and Gibraltar companies, and then to transfer half of his interest to Brother S.
In the Chancery case, Brother S sued Brother K for K’s conduct in the transactions to purchase the UAE and Gibraltar companies.
Brother O sued Brothers S and K and the company in Bucks County for failure to make distributions to him, for mismanagement, and for self-dealing. Brother K, as an owner of the UAE and Gibraltar businesses, filed on behalf of those entities against the brothers’ company for failure to return metal or pay funds due.
In London, the South African company sued the brothers’ company for $200 million in loans owed to it. It filed the same action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
The brothers eventually settled the Bucks County, London, and New Jersey actions, as well as one of the federal court actions. However, the dispute with the South African company in the LCIA went to trial. The South African company won a judgment for slightly more than $200 million.
The South African company then filed a new action in federal court, alleging that the earlier settlements amounted to fraudulent conveyances made to avoid the $200 million claim while the brothers’ company was insolvent and without fair value exchanged.
The dispute required forensic accounting experts on both sides to present on several issues, including maintaining the entity’s status as an S corporation, evaluating the solvency of the entity, providing insight into whether certain transactions amounted to fraudulent conveyances, and assisting counsel with cross-examination.
The accounting experts evaluated whether settling the Bucks County case to preserve an S election was a viable defense under the fraudulent conveyance statute, and provided advice, reports, and testimony to explain the S election, the steps the company could properly have taken to preserve the election, and the consequences of losing the election.
The parties sought expert opinions regarding the company’s insolvency, and the date it became insolvent. With a $200 million judgment looming, the issue of insolvency was a matter of “when,” rather than “whether.” The lawyers and accountants worked together to determine the date on which insolvency occurred and how to present that to the jury.
The most daunting issue in the case was the lack of professional recordkeeping by the brothers’ company. This issue is too common in family businesses, even among those that have been successful. Experts were required to recreate financial information from the reports generated related to the insolvency and tax issues. The forensic accountants provided support in cross-examination aimed at challenging those recreated reports.
The jury was called upon to answer the following question: Did the settlements amount to fraudulent conveyances? The jury answered “yes” with regard to the Bucks County settlement, but “no” to the settlement of the dispute with the UAE and Gibraltar entities. The jury found that the shareholders did not engage in actual fraud. It returned a verdict of $16 million in favor of the South African company.
The creditor portion of this case required extensive use of forensic accounting experts who expressed opinions on both sides of the Subchapter S and insolvency issues. They assisted in devising strategies to present highly technical topics to the jury. Accounting experts on both sides recreated financial records, and wrote reports addressing the issues. They assisted in devising strategies for cross-examination, and they testified. Together the lawyers and accounting experts were able to present very complicated evidence in a way that kept the jury engaged.
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Family Law Tip #2 – How are the limitations on mortgage interest deductions changing?
Written by Elizabeth J. Fineman
The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act includes a substantial change to the allowable amount of mortgage interest which is tax deductible. For those who are contemplating purchasing expensive homes and taking out a mortgage with a principal balance of more than $750,000, the interest on the amount over $750,000 will not be tax deductible. For mortgages issued prior to December 15, 2017, the mortgage interest is deductible for principal mortgage amounts of up to $1,000,000. However, after December 15, 2017, that amount is reduced to principal amounts of up to $750,000. This only applies to properties purchased after December 15, 2017. Absent any extension of this law, the amount reverts to $1,000,000 in 2026.
Another big change relates to home equity lines of credit on your residence. In the past, the mortgage and home equity line of credit could be lumped together, and the interest on both deducted up to the maximum allowed loan amount. That is no longer the case. It does not matter if the home equity line of credit was taken out before or after the change in tax law. In general, the interest on home equity lines of credit is no longer deductible. There are some limited exceptions to this where the funds are used to substantially improve the residence, but even this exception requires very specific requirements to be met. This tax change could have a large impact on those who intentionally took out a home equity line of credit rather than refinance their mortgage to a larger amount. Without this deduction, taxable income will be higher.
Joanne Murray, a partner of Antheil Maslow & MacMinn and chair of the firm’s business and finance practice group, will be a panelist at the April 11th Central Bucks Chamber of Commerce panel discussion “Planning for Each Stage of Your Career & Business” sponsored by the Women in Business Committee. The program focuses on establishing, growing, and planning an exit strategy for your business or career. Other speakers include Glenda Childs, The Doylestown Bookshop; Lisa Fry, Core Financial Outsourcing, Inc. Barbara Marte, 2 Be Enterprises, LLC, is moderator. The program runs from 8:30 – 10:00 a.m. at the Chamber headquarters in Bailiwick, Doylestown.
Ms. Murray counsels business owners as they face the financial, legal and operational challenges that are an inevitable part of the life cycle of a business.
The information contained in this blog does not consitute legal advice. For more information, please read our Disclaimer.
PROPOSED PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATION TO BAN NONCOMPETES
Written by Patricia Collins
Reprinted with permission from the February 26th, 2018 issue of The Legal Intelligencer. (c) 2018 ALM Media Properties. Further duplication without permission is prohibited.
At the end of 2017, legislators in Pennsylvania proposed legislation to ban noncompete agreements. The proposal is consistent with a legislative trend in other states. In New Jersey, the Senate proposed a bill (Senate Bill 3518) that would place limits on the ability to impose noncompetes (there is a similar Assembly Bill, A5261). Both of these bills reflect already existing challenges in drafting and enforcing restrictive covenants.
Pennsylvania’s House Bill 1938 was referred to the Labor and Industry Committee on November 27, 2017. The Bill recites a declaration of policy that reads like a defendant’s brief in a preliminary injunction case. It states, summarizing, that the Commonwealth has an interest in the following: allowing businesses to hire the employees of their choosing; lowering the unemployment rate; allowing employees to make a living wage; allowing employees to “maximize their talents” to provide for their families; promoting increased wages and benefits; promoting innovation and entrepreneurship; promoting unrestricted trade and mobility of employees; allowing highly skilled employees to increase their income; attracting high-tech companies; disfavoring staying in jobs that are not suited to qualifications; and disfavoring the practice of leaving the Commonwealth to seek better opportunities.
The Bill defines a “covenant not to compete” broadly as an agreement between an employer and employee that is designed to impede the ability of the employee to seek employment with another employer. Interestingly, the Bill does not seem to distinguish between a non-solicitation restriction and non-competition restriction. The Bill prohibits all “covenants not to compete,” and does not allow a court to rewrite the covenant not to compete to make it enforceable.
There are exceptions: “reasonable” covenants not to compete that relate to an owner of a business; covenants not to compete involving a dissolution or disassociation of a partnership or a limited liability company; and “reasonable” covenants not to compete that were in place prior to the effective date of the statute. One presumes that previous case law regarding what constitutes a “reasonable” restriction on competition will apply. The Bill would allow an employee to recover attorneys’ fees and damages upon prevailing in a suit brought by the employer related to the enforcement of a covenant not to compete.
The historical reluctance of courts to enforce restrictive covenants as written has certainly impacted how and when employers use such documents. Employers (with their attorneys) have attempted to draft documents that a court will enforce, and given careful thought to filing suit in the event of a breach. This Bill, however, would change that calculus dramatically; not just because of the outright ban on arguably both noncompete and nonsolicitation agreements, but also because of the attorneys’ fees provision. Employers who get it wrong will pay attorneys’ fees and damages, including punitive damages, to the employee. It may no longer be wise to file preliminary injunctions as a deterrent or a means to a resolution. If passed, this Bill would require employers to focus on two important concepts going forward, one legal, and one not legal: retention of key employees and protection of trade secrets.
The Bill remains with the House Labor and Industry Committee and does not, at this time, appear on that committee’s schedule.
The New Jersey Bill would also impact the legal and economic strategy of using and enforcing restrictive covenants. Introduced on November 7, 2017, the Bill recites public policy goals with regard to covenants not to compete similar to those recited in the Pennsylvania Bill. The Bill defines a restrictive covenant more narrowly than the Pennsylvania Bill: agreements under which the employee agrees not to engage in certain specified activities competitive with the employer after the employment relationship has ended. The New Jersey Bill does not ban covenants not to compete, but instead imposes a series of restrictions that would seriously impact how noncompetes were enforced and drafted, and would have required employers to pay employees for the period of the restriction. The New Jersey Bill died in committee.
Both Bills reflect the historical judicial reluctance to enforce noncompetes, and change the economics and legal issues related to those agreements dramatically. They are in line with restrictions in other states like California, North Dakota and Oklahoma. Most importantly for practitioners, they reflect that reliance on a well-drafted choice of law provision may not save the day. Case and statutory laws on this particular topic are not really predictable in the usual way. Just by way of example, Massachusetts has eight outstanding bills related to the topic, all of which were the subject of hearing on October 31, 2017, and both Vermont and New Hampshire proposed outright bans earlier this year. Even the results of upcoming elections could change the statutes in any particular state.
These bills proposed late in 2017 reflect current challenges in drafting and enforcing agreements that are enforceable and highlight the importance of considering each decision carefully. Drafters must consider carefully the specific interest an employer is attempting to protect, but even the most careful drafting may not survive new legislation. It will be interesting to see whether, and in what form, legislatures may codify some of these challenges in the future.
Patricia Collins is a Partner with Antheil Maslow & MacMinn, LLP, based in Doylestown, PA. Her practice focuses primarily on employment, commercial litigation, and health care law. To learn more about the firm or Patricia Collins, visit www.ammlaw.com
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act:Family Law Tip #1 - What is Happening to Alimony?
Written by Elizabeth J. Fineman
As everyone has heard by now, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was signed on December 22, 2017, and is now law. While the name may be confusing, what it means for taxpayers is that many tax laws are changing. Attorneys and accountants are still figuring out what the impact of the Act will be, and more direction will be provided by the IRS in the coming months and years. This is the first in a series of blogs designed to demystify the new tax laws that may impact those who are divorced or currently in the process of getting divorced.
Alimony has long been tax deductible to the payor (person paying alimony) and added to taxable income to the recipient (the person receiving alimony), as long as specific requirements set forth by the IRS are followed. The result has been an income shift from the party that pays a higher tax rate to the party that pays a lower tax rate. In the end, both parties under this scenario end up with more money than if alimony were not taxable or deductible. This treatment has applied to spousal support, alimony pendente lite and alimony.
With the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, such treatment of alimony will change, but not right away. As of now, the change is only for tax years 2019 through 2025, and specifically will only apply to agreements signed after December 31, 2018. It remains to be seen what will happen after 2025, or possibly before if there are additional changes to the tax code. There is an exception made, however, for those who have already entered into an agreement on or before December 31, 2018. The law changes for all agreements entered after December 31, 2018, so that the alimony will no longer be deductible for the payor, or count as income to the recipient. It remains to be seen if there are any changes to how the amount of spousal support, alimony pendente lite or alimony are calculated given the change in the tax law. If there are no changes to the calculations, the result will be a loss of tax advantage for the party paying support, while the party receiving support will receive the benefit. If there are changes to the support calculations, I would anticipate that we will know by the end of this year. Stay tuned.
The program discussed the new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and the law’s effect on family law practice, including practical tips for tax season.
Fineman is part of the Firm’s Family Law Practice group. She handles all phases of the negotiation and litigation of domestic relations cases, including divorce, child custody and support, alimony/spousal support, equitable distribution, and prenuptial and postnuptial agreements. Serving the Philadelphia surrounding communities, Antheil Maslow & MacMinn, LLP is a full-service law firm that offers sophisticated, proactive, timely and cost-effective legal advice. The Firm’s attorneys are both counselors and advocates. As counselors, Antheil Maslow & MacMinn, LLP lawyers educate clients, including high net worth individuals, small to mid-sized, privately-held companies, nonprofits and health care organizations, on the law and possible legal implications of their actions. As advocates, they aggressively represent their clients’ causes. With its broad range of practice areas in Business & Finance, Family Law, Tax & Estates, Real Estate & Land Use, Litigation, Labor & Employment, and Personal Injury, Antheil Maslow & MacMinn, LLP has the depth of resources and knowledge to satisfy its clients’ evolving needs for legal advice and representation and help them reach their ultimate goals.
Antheil Maslow and MacMinn partners William MacMinn and Thomas Donnelly will present a seminar on piercing the corporate veil in Pennsylvania to the civil litigation section of the Bucks County Bar Association on Wednesday February 14, 2018 at 8:30 a.m. at the Bucks County Bar Association. The seminar will focus on recent decisions relating to traditional common law piercing of the corporate veil and individual liability in a corporate setting as well as AMM’s experience with developing case law identifying a shift in fiduciary obligations of corporate officers and directors upon insolvency, voidable transfers and de facto mergers.
Attorneys MacMinn and Donnelly are both Partners in the firm’s litigation practice group, handling all phases of matters concerning business and commercial disputes, fraud, contracts, business torts, employment agreements, breach of fiduciary duty, real estate and insurer bad faith.