“Behind the Bar” is a multi-part blog series that will focus on specific aspects of the practice of law ranging from the Rules of Evidence, Rules of Civil Procedure, and other important legal practice technicalities in an effort to provide readers a better understanding of regularly overlooked and misunderstood concepts that lawyers are faced with on a day-to-day basis. Continue reading →
Behind the Bar: You’ve Been Served- A Lesson on Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (pt. 1)
“Behind the Bar” is a multi-part blog series that will focus on specific aspects of the practice of law ranging from the Rules of Evidence, Rules of Civil Procedure, and other important legal practice technicalities in an effort to provide readers a better understanding of regularly overlooked and misunderstood concepts that lawyers are faced with on a day-to-day basis. Continue reading →
When Stock Options Aren’t an Option in Divorce
Family Chiropractic Sports Injury & Rehab Clinic, v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2016-10, 2016 WL 234515 (2016)
Facts: Husband and wife operated a chiropractic The practice had an Employee Stock Ownership Plan (“ESOP”). Husband and wife were the only participants. Continue reading →
The Waiting Game Can be a Dangerous One
Dahl Aerospace Employees’ Ret. Plan of Aerospace Corp., 122 F. Supp. 3d 453 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Facts: A Virginia divorce decree, incorporating a settlement agreement, gave each spouse the option to elect survivor benefits under the retirement plan of the other. This provision was not immediately stated in a DRO or qualified by the plan. Continue reading →
Playing the Blame Game
In recent legal news, the Mississippi state Senate has passed new legislation that will have citizens of Greensboro and divorce attorneys alike glad that we live in North Carolina. Continue reading →
It takes Two to Tango…..but Maybe it Shouldn’t (Belot v. Comm’r)
Belot v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2016-113, 2016 WL 3248031 (2016)
Facts: During their marriage, the parties operated a dance studio. The business consisted of an S corporation which was the actual studio, an LLC which operated a boutique selling dance clothing, and another LLC which owned the real estate on which the studio operated. The parties owned each of these entities in different percentages. Continue reading →
The Responsible Individuals List and Its Consequences
By: Jennifer A. Crissman, Attorney, Woodruff Family Law GroupThe name “Responsible Individuals List” may sound like an accolade to parents; however, this is a misnomer. For those unfortunate enough to find their family in the midst of an investigation of child abuse, neglect, and dependency the List is likely to be mentioned. It is important that anyone who finds themselves in this situation be aware of what the term means and the ramifications of being on this list. Continue reading →
It Only Takes a Moment: Visitation Ideas for Triad Dads
With Valentine’s Day around the corner, love is in the air and it is a great time to express it to those who you care about most. It is important that during this festive season that you remember that your children are the ones who need your love the most and we are here to help with some creative ideas on how to make the most of your time with them. When it comes to time with your children, it is important to remember the deliberate nature in which you must approach each moment you have with them. Continue reading →
When Death is not the end, the IRS steps in: Part 2 of 2
Anderson v. Comm’r, T.C. Memo. 2016-47, 2016 WL 976816 (2016)
Facts: An Alabama court entered a pretrial order in a divorce case, requiring both parties to “[m]aintain status quo as to payment of house note or rent, utilities, food, necessities, fixed credit obligations, ” 2016 WL 976816, at *1. After the order was entered, the husband transferred at least $1,000 each month to the wife “for her spending money and other things that I had previously paid for.” Id. Continue reading →
When Death is not the end, the IRS steps in: Part 1 of 2
Wolens v. United States, 125 Fed. Cl. 422 (2016)
Facts: The parties married in New York, but divorced in England. Their English divorce decree provided for a large initial payment to be made by the husband to the wife, followed by annual payments of £441,667 in 2007, 2008, and 2009. (The 2009 payment was one pound less.)The husband’s initial tax return did not claim the 2007 payment as alimony. He later filed an amended return which did claim the 2007 payment as alimony. The IRS disallowed this return and refused to issue a refund. Continue reading →