分手是很难做到的

R. Swad
{"title":"分手是很难做到的","authors":"R. Swad","doi":"10.7551/mitpress/5964.003.0024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"How to handle divorce-related stock redemptions. When a closely held business is a major marital asset, it can be a roadblock to an easy division of property when the spouses divorce. In such circumstances, a CPA can recommend a stock redemption as a way to equalize the property settlement between spouses. However, conflicting court cases have created uncertainty as to which spouse will be taxed when a redemption is divorce-related. At issue is whether the redemption is considered a third-party transfer subject to IRC section 1041. CPAs who advise divorcing clients must understand when a divorce-related redemption is considered a section 1041 third-party (not desirable) transfer so they can help the client avoid this treatment as well as the potential problems conflicting legal decisions have created. STOCK REDEMPTIONS AND SECTION 1041 Under section 1041, a transfer of property by one spouse to a former spouse is not a taxable event if it is incident to (as a result of) a divorce. Under temporary regulations section 1.1041-1T(c), a transfer of property to a third party on behalf of a former spouse also is not taxable if it is required by the divorce or separation instrument. However, the transfer is taxable to the nontransferring spouse. Example. To satisfy the terms of his divorce decree, Howard transfers corporate stock to an attorney in payment of the legal fees of his former spouse, Wanda. The stock has a fair market value of $10,000 and a basis to Howard of $1,000. Under temporary regulations section 1.1041-1T(c), Wanda is taxed on a $9,000 capital gain because the transfer was (1) on her behalf and (2) required by the couple's divorce decree. The IRS considers two transfers to have taken place: The first deemed transfer is from Howard to Wanda; the second is from Wanda to the third party, her attorney. Section 1041 tax-free treatment applies only to the first transfer; the second is taxable to Wanda. (Note: A deemed transfer is one that does not actually occur but is assumed by the code or regulations to have taken place.) When a closely held corporation is a significant part of a couple's assets, typically the divorcing spouses agree the business should be 100% owned by the spouse who is active in running the business. The inactive spouse's stock is redeemed to equalize the settlement. The question is whether the transfer of stock to the corporation is on behalf of the active spouse. If it is, then the redemption is considered to be a third-party transfer subject to temporary regulations section 1.1041-1T(c). Example. Sylvia and Bert each own 50% of Xanadu Corp. Because Sylvia runs the company, the divorce decree requires Xanadu to redeem Bert's stock. If the redemption is considered a third-party transfer, Bert is deemed to transfer the stock to Sylvia; then Sylvia is deemed to transfer it to Xanadu in a redemption. The first transfer is tax-free under section 1041. The redemption from Sylvia is taxable. Since Sylvia owned 100% of the stock immediately before and after the redemption, the redemption is taxed to her as a dividend under IRC section 302(d). The exhibit on page 118 illustrates how the deemed transfers under the temporary regulations compare with the actual redemption. THE NINTH CIRCUIT VIEW Arnes v. United States (981 F2d 456 [9th Cir. 1992]) was the first case involving divorce-related stock redemptions and section 1041. The case followed the divorce of John and Joann Arnes. Before the divorce, the couple jointly owned 100% of the stock of Moriah Valley Enterprises, Inc., which in turn owned a McDonald's franchise in Ellensburg, Washington. Because McDonald's has a policy that requires a franchise to be 100% owned by its owner-operator, John and Joann agreed John would own 100% of Moriah after the divorce. The property settlement agreement required Moriah to redeem Joann's stock and required John to guarantee the redemption. …","PeriodicalId":31457,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economics Business Accountancy","volume":"123 1","pages":"113"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Breaking Up Is Hard to Do\",\"authors\":\"R. Swad\",\"doi\":\"10.7551/mitpress/5964.003.0024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"How to handle divorce-related stock redemptions. When a closely held business is a major marital asset, it can be a roadblock to an easy division of property when the spouses divorce. In such circumstances, a CPA can recommend a stock redemption as a way to equalize the property settlement between spouses. However, conflicting court cases have created uncertainty as to which spouse will be taxed when a redemption is divorce-related. At issue is whether the redemption is considered a third-party transfer subject to IRC section 1041. CPAs who advise divorcing clients must understand when a divorce-related redemption is considered a section 1041 third-party (not desirable) transfer so they can help the client avoid this treatment as well as the potential problems conflicting legal decisions have created. STOCK REDEMPTIONS AND SECTION 1041 Under section 1041, a transfer of property by one spouse to a former spouse is not a taxable event if it is incident to (as a result of) a divorce. Under temporary regulations section 1.1041-1T(c), a transfer of property to a third party on behalf of a former spouse also is not taxable if it is required by the divorce or separation instrument. However, the transfer is taxable to the nontransferring spouse. Example. To satisfy the terms of his divorce decree, Howard transfers corporate stock to an attorney in payment of the legal fees of his former spouse, Wanda. The stock has a fair market value of $10,000 and a basis to Howard of $1,000. Under temporary regulations section 1.1041-1T(c), Wanda is taxed on a $9,000 capital gain because the transfer was (1) on her behalf and (2) required by the couple's divorce decree. The IRS considers two transfers to have taken place: The first deemed transfer is from Howard to Wanda; the second is from Wanda to the third party, her attorney. Section 1041 tax-free treatment applies only to the first transfer; the second is taxable to Wanda. (Note: A deemed transfer is one that does not actually occur but is assumed by the code or regulations to have taken place.) When a closely held corporation is a significant part of a couple's assets, typically the divorcing spouses agree the business should be 100% owned by the spouse who is active in running the business. The inactive spouse's stock is redeemed to equalize the settlement. The question is whether the transfer of stock to the corporation is on behalf of the active spouse. If it is, then the redemption is considered to be a third-party transfer subject to temporary regulations section 1.1041-1T(c). Example. Sylvia and Bert each own 50% of Xanadu Corp. Because Sylvia runs the company, the divorce decree requires Xanadu to redeem Bert's stock. If the redemption is considered a third-party transfer, Bert is deemed to transfer the stock to Sylvia; then Sylvia is deemed to transfer it to Xanadu in a redemption. The first transfer is tax-free under section 1041. The redemption from Sylvia is taxable. Since Sylvia owned 100% of the stock immediately before and after the redemption, the redemption is taxed to her as a dividend under IRC section 302(d). The exhibit on page 118 illustrates how the deemed transfers under the temporary regulations compare with the actual redemption. THE NINTH CIRCUIT VIEW Arnes v. United States (981 F2d 456 [9th Cir. 1992]) was the first case involving divorce-related stock redemptions and section 1041. The case followed the divorce of John and Joann Arnes. Before the divorce, the couple jointly owned 100% of the stock of Moriah Valley Enterprises, Inc., which in turn owned a McDonald's franchise in Ellensburg, Washington. Because McDonald's has a policy that requires a franchise to be 100% owned by its owner-operator, John and Joann agreed John would own 100% of Moriah after the divorce. The property settlement agreement required Moriah to redeem Joann's stock and required John to guarantee the redemption. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":31457,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Economics Business Accountancy\",\"volume\":\"123 1\",\"pages\":\"113\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1998-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Economics Business Accountancy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5964.003.0024\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economics Business Accountancy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5964.003.0024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如何处理与离婚有关的股票赎回。如果一家私人持股企业是夫妻双方的主要资产,那么在夫妻离婚时,它可能会成为财产分割的障碍。在这种情况下,注册会计师可以建议赎回股票,以平衡配偶之间的财产结算。然而,相互矛盾的法庭案件造成了不确定性,即当赎回与离婚有关时,哪一方将被征税。问题是赎回是否被视为受IRC第1041条约束的第三方转让。为离婚客户提供咨询服务的注册会计师必须了解离婚相关赎回何时被视为第1041条第三方(不可取的)转让,以便他们可以帮助客户避免这种待遇以及相互冲突的法律决定所产生的潜在问题。股票赎回和第1041条根据第1041条,配偶一方向前配偶转移财产,如果是离婚事件(由于离婚),则不应纳税。根据临时条例第1.1041-1T(c)条,如果离婚或分居文书要求将财产转让给代表前配偶的第三方,也不征税。但是,这笔转让要向未转让的配偶征税。的例子。为了履行离婚协议的条款,霍华德将公司股份转让给一位律师,以支付他的前配偶旺达的法律费用。股票的公平市场价值为1万美元,对霍华德的基础价值为1000美元。根据临时条例第1.1041-1T(c)条,万达需要缴纳9000美元的资本利得税,因为这笔转让是(1)以她的名义进行的,(2)这对夫妇的离婚令要求进行的。美国国税局认为已经发生了两次转移:第一次被视为转移是从霍华德到万达;第二封是万达寄给第三方,她的律师。第1041条免税待遇仅适用于第一次转让;第二部分由万达纳税。(注:视同转让是指没有实际发生,但代码或法规假定已经发生的转让。)当一个少数人持股的公司是夫妻财产的重要部分时,离婚的配偶通常会同意企业应该由积极经营企业的配偶100%拥有。不活跃配偶的股票被赎回,以平衡和解。问题是股票转让给公司是否代表在职配偶。如果是,则赎回被视为符合临时条例第1.1041-1T(c)条的第三方转让。的例子。西尔维娅和伯特各拥有世外桃源公司50%的股份。由于西尔维娅经营着这家公司,离婚协议要求世外桃源公司赎回伯特的股票。如果赎回被视为第三方转让,则伯特被视为将股票转让给西尔维娅;然后西尔维娅被认为是在救赎中将它转移到世外桃源。根据第1041条,第一次转让是免税的。从西尔维娅那里得到的补偿是要纳税的。由于西尔维娅在赎回之前和之后立即拥有100%的股票,因此根据IRC第302(d)条,赎回作为股息向她征税。第118页的附件说明了临时条例下的视同转让与实际赎回的比较。Arnes诉美国(981 F2d 456 [9th Cir. 1992])是第一起涉及离婚相关股票赎回和第1041条的案件。这起案件发生在约翰和乔安离婚之后。离婚前,这对夫妇共同拥有Moriah Valley Enterprises, Inc. 100%的股份,而该公司又拥有麦当劳(McDonald’s)在华盛顿州埃伦斯堡(Ellensburg)的特许经营权。因为麦当劳有一项政策,要求加盟店必须100%归其所有者兼经营者所有,约翰和乔安同意离婚后,约翰将拥有摩利亚100%的股份。财产和解协议要求摩利亚赎回乔安的股票,并要求约翰保证赎回。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Breaking Up Is Hard to Do
How to handle divorce-related stock redemptions. When a closely held business is a major marital asset, it can be a roadblock to an easy division of property when the spouses divorce. In such circumstances, a CPA can recommend a stock redemption as a way to equalize the property settlement between spouses. However, conflicting court cases have created uncertainty as to which spouse will be taxed when a redemption is divorce-related. At issue is whether the redemption is considered a third-party transfer subject to IRC section 1041. CPAs who advise divorcing clients must understand when a divorce-related redemption is considered a section 1041 third-party (not desirable) transfer so they can help the client avoid this treatment as well as the potential problems conflicting legal decisions have created. STOCK REDEMPTIONS AND SECTION 1041 Under section 1041, a transfer of property by one spouse to a former spouse is not a taxable event if it is incident to (as a result of) a divorce. Under temporary regulations section 1.1041-1T(c), a transfer of property to a third party on behalf of a former spouse also is not taxable if it is required by the divorce or separation instrument. However, the transfer is taxable to the nontransferring spouse. Example. To satisfy the terms of his divorce decree, Howard transfers corporate stock to an attorney in payment of the legal fees of his former spouse, Wanda. The stock has a fair market value of $10,000 and a basis to Howard of $1,000. Under temporary regulations section 1.1041-1T(c), Wanda is taxed on a $9,000 capital gain because the transfer was (1) on her behalf and (2) required by the couple's divorce decree. The IRS considers two transfers to have taken place: The first deemed transfer is from Howard to Wanda; the second is from Wanda to the third party, her attorney. Section 1041 tax-free treatment applies only to the first transfer; the second is taxable to Wanda. (Note: A deemed transfer is one that does not actually occur but is assumed by the code or regulations to have taken place.) When a closely held corporation is a significant part of a couple's assets, typically the divorcing spouses agree the business should be 100% owned by the spouse who is active in running the business. The inactive spouse's stock is redeemed to equalize the settlement. The question is whether the transfer of stock to the corporation is on behalf of the active spouse. If it is, then the redemption is considered to be a third-party transfer subject to temporary regulations section 1.1041-1T(c). Example. Sylvia and Bert each own 50% of Xanadu Corp. Because Sylvia runs the company, the divorce decree requires Xanadu to redeem Bert's stock. If the redemption is considered a third-party transfer, Bert is deemed to transfer the stock to Sylvia; then Sylvia is deemed to transfer it to Xanadu in a redemption. The first transfer is tax-free under section 1041. The redemption from Sylvia is taxable. Since Sylvia owned 100% of the stock immediately before and after the redemption, the redemption is taxed to her as a dividend under IRC section 302(d). The exhibit on page 118 illustrates how the deemed transfers under the temporary regulations compare with the actual redemption. THE NINTH CIRCUIT VIEW Arnes v. United States (981 F2d 456 [9th Cir. 1992]) was the first case involving divorce-related stock redemptions and section 1041. The case followed the divorce of John and Joann Arnes. Before the divorce, the couple jointly owned 100% of the stock of Moriah Valley Enterprises, Inc., which in turn owned a McDonald's franchise in Ellensburg, Washington. Because McDonald's has a policy that requires a franchise to be 100% owned by its owner-operator, John and Joann agreed John would own 100% of Moriah after the divorce. The property settlement agreement required Moriah to redeem Joann's stock and required John to guarantee the redemption. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信