Dividindo opções de ações durante o divórcio na Califórnia.
Este artigo aborda as maneiras pelas quais os casais da Califórnia podem dividir as opções de ações em divórcio.
Alguns ativos são fáceis de dividir em um divórcio - vender um carro e dividir os lucros é geralmente um acéfalo. A divisão de opções de ações, no entanto, pode apresentar um conjunto exclusivo de desafios. Opções de ações que não podem ser vendidas a terceiros ou que não têm valor real (por exemplo, opções de ações em uma empresa privada ou opções não utilizadas) podem ser difíceis de avaliar e dividir.
No entanto, os tribunais da Califórnia determinaram várias maneiras de lidar com a divisão das opções de ações em divórcio.
Uma Opção de Ações Ordinárias Hipotética.
Aqui está um cenário típico do Vale do Silício: um cônjuge consegue um ótimo trabalho trabalhando para uma empresa iniciante e, como parte do pacote de remuneração, recebe opções de compra de ações sujeitas a um cronograma de aquisição de quatro anos. O casal não tem certeza se o start-up continuará como está, será adquirido ou será dobrado como muitas outras empresas no Vale.
O casal mais tarde decide se divorciar e, durante uma discussão sobre a divisão de ativos, as opções de ações aparecem. Eles querem descobrir o que fazer com as opções, mas as regras não são claras. Primeiro, eles precisarão entender algumas das fundações dos direitos de propriedade conjugal na Califórnia.
Propriedade comunitária.
Segundo a lei da Califórnia, existe a presunção de que quaisquer ativos - incluindo opções de ações - adquiridos a partir da data do casamento até a data em que as partes se separam (denominada “data de separação”) são considerados “propriedade da comunidade”. Esta presunção é referida como uma presunção geral da propriedade da comunidade. & Rdquo; A propriedade da comunidade é dividida igualmente entre os cônjuges (uma divisão de 50/50) em um divórcio.
Propriedade separada.
Propriedade separada não faz parte da propriedade marcial, o que significa que o cônjuge que possui a propriedade separada, possui separadamente de seu cônjuge (não em conjunto) e consegue mantê-lo após o divórcio. Propriedade separada não está sujeita a divisão em um divórcio. Na Califórnia, a propriedade separada inclui todas as propriedades adquiridas por um dos cônjuges:
antes do casamento por doação ou herança, ou após a data da separação (ver abaixo).
Assim, de um modo geral, quaisquer opções de ações concedidas ao cônjuge empregado antes do casal se casar ou após o casal se separar são consideradas propriedade separada do cônjuge do empregado e não estão sujeitas à divisão no divórcio.
Data de separação
A & ldquo; data de separação & rdquo; é uma data muito importante, porque estabelece direitos de propriedade separados. A data da separação é a data em que um dos cônjuges decidiu subjetivamente que o casamento havia terminado e, em seguida, objetivamente, fez algo para implementar essa decisão, como sair de casa.
Muitos casais divorciados discutem a data exata da separação, porque pode ter um grande impacto sobre quais ativos são considerados propriedade da comunidade (e, portanto, sujeitos a divisão igual) ou propriedades separadas. Por exemplo, as opções de ações recebidas antes da data da separação são consideradas propriedade da comunidade e estão sujeitas a divisão igualitária, mas quaisquer opções ou outros bens recebidos após essa data são considerados propriedade separada do cônjuge que os recebe.
Voltando ao hipotético acima, vamos supor que não há discussão sobre a data da separação. No entanto, o casal descobre que algumas das opções "investidas" durante o casamento e antes da data da separação. Agora eles precisam determinar como isso pode afetar a divisão.
Opções investidas versus opções não investidas.
Uma vez opções de ações para funcionários, "colete", & rdquo; os funcionários podem "exercer" & rdquo; suas opções para comprar ações da empresa em um & ldquo; strike & rdquo; preço, que é o preço fixo que é normalmente indicado no contrato original de concessão ou opção entre o empregador e o empregado.
Mas e quanto àquelas opções que foram concedidas durante o casamento, mas que não foram adquiridas antes da data da separação? Algumas pessoas podem pensar que as opções não investidas não têm valor porque:
os funcionários não têm controle sobre essas opções e as opções não utilizadas são abandonadas quando um funcionário deixa a empresa & ndash; eles não podem levar essas opções com eles.
No entanto, os tribunais da Califórnia discordam desse ponto de vista e sustentam que, embora as opções não investidas possam não ter um valor de mercado justo e atual, elas estão sujeitas à divisão em um divórcio.
Dividindo as opções.
Então, como o tribunal determina qual parte das opções pertence ao cônjuge não empregado? Geralmente, os tribunais usam uma das várias fórmulas (comumente chamadas de & ldquo; regras de tempo & rdquo;).
Duas das principais fórmulas de regras de tempo usadas são a fórmula do Hug 1 e a fórmula do Nelson 2. Antes de decidir qual fórmula utilizar, um tribunal pode primeiro querer determinar por que as opções foram concedidas ao funcionário (por exemplo, para atrair o empregado ao cargo, como recompensa pelo desempenho anterior ou como um incentivo para continuar trabalhando para o cargo). a empresa), pois isso afetará qual regra é mais apropriada.
A fórmula do abraço.
A fórmula do abraço é usada nos casos em que as opções visavam principalmente atrair o empregado para o trabalho e recompensar os serviços passados. A fórmula usada no Hug é:
----------------- x Número de ações exercíveis = Ações da propriedade da comunidade.
(DOH = Data da contratação; DOS = Data da separação; DOE = Data da & ldquo; Exercicabilidade & rdquo; ou vesting)
A fórmula de Nelson.
A fórmula de Nelson é usada onde as opções foram principalmente destinadas a compensar o desempenho futuro e como um incentivo para permanecer na empresa. A fórmula usada em Nelson é:
----------------- x Número de ações exercíveis = Ações da propriedade da comunidade.
(DOG = Data de Concessão; DOS = Data de Separação; DOE = Data de Exercício)
Existem várias outras fórmulas de regra de tempo para outros tipos de opções, e os tribunais têm ampla discrição para decidir qual fórmula (se houver) usar e como dividir as opções.
De um modo geral, quanto maior o tempo entre a data de separação e a data de vencimento das opções, menor será a porcentagem total de opções que serão consideradas propriedade da comunidade. Por exemplo, se um número específico de opções for adquirido um mês após a separação, uma parte significativa dessas ações seria considerada propriedade da comunidade sujeita a divisão igual (50/50). No entanto, se as opções forem concedidas vários anos após a data da separação, uma porcentagem muito menor será considerada propriedade da comunidade.
Distribuindo as opções (ou seu valor)
Após a aplicação de qualquer regra de tempo, o casal saberá quantas opções cada uma terá direito. O próximo passo seria descobrir como distribuir as opções ou seu valor.
Dizer, por exemplo, é determinado que cada cônjuge tem direito a 5000 opções de ações na empresa do empregado-cônjuge; Há várias maneiras de garantir que o cônjuge não empregado receba as opções em si ou o valor dessas opções de 5.000 ações. Aqui estão algumas das soluções mais comuns:
O cônjuge não empregado pode desistir dos direitos sobre as 5000 opções de ações em troca de algum outro ativo ou dinheiro (isso exigirá um acordo entre os cônjuges quanto ao valor das opções - para empresas públicas, os valores das ações são públicos e podem formar a base do seu contrato, mas para empresas privadas, isso pode ser um pouco mais difícil de determinar - a empresa pode ter uma avaliação interna que pode fornecer uma boa estimativa). A empresa pode concordar em transferir as 5000 opções de ações para o nome do cônjuge não empregado. O cônjuge empregado pode continuar a manter a parte do cônjuge não empregado das opções (5000) em uma confiança construtiva; quando as ações são adquiridas e se podem ser vendidas, o cônjuge não empregado será notificado e poderá solicitar que sua parte seja exercida e depois vendida.
Conclusão.
Antes de concordar em desistir de quaisquer direitos nas opções de ações do seu cônjuge, você pode querer considerar a aplicação de uma fórmula de regra de tempo para as opções, mesmo que elas não valham atualmente nada. Você pode querer manter um interesse nessas ações e os lucros potenciais; se a empresa abrir o capital e / ou as ações se tornarem valiosas devido a uma aquisição ou outras circunstâncias, você ficará contente por ter se mantido firme.
Esta área do direito da família pode ser bastante complexa. Se você tiver dúvidas sobre a divisão das opções de ações, entre em contato com um advogado experiente em direito de família para obter orientação.
Recursos e notas finais.
1. Casamento de Abraço (1984) 154 Cal. Aplicativo. 3d 780
2. Casamento de Nelson (1986) 177 Cal. Aplicativo. 3d 150
Fale com um advogado de divórcio.
Ajudamos 85 clientes a encontrar advogados hoje.
Como funciona.
Conte-nos brevemente sobre seu caso Forneça suas informações de contato Escolha advogados para contatá-lo.
Produtos.
Legal livre
Conecte-se conosco.
Direitos autorais & copy; 2018 Nolo & reg; Os serviços de autoajuda podem não ser permitidos em todos os estados. As informações fornecidas neste site não são conselhos legais, não constituem um serviço de encaminhamento de advogados, e nenhum relacionamento advogado-cliente ou confidencial é ou será formado pelo uso do site. Os anúncios do advogado neste site são pagos publicidade advogado. Em alguns estados, as informações contidas neste site podem ser consideradas um serviço de encaminhamento de advogados. Por favor, consulte os Termos de Uso e os Termos Suplementares para obter informações específicas relacionadas ao seu estado. Seu uso deste site constitui aceitação dos Termos de Uso, Termos Suplementares, Política de Privacidade e Política de Cookies.

A grande divisão.
Pela equipe do SmartMoney.
Depois de tantos milhões de casais se divorciarem, você pensaria que o processo teria se tornado mais simples. Mas infelizmente, continua a ser uma experiência desagradável, brutal e também comum.
Pouco menos da metade de todos os casamentos nos EUA terminam em divórcio, de acordo com o National Center for Health Statistics. Quando o processo de divórcio de um casal estiver completo, os dois gastarão, em média, de US $ 20 mil a US $ 30 mil somente em honorários legais, diz Alan Feigenbaum, planejador financeiro certificado e autor do Guia Completo de Proteção à Sua Segurança Financeira ao Obter um Divórcio. O divórcio perde apenas para a morte de um cônjuge no medidor de dor psíquica, de acordo com os especialistas que avaliam essas coisas, e é conhecido por desencadear ataques de pânico e episódios depressivos maiores.
A boa notícia é que existem mais métodos alternativos para chegar a um acordo do que nunca. Costumava acontecer que a maioria dos divórcios era tratada exclusivamente por advogados que regateavam apenas um ou dois ativos. Agora, mais casais estão lidando com seus próprios divórcios ou usando mediadores para organizar assentamentos por muito menos dinheiro. Mas isso não torna o divórcio hoje mais simples.
Nosso planejador de divórcio irá ajudá-lo a navegar nessas águas estressantes. Este artigo lhe dará o básico.
Existem algumas regras básicas a considerar antes de começarmos. Como seus ativos serão divididos em um divórcio depende muito de onde você mora. Nos 10 estados da propriedade da comunidade (Alasca, Arizona, Califórnia, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, Novo México, Texas, Washington e Wisconsin), os bens conjugais geralmente serão divididos igualmente entre os cônjuges. Os restantes 40 estados usam o princípio de "distribuição equitativa", que permite que um juiz divida os ativos conforme julgar justo. Uma coisa a lembrar: a grande maioria dos divórcios é resolvida fora do tribunal, o que deixa muito espaço para negociação.
O caminho mais fácil.
Graças à Internet, existem maneiras mais fáceis de obter o divórcio do que nunca. Se o seu divórcio é simples & # 8212; sem dívidas compartilhadas ou lutas de custódia & # 8212; você pode querer lidar com isso sozinho. Com informações que encontrou em divórcio online, Russ Grigsby, gerente de projetos da Boeing em Seattle, escreveu seu próprio plano de divórcio, cobrindo detalhes como horários de visitas para suas duas filhas. Então ele baixou documentos legais gratuitos do site do governo do estado de Washington e pediu o divórcio. Três meses depois, ele e sua ex-mulher foram ao tribunal para uma audiência, e em meia hora seu casamento de 18 anos foi dissolvido. O divórcio inteiro custou apenas US $ 125.
Os casais que querem uma separação simples costumam usar um mediador para resolver o acordo. Os especialistas em divórcio concordam que mais casais estão usando a mediação agora do que nunca, diz Emily Doskow, advogada do divórcio e autora do livro "Guia Essencial para o Divórcio de Nolo". As vantagens de custo podem ser surpreendentes. Um acordo de divórcio comum que não vai a julgamento custa em média US $ 8.000, diz Doskow, e se for a julgamento pode se arrastar por meses e custar ainda mais. Mas, com um advogado como mediador, um punhado de sessões pode custar US $ 250 por hora, em média, diz ela. Para encontrar um mediador na sua área, entre em contato com a Association for Conflict Resolution.
Embora seja custo efetivo tentar a mediação, não funcionará para muitos casais. Se você e seu cônjuge são abertamente hostis, um juiz pode ser sua melhor aposta, já que ele não exige sua cooperação. Casais com grandes propriedades também devem evitar a mediação. Indo e voltando em cada ativo pode ser entediante e poderia desencadear hostilidades que não estavam lá antes. Os especialistas em divórcio também dizem que os casais com rendimentos diferentes devem evitar a mediação, assim como as pessoas que suspeitam que seus cônjuges não estão revelando tudo o que possuem.
ESTÁ BEM. Você tentou, mas a mediação e o próprio divórcio estão simplesmente fora de questão. Você e seu cônjuge estão indo para um longo impasse com os advogados, o que poderia ser desagradável e caro. Isso é o suficiente para deixar qualquer um nervoso. Sua melhor defesa é armar-se com informações sobre você e os ativos de seu cônjuge e entender as implicações fiscais de qualquer coisa que você faça.
Opções de ações.
Lidar com opções de ações pode ser complicado. Aproximadamente 10 milhões de trabalhadores agora têm planos de opção, de acordo com o Centro Nacional de Propriedade dos Empregados, mas especialistas ainda discutem a melhor maneira de dividi-los, especialmente quando seu valor preciso não pode ser determinado.
Um método comum, especialmente envolvendo casos com opções intransferíveis, exige que o cônjuge que possui as ações dê ao seu ex uma porcentagem dos lucros quando eles são vendidos. Se o casal não quiser contato futuro, o dono da opção pode escrever um cheque para o valor que as ações valem agora. Mas essa nem sempre é a escolha mais sábia.
É melhor esperar que as opções sejam vendidas. "Dessa forma, ambas as partes compartilham o risco do investimento", diz Daniel Jaffe, advogado de divórcio de Beverly Hills, na Califórnia.
A divisão de opções não investidas é uma das maiores áreas de contenção nos dias de hoje, dizem os advogados. É comum que o cônjuge que possui as opções afirme que elas são inúteis, mas esse argumento raramente funciona. "Na verdade, a capacidade de comprar uma ação em cinco anos a preços de hoje é um direito muito valioso", diz Jaffe. Se você tiver opções não investidas, o tribunal provavelmente irá dividi-las da seguinte forma: digamos que sua empresa tenha acabado de lhe conceder opções que valem três anos. Daqui a um ano, sua esposa decide andar. Adivinha? O tribunal considerará pelo menos uma "terceira dessas opções" & # 8212; para o ano em que você se casou depois que as ações foram concedidas & # 8212; como propriedade conjugal. Seu ex pode pegar metade deles.
Esse cheque mensal.
Uma alternativa à pensão alimentícia tradicional é a "manutenção reabilitativa", em que os pagamentos temporários ajudam o cônjuge de baixa renda a se recuperar. Nesse caso, se você optar por um pagamento fixo, o destinatário receberá um ninho de saúda e o pagador poderá receber o valor de suporte como uma dedução de imposto. Mas essa dedução fiscal vale muitas vezes muito menos do que aparece pela primeira vez. Isso porque as regras de recaptura de pensão alimentícia entram em jogo. Em um pagamento de US $ 100.000 em pensão alimentícia em 2008, um pagador na faixa de imposto de 33% economizará US $ 33.000 em impostos no ano de pagamento (2008). Mas no terceiro ano (2010), ele teria US $ 85.000 de recapitalização tributária, resultando em uma conta fiscal de US $ 28.050 (à alíquota de imposto de 2010 de 33%). Para mais detalhes, consulte nossa Calculadora de Alimônia dedutível.
Cinza é Dourado.
Os tipos mais comuns de benefícios de aposentadoria são os planos de contribuição definidos, que incluem 401 (k) s, Planos de Propriedade de Ações dos Empregados (ESOPs) e Keoghs. Eles pagam o que você e seu empregador contribuíram, além de qualquer acumulação de renda, e são bastante fáceis de avaliar. A menos que você divida esses planos da maneira certa, você pode ser atingido com todos os tipos de taxas desnecessárias. Com um 401 (k), o cônjuge mantém todos os ganhos obtidos antes do casamento, mas divide os ganhos feitos enquanto ele ou ela se casou normalmente ao meio com o ex, diz Doskow. Esse dinheiro é acumulado no ex 401 (k) ou conta de aposentadoria individual (IRA). Outra opção é obter uma ordem de relações domésticas qualificada (QDRO), onde, após a aposentadoria, o administrador do plano de aposentadoria dá uma porcentagem desse dinheiro para o ex. Se você transferir esse dinheiro para um IRA, poderá sacar dinheiro em qualquer idade por meio de pagamentos periódicos definidos, conhecidos como SEPPs, sem incorrer na penalidade de 10%. Para mais, veja Dividindo as contas de aposentadoria.
Uma palavra de cautela sobre os planos de pensão. Como os planos estão se tornando menos comuns, alguns advogados de divórcio podem não estar familiarizados com a maneira de valorizá-los. Quando um casal se senta para planejar um divórcio, um cônjuge de 40 anos pode afirmar com precisão que o pagamento atual de sua pensão é de US $ 2 mil por mês. O outro cônjuge naturalmente acredita que tem direito a US $ 1.000 e concorda prematuramente em aceitar esse valor. Mas durante os próximos 20 anos, a renda da esposa trabalhadora poderia facilmente dobrar. Como o valor de sua pensão será calculado em grande parte em sua remuneração durante seus últimos cinco anos no cargo, o pagamento será muito superior a US $ 2.000.
Vender a casa e dividir os lucros é muitas vezes o caminho mais limpo. E mudanças nas leis tributárias tornaram essa opção ainda mais atraente. Casais podem excluir até US $ 500.000 de ganhos de capital do homem do imposto quando eles vendem uma residência principal, mesmo depois de terem se divorciado.
Se você decidir manter sua casa, esteja preparado para algumas surpresas. Com muita frequência, um cônjuge sentimental vai se apegar à casa apenas para descobrir que não tem o capital para mantê-la. E depois há aquelas misérias inesperadas. Jessica Levin afirma que pediu ao marido, Ray, que retirasse seu nome da hipoteca quando se divorciou dele há dois anos. De acordo com Levin, ele concordou, só para ligar para ela meses depois para dizer que a casa estava em execução, ela poderia fazer um cheque? Levin, um gerente de varejo de 27 anos, ficou horrorizado. "Eu não tinha o meu nome fora da hipoteca", diz ela. "Não havia nada que eu pudesse fazer até que vendêssemos a casa ou ele se classificasse para uma hipoteca."
As Educações Infantis.
Desde que o governo exigiu que os estados estabelecessem diretrizes para o apoio básico à criança em 1988, que estabelecem valores monetários para comida e roupas, a batalha sobre quem está pagando pelas necessidades das crianças se tornou menos controversa. Mas ainda há muitas batalhas sobre quem receberá essa conta de Harvard.
Se você e seu cônjuge forem amigáveis, o ônus de pagar a mensalidade pode ser dividido igualmente entre você. Uma opção é que ambos ponham dinheiro de lado em uma conta conjunta ou estabeleçam a confiança de um menor, de preferência um que seja irrevogável para abrigar o saque de impostos de propriedade se um dos pais morrer. Se redigida corretamente, uma confiança irrevogável também pode proteger o dinheiro dos credores, caso você ou seu cônjuge caiam em suas hipotecas. Se o seu cônjuge não estiver disposto a participar de metade da educação universitária, você poderá negociar o custo da mensalidade de algum outro ativo.
Encantos Escondidos
Não deixe que a confiança atrapalhe seu bom senso. É aconselhável fazer um inventário dos acervos do seu cônjuge para ver o que você não consegue colocar em suas mãos. Como milhas de passageiro frequentes, por exemplo. Mesmo que eles valham apenas dois centavos cada, algumas pessoas farão todo o possível para mantê-los. Recentemente, uma mulher recebeu US $ 25 mil extras da pensão de seu marido & # 8212; desde que ela concordasse em deixar as milhas sozinhas.
SmartMoney & # 169; 2007 SmartMoney. SmartMoney é uma joint venture de publicação da Dow Jones & amp; Company, Inc. e Hearst SM Partnership. SmartMoney é uma marca registrada. Todos os direitos reservados.
As informações fornecidas são obtidas de fontes independentes de terceiros que não são afiliadas à Key e que são consideradas confiáveis. A exatidão ou integridade dessas informações não é garantida, nem a Key lhe fornece quaisquer garantias relativas aos resultados obtidos com o uso. A informação não deve ser considerada uma oferta ou solicitação pela Key ou qualquer uma de suas afiliadas com relação à venda ou compra de quaisquer valores mobiliários, nem deve ser considerada como investimento ou outro conselho. Ao usar essas informações, você concorda com os termos do Acordo do usuário / Divulgação.
Contate-Nos.
Para informações gerais ou informações sobre uma conta existente:
De contas correntes a hipotecas, o KeyBank oferece uma opção bancária pessoal certa para você.
A aplicação on-line é fácil, portanto, inscreva-se no produto que você está procurando & # 8212; seja uma conta corrente, um cartão de crédito ou uma linha de crédito de home equity.
Direitos autorais & copy; 1998-2018, KeyCorp & reg ;. Todos os direitos reservados.

Dividindo ações em um divórcio do Texas.
Em outros artigos, tenho discutido muitos tipos diferentes de planos de aposentadoria que você pode ter. Em seu divórcio, seus planos de aposentadoria provavelmente estarão sujeitos à divisão. Entender se e como esses planos serão divididos é importante quando você entra no processo de divórcio. Outro benefício importante que você pode lidar com o divórcio é uma opção de ações. Se você tem opções de ações como um benefício do empregado, é importante entender o que acontecerá com esse benefício em seu divórcio. Da mesma forma, se o seu cônjuge tiver benefícios de opções de ações, você precisa saber se tem direito a eles em divórcio.
Eu responderei a estas perguntas nesta série:
O que são opções de ações e ações restritas? O que são unidades de estoque restritas? Como funcionam os planos restritos de prêmio de ações? Documentos necessários relacionados a estoque restrito e unidades de estoque restritas. Opções de ações como comunidade e propriedade separada.
Opções de ações e opções de ações restritas.
As opções de ações concedidas como benefícios aos empregados constituem benefícios muito valiosos. Muitos gerentes terão opções de ações restritas como benefícios. Este prêmio é uma concessão das ações da empresa. O recebedor do estoque (o empregado) não poderá usar as ações até que as ações sejam adquiridas. Este período de restrição também é conhecido como o período de aquisição. Mas, após o término do período de carência, o destinatário pode ser o proprietário dessas ações. Eles podem então fazer o que quiserem com os compartilhamentos de ações naquele momento.
As ações restritas geralmente são concedidas aos funcionários como um benefício e também um incentivo para permanecer na empresa. Isso ocorre porque, se o funcionário sair durante o período de aquisição, ou se ele for rescindido por algum outro motivo, ele não receberá as ações. Isso é diferente de uma opção normal de ações porque exige que o funcionário permaneça na empresa para receber as ações. As opções tradicionais de ações são valiosas à medida que o valor das ações cresce. Por outro lado, as opções de ações restritas são valiosas, independentemente das ações da empresa (divisão de divórcio do Texas).
Planos de concessão de ações restritas.
Se você tem um plano de concessão de ações restrito, você pode se perguntar como funciona.
O primeiro passo na oferta de um plano de concessão de ações restrito é aceitá-lo ou negá-lo. Se você aceitar a concessão, terá que passar pelo período de aquisição. Geralmente, isso significa que você tem que esperar um determinado período de tempo antes de possuir as ações. No entanto, existem alguns casos em que o período de aquisição pode depender do seu desempenho no trabalho. Isso significa que você pode obter o estoque quando atingir determinados objetivos dentro da empresa. Então, uma vez que o período de aquisição termine, você poderá obter as ações da ação, ou obterá seu equivalente em dinheiro. Isso depende das regras da empresa. De qualquer forma, você receberá seu prêmio sem quaisquer restrições. Mesmo durante o período de aquisição, a obtenção de ações restritas significa que o destinatário recebe direitos de voto. Uma vez que essa ação restrita pague dividendos, o recebedor da ação receberá esses pagamentos. Este é o caso mesmo se os dividendos forem pagos durante o período de aquisição. Dividendos constituem renda, significando que o recebedor deles é taxado por eles com base em sua taxa normal de imposto de renda. Esta taxa de imposto é usada em vez da taxa de 15% a menos que a eleição de 83 (b) seja relevante. Então, após o término do período de vesting, aplica-se a alíquota de 15%.
Conseguindo ajuda.
Estas são algumas informações básicas sobre o estoque. No meu próximo artigo, discutirei as unidades de estoque restritas (RSU), que são semelhantes às concessões de ações restritas, mas que diferem em alguns aspectos. Se você precisar de informações adicionais sobre ações e estoques restritos, entre em contato com um advogado familiar experiente.
Clique abaixo para ler mais sobre:
Clique aqui para baixar o eBook, & # 8220; Seu Guia para & # 8211; Divisão de Propriedade em um Divórcio & # 8221 ;.
Brian Walters
Brian Douglas Walters.
Comentários de 91 comentários.
Jake Gilbreath.
James Scott & quot; Jake & quot; Gilbreath.
Comentários de 74 comentários.
Avaliações (Houston)
Só tenho coisas boas a dizer sobre Brian Walters e sua equipe. O Sr. Walters conseguiu agendar minha consulta rapidamente e me aconselhar sobre os passos que eu precisava dar. Brian tomou as medidas apropriadas em relação ao arquivamento e colocando ordens temporárias no lugar. Isso foi extremamente útil considerando o nosso curto prazo para fazê-lo. Toda vez que eu precisava de conselhos ou perguntas Brian estava sempre lá. Brian e sua equipe sempre me mostraram cortesia e respeito. O Sr. Walters se preocupa com seus clientes. Brian é sempre calmo, paciente e firme, ao contrário de alguns dos outros advogados que consultei. Seu comportamento relaxado e confiante infunde a confiança e demonstra sua confiabilidade ao longo do processo. Você pode contratar uma série de bons advogados em Houston em todos os pontos de preço, eu escolhi Brian Walters porque ele é o melhor.
Muito experiente, rápido respondendo e atento eu recomendaria definitivamente a qualquer um lutando uma batalha de custódia.
Ético, profissional, atencioso e forte abordagem. Sr. Brian Walters e equipe Salvou meu casamento e por isso. nossa filha será eternamente grata. Para completar, ele é um grande homem de família.
Avaliações (Austin)
Ao enfrentar um divórcio depois de um casamento de 25 anos com ativos modestos para dividir e sem filhos menores, eu procurei um advogado com as características de uma "raposa" e não um "pit-bull". Eu achei Jake experiente, inteligente, objetivo, criativo, compassivo e sensato. Nós estávamos trabalhando em um divórcio que eu arquivei como um caso sem culpa / simples que rapidamente desceu em um pesadelo contestado, combativo e tedioso devido a táticas além do nosso controle. Jake ficou acima da briga com os olhos no prêmio - um acordo equitativo. Quando fomos forçados a uma audiência frívola - ele era um feroz advogado no tribunal. Ele é sucinto e direto ao ponto e encontrou, sem esforço, "falhas" na narrativa do oponente. O juiz decidiu a nosso favor. Se você está enfrentando um divórcio, James “Jake” Gilbreath fará o trabalho, sem exacerbar uma situação já adversária. Jake realmente foi acima e além no meu caso - eu nunca vou esquecer a compaixão, paciência e competência do advogado de Waxahachie, Texas. Se você quiser uma representação eficaz / inteligente, você a encontrou.
Fui encaminhado a Brian por um amigo meu que é advogado de uma empresa bem conhecida na cidade. Brian foi excelente. Ele é muito eficiente em suas interações, muito completo em suas explicações dos processos legais e sempre buscou meus melhores interesses em nossas interações. Ele explicou cuidadosamente as opções quando havia pontos de decisão, delineou várias alternativas para os próximos passos e, em seguida, lidou com as atividades subsequentes de maneira oportuna. Brian tem respondido a todas as minhas perguntas e também é paciente em esperar que eu tome algumas decisões. Minhas interações com ele também incluíram um arquivamento com o seu associado, que também é muito profissional. Brian garantiu que ele iniciasse o processo definindo minhas expectativas e, em seguida, assegurando um acompanhamento completo e completo. Brian também aproveita a tecnologia para lidar com alguns dos aspectos operacionais dos contratos e isso torna os eficientes e econômicos. Eu recomendo Brian.
Brian é o cara que me salvou quando meu ex pediu o divórcio. Minha experiência com Brian foi maravilhosa. Se você estiver procurando por um advogado gentil, preocupado e profissional. Ter Brian no seu canto será a melhor decisão que você poderia tomar. Brian e sua equipe farão todo o possível para protegê-lo quando precisar de um advogado no seu canto. Depois de tudo terminado, considero Brian um bom amigo. Você nunca vai dar errado com Brian Walters no seu canto.
Leia as páginas relacionadas.
© 2018 Walters Gilbreath, PLLC • Todos os direitos reservados.
Advogados disponíveis em escritórios de advocacia somente com hora marcada.
A leitura de informações neste site não constitui a formação de uma relação advogado-cliente com a nossa empresa. Também não nos chama, enviando-nos um email, conversando conosco ou entrando em contato conosco. Nós só entramos em relações de advogado-cliente com pessoas que assinam um contrato por escrito conosco. Nenhuma das informações contidas neste site pretende ser um conselho legal.

Dividir opções de ações em um divórcio.
Ao se divorciar, é importante ter uma lista de todos os ativos de ambas as partes. Muitas vezes, as opções de ações são negligenciadas no caso de um divórcio. Alguns cônjuges podem nem saber que as opções de ações em um divórcio podem ser consideradas um ativo conjugal. Há algumas coisas a serem consideradas ao dividir as opções de ações. Uma opção de ações é uma opção para comprar uma ação a um determinado preço. As empresas dão isso como um benefício para um funcionário, mas depende do funcionário decidir se deseja ou não exercer a opção de parada. Para exercer a opção de ações é comprar o estoque à taxa especificada na opção.
A primeira coisa a considerar é se a opção de ações é, de fato, um ativo. Você determinaria isso revisando o preço que o cônjuge pode comprar o estoque usando a opção. Se esse preço for menor do que o que a ação está negociando hoje, a opção é um ativo. Se o preço na opção de ações for maior do que o que a ação está negociando hoje, a opção de ações não é um ativo ou um passivo.
A segunda coisa a considerar são as ramificações fiscais na opção de ações. Ganhos de capital ou impostos regulares sobre o ativo podem ser impostos se a ação for vendida e deve ser levada em consideração, porque qualquer lucro é obtido sobre a ação, ela será tributada.
Uma terceira coisa a considerar é se a ação não é uma ação negociada publicamente, pode ser difícil avaliar a opção. Um contador pode ser capaz de ajudar a avaliar a opção de ações neste momento usando as finanças da empresa.
Por favor, entre em contato conosco para uma consulta GRATUITA para ajudá-lo a determinar se uma divisão de opções de ações é necessária em seu divórcio.

Dividindo as opções de ações em um divórcio
Preparação On-line do QDRO. Comece hoje & gt;
Métodos para dividir opções de ações em casos de divórcio do tribunal estadual fornecidos pelo National Legal Research Group.
Quase todos os estados agora concordam que as opções de ações são bens conjugais na medida em que foram ganhos durante o casamento. Como resultado, na maioria dos casos em que as opções de ações estão presentes, o tribunal e as partes precisarão encontrar alguma maneira de transferir parte do valor das opções para o cônjuge não-proprietário. A lei federal não facilitou o processo de divisão; De fato, um bom argumento pode ser feito de que a lei federal contribuiu materialmente para o problema. If federal law were to be clarified to permit direct assignment of stock options without prohibitively adverse tax consequences, division of stock options in state court divorce cases would be a much easier process.
The primary purpose of this article is to discuss federal and state law on mechanics of dividing stock options between the parties. Before reaching this issue, however, we will briefly review the nature of stock options themselves, and then discuss the manner in which stock options are classified and divided.
I. STOCK OPTIONS IN GENERAL.
A stock option is a legal right to purchase one share of stock for a specific price (the strike price), regardless of the price at which the stock is actually trading. The stock need not be publicly traded, but in most of the reported cases, a regular market does exist for the stock at issue.
Under almost all stock option plans, an option given to the employee is unvested when it is received. It cannot be exercised; it is lost if the employee stops working for the employer. After a specific period of time passes, the stock option vests. After vesting, the stock option can be exercised, and it is not lost if the employee leaves the company. Most vesting periods are in the two-to-five-year range. After a much longer period, often 10 years, the stock option expires and cannot be exercised.
II. CLASSIFICATION OF STOCK OPTIONS.
Stock options fall into the general category of deferred compensation rights, a category which also includes such commonly discussed assets as retirement benefits, bonuses, and intellectual property rights. For purposes of property division, deferred compensation rights are generally acquired when they are earned, not when value is actually received. For example, if the husband earns retirement benefits during the marriage, the benefits so earned are marital property, even if no money is actually received until long after the marriage ends.
Deferred compensation rights are most often classified by determining the period over which they are earned. A defined benefit retirement plan, for example, is usually acquired as compensation for a specific period of creditable service rendered to the employer. The amount received per month depends upon the total creditable service rendered, with some function of the employee’s highest annual salary often being worked into the formula as well. To determine the marital share, the court divides the total time married during the earning period by the total earning period. See In re Marriage of Benson, 545 N. W.2d 252 (Iowa 1996); Koziol v. Koziol, 10 Neb. App. 675, 636 N. W.2d 890 (2001); Workman v. Workman, 106 N. C. App. 562, 418 S. E.2d 269 (1992). See generally Brett R. Turner, Equitable Distribution of Property 6:25 (3d ed. 2005). Time married, in this context, means time between the date of commencement (almost always the date of marriage) and the date of classification. Identidade. The latter date varies by jurisdiction; it is usually either the date of final separation, the date of filing, or the date of divorce. Identidade. Section 5:28.
To take an example, assume that a military service member acquires retirement benefits as compensation for 30 years of military service. The divorce occurs in New York, where the date of classification is normally the date of filing. Of the 30 years, 12 occurred between the date of marriage and the filing of the divorce. The marital share of the pension is 12/30, or 40%.
In the specific case of stock options, the earning period always includes the vesting period. The purpose of the vesting period is to encourage the employee to continue working for the employer; that is why the employee loses unvested options if he voluntarily terminates his employment. See generally In re Marriage of Hug, 154 Cal. Aplicativo. 3d 780, 201 Cal. Rptr. 676 (1984). When future employment is a condition of vesting, it is very difficult to argue that the option is not consideration for future service.
The hard question in classifying stock options is whether the option is consideration for past service as well. Some unvested stock options are awarded pursuant to a regular plan which awards an equal amount of stock options to all employees at a given level, primarily as a device for encouraging them to remain with the company. These sorts of options are generally consideration only for future services. See In re Marriage of Harrison, 179 Cal. Aplicativo. 3d 1216, 225 Cal. Rptr. 234 (1986); Wendt v. Wendt, 59 Conn. App. 656, 757 A.2d 1225 (2000); Hopfer v. Hopfer, 59 Conn. App. 452, 757 A.2d 673 (2000) (where husband started with employer only one month before the divorce); Otley v. Otley, 147 Md. App. 540, 810 A.2d 1 (2002); In re Marriage of Valence, 147 N. H. 663, 798 A.2d 35 (2002). See generally Turner, supra, 6:49. Under other option plans, however, more unvested options are awarded to employees who performed better in the past, or a committee may even have discretion to make extraordinary grants of unvested options to employees who made extraordinary contributions to the company. These options are consideration for both past and future services. Identidade. Section 6:49.
A related fact situation occurs when options are used to attract an employee to switch employers. These options are normally used to attract employees only after they have substantial skills, so that the options are in a sense acquired with the skills. In addition, employees who make this sort of job change often lose unvested stock options with their previous employer, options which were at least partly earned through marital effort. The general rule is therefore that stock options to change jobs are also acquired in exchange for both past and future services. In re Marriage of Hug, 154 Cal. Aplicativo. 3d 780, 201 Cal. Rptr. 676 (1984); Salstrom v. Salstrom, 404 N. W.2d 848 (Minn. Ct. App. 1987).
III DIVISION OF RETIREMENT BENEFITS.
Because deferred compensation rights are earned before they are received, their division poses unique problems. These problems first arose in the context of retirement benefits, and the law on division of other deferred compensation rights is generally a specific application of general rules established in the retirement benefits cases.
In general, retirement benefits can be divided in two ways. Under the immediate offset method, the court determines a present value for the benefits. To do this, the court must measure the string of future payments which the employee is likely to receive; discount those benefits by the likelihood that each benefit will not be received (e. g., by the likelihood of early death); and then reduce the benefits to present value. This is a difficult process which usually requires expert testimony. After determining a present value, the court multiplies that value by the marital share to determine the marital interest, and applies the statutory division factors to determine the nonowning spouse’s percentage interest in the marital share. The nonowning spouse then receives his or her interest in cash or other property, while the owning spouse receives the entire pension. Turner, supra, Section 6:31.
Immediate offset requires significant expert testimony at the outset, so it is a more expensive method. It can be applied only when the marital estate has sufficient cash or other assets to permit payment of the offset. The accuracy of the method depends upon the accuracy of actuarial projections, which are almost never exactly accurate, so that one spouse or the other is bound to be hurt if both do not live to their exact life expectancies. But immediate offset allows the entire pension to be divided at the time of divorce, without requiring the parties to have an ongoing connection with each other for many years to come. After the divorce is over, it is by far the easiest method to implement.
Under the deferred distribution method, the court does not need to determine a present value for the benefits at the time of divorce (although some states require the court to do so for other purposes). Instead, the court measures the marital share and determines the non-owning spouse’s equitable interest in that share. For example, if the marital interest is 40% and an equal division is equitable, the non-owning spouse’s interest would be 20%. The court then orders the owning spouse to pay the non-owning spouse 20% of every future payment received from the retirement plan. Turner, supra, Sub Section 6:32-6:33.
Because no present division is made, deferred distribution does not depend upon the accuracy of present value calculations or actuarial projections. The amount payable will be exactly correct, regardless of who dies when. But the parties must continue to deal with each other for many years to come, and the non-owning spouse must bear the burden of enforcing the obligation if the owning spouse refuses to pay. There are also a variety of innocent and not-so-innocent ways in which the future events can influence the distribution. To take just one example, many defined benefit plans are encountering significant financial problems, which may ultimately reduce the amount payable. If the loss arises from market conditions, it should be shared; but what if the owning spouse was CEO of the company and failed, negligently or even deliberately, to fund the plan sufficiently after the divorce? Deferred distribution creates a significant potential for future litigation; it does not lead to a clean break between the parties.
The administrative problems of deferred distribution are less severe where the plan administrator can be directed to provide benefits directly to the non-owning spouse, Turner, supra, 6:18-6:20, or perhaps even to make the non-owning spouse an independent participant in the plan. Identidade. Section 6:34. Most private retirement plans are regulated by federal law, and there was initially some concern that federal law might not permit direct assignment of pension rights. The federal government eliminated this uncertainty in 1984 by making major modifications to ERISA, the federal statute governing retirement plans.
The modified statute allows direct assignment of benefits only if the assignment is made in a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO). A domestic relations order (DRO) is an order of the state court, made under the law of domestic relations, directing the plan administrator to assign benefits to a former spouse (the alternate payee). 29 U. S.C. Section 1056(d)(3)(A) (Westlaw 2006). It must contain certain basic identifying information, and more importantly it can only divide those benefits which are actually available to the employee under the plan. After the state court makes a DRO, the DRO is then submitted to the plan administrator, who determines whether the order meets the requirements of ERISA. If the administrator determines that the order meets those requirements, the order is qualified and the administrator must follow it. If the order is rejected, it is not qualified, and federal law prevents its enforcement. The administrator’s decision can then be reviewed in either state or federal court. See generally Turner, supra Section 6:18-6:19.
IV. DIRECT TRANSFER OF STOCK OPTIONS.
Federal Tax Treatment.
Before discussing the mechanics of dividing stock options, it is necessary to make a brief digression into federal income tax law. That law has had a significant impact upon the process by which stock options are divided.
As a general rule, when an employer pays compensation to an employee, two tax consequences follow. The compensation is taxed as income to the employee, and it is treated as a business expense of the employer. This general rule applies to property as well as to direct salary. For instance, if an employer gives a share of stock to an employee, the value of the share is taxable income to the employee, and a business expense deduction for the employer.
In the specific case of stock options, the tax treatment is different. When stock options are granted under a qualified plan, no income is recognized when the option itself is awarded or exercised, and the employer receives no business expense deduction. I. R.C. Section 421(a). The employee is liable for tax only when the share of stock acquired with the option is sold, and the tax can be paid with proceeds from the sale of the stock itself. Federal law recognizes two different types of qualified stock option plans: incentive stock option plans under I. R.C. 422, and employee stock purchase plans under I. R.C. 423.
If a stock option plan does not meet the requirements for either type of qualified plan, it is said to be a nonqualified plan. Stock options given under such a plan are treated as income to the employee, and an equivalent business expense deduction is permitted for the employer. These rules take effect at the time when the option is granted if the value of the option can readily be determined; otherwise, they take effect when the option is exercised. I. R.C. Section 83; Amelia Legutki, Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation 6.01 (Westlaw 2006) [hereinafter Mertens].
When a share of stock acquired with a stock option is sold, the employee recognizes income equal to the sale price minus his or her basis in the stock. If the stock option plan was qualified, the employee’s basis is the amount paid under the option. If the plan was unqualified, the employee’s basis is the amount paid, plus any amount previously recognized as income ordinarily, the value of the option when awarded. If the option was held for a minimum period of time, the income is taxed at capital gains rates; otherwise, it is taxed at normal tax rates. Mertens Section 6.01.
Federal Securities Law.
Just as the easiest method to implement deferred distribution of stock options is direct assignment of benefits through a QDRO, the easiest method to implement deferred distribution of stock options is direct transfers of the options themselves.
Like all publicly traded securities, stock options are regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Before 1996, former SEC Rule 16b-3 positively prohibited any direct transfer of stock options. Annual Review of Federal Securities Regulation, 52 Bus. Lei. 759, 766 (1997). Thus, direct assignment was not a permissible method for implementing a state court division of marital property.
In 1996, the SEC revised Rule 16b-3 to remove the prohibition on direct transfer. 17 C. F.R. Section 240.16b-3 (Westlaw 2006). It also adopted Rule 16a-12, 17 C. F.R. 240.16a-12 (Westlaw 2006), which provides that certain transfers meeting the ERISA definition of a DRO (qualified or otherwise) need not be reported. If an express rule provides that direct transfers need not be reported, those transfers are obviously no longer barred by the SEC. Thus, after 1996, federal securities law no longer prohibits direct assignment of stock options.
If stock options were regulated by ERISA, federal law would require plan administrators to permit direct transfer of stock options by means of QDROs. But stock option plans are clearly not within ERISA. ERISA applies only to "benefit plans," which are subdivided into "welfare plans" and "retirement plans." 29 U. S.C. 1002(3) (Westlaw 2006). Since a stock option is not a benefit payable only upon retirement, a stock option plan is not retirement plan. The definition of "welfare plans" includes plans intended to provide "medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment, or vacation benefits, apprenticeship or other training programs, or day care centers, scholarship funds, or prepaid legal services," 29 U. S.C. 1002(1)(A) a list which conspicuously excludes stock options. "Employee stock option plans are generally not covered under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as they are not considered welfare or retirement plans." Matthew T. Bodie, Aligning Incentives with Equity: Employee Stock Options and Rule 10b-5, 88 Iowa L. Rev. 539, 547 (2003). See generally Oatway v. American International Group, Inc., 325 F.3d 184, 187 (3d Cir. 2003) ("most courts have uniformly held that an incentive stock option plan is not an ERISA plan"; citing the cases). Thus, the QDRO provisions of ERISA do not apply to stock option plans.
Federal Tax Law One might think that the decision by the SEC to tolerate divorce-related transfers would make such transfers permissible. Unfortunately, the SEC is only one of the federal agencies with the power to limit divorce-related transfers. The IRS, and federal tax law in general, continue to make direct transfer difficult.
The core of the problem is in the requirements for the two different forms of qualified stock option plans. The requirements for an incentive stock option plan provide:
(b) opção de ações de incentivo. For purposes of this part, the term "incentive stock option" means an option granted to an individual for any reason connected with his employment by a corporation, if granted by the employer corporation or its parent or subsidiary corporation, to purchase stock of any of such corporations, but only if.
. . . . (5) such option by its terms is not transferable by such individual otherwise than by will or the laws of descent and distribution, and is exercisable, during his lifetime, only by him[.]
I. R.C. Section 422(b)(5) (emphasis added).
The requirements for an employee stock purchase plan provide:
(b) Employee stock purchase plan. For purposes of this part, the term "employee stock purchase plan" means a plan which meets the following requirements: . . . . (9) under the terms of the plan, such option is not transferable by such individual otherwise than by will or the laws of descent and distribution, and is exercisable, during his lifetime, only by him.
I. R.C. 423(b)(9) (emphasis added). Thus, both forms of qualified stock option plans provide that any stock option awarded can be exercised only by the employee. There is no exception permitting exercise by a spouse, present or former.
It should be stressed that neither of the above-quoted statutes absolutely prevents a stock option plan from allowing transfer of stock options. The federal courts have refused to construe either statute to prevent transfer absolutely, in the same manner as the antiassignment provision of ERISA. E. g., DeNadai v. Preferred Capital Markets, Inc., 272 B. R. 21, 40 (D. Mass. 2001) ("DeNadai fails to point to any evidence that Congress intended I. R.C. 422(b)(5) to serve as a general exemption from creditor process"). This refusal is highly consistent with the fact that such transfers are implicitly permitted by SEC Rule 16a-12.
The effect of Sub Scetion 422(b)(5) and 423(b)(9) is not to prohibit direct transfers under a DRO, but rather to change the tax treatment of options which are so transferred. It is highly desirable to employees that stock options awarded under a qualified plan be taxed under the special rules set forth in Section 421(a). The above language suggests, at a minimum, that any option exercised by a nonemployee loses the favorable tax treatment it would otherwise enjoy. It would be taxed as income when received or exercised, not when the share of stock acquired was sold.
If a plan is already nonqualified, the conditions set forth in Sub Section 422 and 423 do not apply to begin with, and there is apparently no reason why federal tax law would require or even suggest that the options not be transferable.
Revenue Ruling 2002-22.
Concerns regarding the tax treatment of stock options directly transferred from one spouse to the other were strengthened by the IRS decision in Rev. Rul. 2002-22, 2002-1 C. B. 849. This ruling focused primarily upon whether direct transfers of stock options are a taxable event. The general rule is that divorce-related transfers generally are not such an event, I. R.C. 1041, but the IRS had previously made informal statements that it might try to argue that transfers of stock options were somehow outside 1041.
Rev. Rul. 2002-22 recedes from these suggestions, and constitutes an admission by the IRS that the general principles of Section 1041 apply. But the ruling comes loaded with provisos and qualifications. The overall effect of the qualifications is to remove a significant portion of the practical benefit of the admission.
The fact pattern directly addressed in the ruling arose from a divorce-related transfer of stock options awarded under a nonqualified plan. The Service ruled that Section 1041 applied:
The term "property" is not defined in Section 1041. However, there is no indication that Congress intended "property" to have a restricted meaning under 1041. To the contrary, Congress indicated that 1041 should apply broadly to transfers of many types of property, including those that involve a right to receive ordinary income that has accrued in an economic sense (such as interests in trusts and annuities). Identidade. at 1491. Accordingly, stock options and unfunded deferred compensation rights may constitute property within the meaning of 1041.
The greater problem for the taxpayers was not the applicability of Section 1041, but rather the common-law assignment-of-income doctrine. Under that doctrine, "income is ordinarily taxed to the person who earns it, and that the incidence of income taxation may not be shifted by anticipatory assignments." Identidade. See generally Lucas v. Earl, 281 U. S. 111 (1930). If the doctrine applied, the husband would be liable for the entire tax due, regardless of the anticipatory assignment to the wife. But the assignment-of-income concept is fundamentally incompatible with Section 1041, which was intended to allow unlimited tax-free transfers of property between spouses incident to divorce:
[A]pplying the assignment of income doctrine in divorce cases to tax the transferor spouse when the transferee spouse ultimately receives income from the property transferred in the divorce would frustrate the purpose of Section 1041 with respect to divorcing spouses. That tax treatment would impose substantial burdens on marital property settlements involving such property and thwart the purpose of allowing divorcing spouses to sever their ownership interests in property with as little tax intrusion as possible. Further, there is no indication that Congress intended 1041 to alter the principle established in the pre-1041 cases such as Meisner that the application of the assignment of income doctrine generally is inappropriate in the context of divorce.
Rev. Rul. 2002-22. The Service therefore ruled that nonqualified options could be transferred between divorcing spouses without any change in tax consequences.
The problem with Rev. Rul. 2002-22 began when the Service departed from the facts presented and addressed qualified stock options:
The same conclusion would apply in a case in which an employee transfers a statutory stock option (such as those governed by Section 422 or 423(b)) contrary to its terms to a spouse or former spouse in connection with divorce. The option would be disqualified as a statutory stock option, see Sub Section 422(b)(5) and 423(b)(9), and treated in the same manner as other nonstatutory stock options. Section 424(c)(4), which provides that a Section 1041(a) transfer of stock acquired on the exercise of a statutory stock option is not a disqualifying disposition, does not apply to a transfer of the stock option. See H. R. Rep. No. 795, 100th Cong., 2d Sess. 378 (1988) (noting that the purpose of the amendment made to Section 424(c) is to "clarif[y] that the transfer of stock acquired pursuant to the exercise of an incentive stock option between spouses or incident to divorce is tax free").
Identidade. (emphasis added). Thus, the Service expressly confirmed that a qualified option becomes a nonqualified stock option when transferred by a DRO, because Sub Section 422(b)(5) and 423(b)(9) (both quoted previously in this article) expressly forbid any transfer of a qualified stock option, even one made incident to divorce. This conclusion is not changed by Section 1041, which provides that transfers incident to divorce are not taxable events, because the problem is not that the transfer itself is taxable. The problem is that the transfer strips the option of the preferential tax treatment given to qualified options, because Sub Section 422(b)(5) and 423(b)(9) make absolute nontransferability a condition upon qualified status. As a result, while Rev. Rul. 2002-22 benefits holders of nonqualified options, it provides very cold comfort to holders of qualified options.
Moreover, the Service added a second troublesome condition to its ruling:
This ruling does not apply to transfers of property between spouses other than in connection with divorce. This ruling also does not apply to transfers of nonstatutory stock options, unfunded deferred compensation rights, or other future income rights to the extent such options or rights are unvested at the time of transfer or to the extent that the transferor’s rights to such income are subject to substantial contingencies at the time of the transfer. See Kochansky v. Commissioner, 92 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1996).
Identidade. (emphasis added). On its face, therefore, the ruling applies only to vested stock options. It is very possible that the Service might attempt to apply different rules when unvested stock options are transferred. Moreover, the nature of those different rules is logically suggested by the case cited, Kochansky v. Commissioner, 92 F.3d 957 (9th Cir. 1996), which held under the assignment-of-income doctrine that an attorney was liable for all tax due on a contingent fee, even though part of the fee had been assigned to his spouse pursuant to divorce. In short, the Service is holding the door open for arguing that the employee must pay all tax due upon an unvested stock option, regardless of any deferred distribution to a former spouse. See David S. Rosettenstein, Options on Divorce: Taxation, Compensation Accountability, and the Need to Look for Holistic Solutions, 37 Fam. L. Q. 203, 207 n.13 (2003) ("It is not clear what purpose the reference to Kochansky serves if it is not to leave the door open to an assignment of income analysis, however inappropriate that analysis may be"); see also id. at 207 n.19 ("[T]he ruling would seem to reserve the Service’s ability to adopt an assignment of income analysis to any unvested options transferred to the non-employee spouse").
Moreover, it is also worth noting that the central issue in Kochansky, the effect of the wife’s community property rights on the result, was not addressed because it was not preserved in the court below. That procedural ruling fundamentally limits the precedential value of Kochansky, for it is very possible that the result would have been different if the issue had been preserved. Indeed, the Service itself admits earlier in Rev. Rul. 2002-22 that "the application of the assignment of income doctrine generally is inappropriate in the context of divorce." By citing Kochansky in spite of these points, the Service undercuts the power of its own admission that the assignment-of-income doctrine is inconsistent with the policy behind Section 1041, and leaves reasonable taxpayers with no way to predict the tax consequences of a very desirable method of division the direct transfer of unvested qualified stock options from one spouse to the other incident to divorce.
What is doubly frustrating is that a fair resolution of the entire issue should not be overly difficult. As a court-created rule, the assignment-of-income doctrine is clearly secondary to Section 1041. That statute requires, implicitly if not explicitly, that transfers of property incident to divorce trigger no adverse federal tax consequences. There is no basis for applying the assignment-of-income doctrine to any divorce-related transfer, regardless of whether the options at issue are vested or unvested.
For exactly the same reason, it is wrong to allow divorce-related transfers of any stock option to result in loss of qualified status. Whatever Congress had in mind when enacting Sub Section 422(b)(5) and 423(b)(9), it did not intend those sections to apply to divorce-related transfers. The consistent trend in all areas of federal tax and securities law over the past 20 years has been to allow divorce-related transfers with no greater tax consequences than would have been present if divorce had not occurred.
The statutes admittedly do not contain any express exception for divorce-related transfers, and there may be some merit to the argument that the remedy must be statutory. But that fact does not make reform any less necessary. I. R.C. Sub Section 422(b)(5) and 423(b)(9) should be amended to permit divorce-related transfers of stock options without loss of qualified status.
"[S]tock options also represent a contract, and thus fall within the ambit of state common law." Bodie, supra, 88 Iowa L. Rev. at 547. State law applying to stock options is not superseded by ERISA, for as noted previously, ERISA does not apply to stock option plans. Since the distinction between qualified and nonqualified plans is purely a matter of income tax law qualified plans are eligible for more favorable tax treatment the qualified or nonqualified status of the plan has no effect upon state law.
State court opinions dividing stock options have frequently observed that the great majority of all stock option plans prohibit direct assignment. See Jensen v. Jensen, 824 So. 2d 315, 321 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2002) ("Both expert witnesses in this case testified that the unvested stock options could be neither valued nor transferred"); Otley v. Otley, 147 Md. App. 540, 557, 810 A.2d 1, 11 (2002) ("The difficulty of establishing a present value and the fact that the options themselves are usually not divisible or transferable make the [deferred distribution] approach desirable"); Fisher v. Fisher, 564 Pa. 586, 593, 769 A.2d 1165, 1170 (2001). Nothing in federal law requires that state courts enforce prohibitions on assignment. The issue is therefore purely one of state contract law.
While there are no reported state court cases discussing restrictions on the transfer of stock options, there are reported cases discussing contractual restriction on the transfer of actual shares of stock. The general rule is that these restrictions are binding, but that they are narrowly construed. For example, a restriction upon voluntary transfer, or even upon transfer generally, does not apply to involuntary transfer:
We hold that a transfer of stock ordered by the court in a marriage dissolution proceeding is an involuntary transfer not prohibited under a corporation’s general restriction against transfers unless the restriction expressly prohibits involuntary transfers. Ordinarily, for drafting purposes, we think use of the phrase "involuntary transfers" would be deemed to encompass divorce court transfers. No such phrase was used here, however; and the general language is inadequate to prohibit the court’s transfer of the F-L stock.
Castonguay v. Castonguay, 306 N. W.2d 143, 146 (Minn. 1981).
[T]he agreement requires a shareholder who wishes to sell, assign, encumber or otherwise dispose of the corporation’s stock other than as expressly provided for in the agreement to obtain the written consent of the other shareholders. The agreement contains no express provision regarding the interspousal transfer of shares incident to equitable distribution. The spouse has neither joined in the agreement nor has she waived her interest in the stock. We are not prepared to cut off the marital interest of a spouse under these circumstances. We hold that, under the rule of strict construction, a restriction on the transfer of stock does not apply to interspousal transfers of stock which is marital property absent an express provision prohibiting such transfers.
Bryan-Barber Realty, Inc. v. Fryar, 120 N. C. App. 178, 181-82, 461 S. E.2d 29, 31-32 (1995); see also In re Marriage of Devick, 315 Ill. App. 3d 908, 920, 735 N. E.2d 153, 162 (2000) ("Strictly construing the restrictive provision of the affiliate agreements, we determine that the restriction is applicable only to voluntary transfers and not to transfers by operation of law, such as by court order"). The reasoning of these cases is similar to the reasoning of the federal district court in DeNadai v. Preferred Capital Markets, Inc., 272 B. R. 21 (D. Mass. 2001), which held that the tax law transfer restriction in I. R.C. Section 422(b)(5) did not prevent involuntary assignment to creditors.
One fact not considered in some of the stock transfer cases is the presence of a bona fide reason to limit transferability. If the IRS continues to take the position that any transfer of stock options under a qualified plan destroys the qualified status of the option transferred, there is a good reason for most plans to limit transfers. Federal tax law on this point is unfortunate, but it must be lived with until it changes.
But even this situation is not unknown in the state court cases. In McGinnis v. McGinnis, 920 S. W.2d 68 (Ky. Ct. App. 1995), a shareholders’ agreement provided that "if any person obtains an attachment or other legal or equitable interest in any of the Shares owned by" an employee, the corporation would have an option to purchase those shares. Identidade. at 75. The court held that this provision did not on its face absolutely prevent a divorce-related transfer. It noted, however, that the practical result of such a transfer might be the involuntary sale of the very asset being transferred, and suggested that the court and the parties must live with this fact. By similar reasoning, it seems likely that a state court would not be deterred from dividing stock options by the mere fact that the shares so transferred might lose their qualified status. It also seems likely, however, that the court would first give the parties every opportunity to agree upon a method of transfer which preserves the tax advantages of qualified status.
V. OTHER METHODS FOR DIVIDING STOCK OPTIONS.
While federal law now permits direct transfer of stock options in at least some cases, direct transfer may cause prohibitively adverse tax consequences, and it may not be in the best interests of the parties for other reasons. Since direct transfer was not permitted at all before 1996, there is a reasonable body of case law discussing other division methods. On the facts of specific cases, these methods may reach results which are equal or even superior to the results of a direct transfer.
Deferred Distribution of Profits.
The most common method for dividing stock options in actual practice is a deferred distribution of the profits. Under this method, the court determines the nonowning spouse’s interest in each set of options. It then orders the owning spouse to pay the nonowning spouse the stated percentage of all profits traceable to exercise of the option. It will normally be necessary to direct the owning spouse to withhold taxes from the payment, or otherwise adjust the parties’ rights to reflect the fact that the IRS will assess the relevant tax consequences entirely against the owning spouse.
For cases making a deferred distribution of the profits of stock options, see In re Marriage of Frederick, 218 Ill. App. 3d 533, 578 N. E.2d 612 (1991); Frankel v. Frankel, 165 Md. App. 553, 585, 886 A.2d 136, 155 (2005); Otley v. Otley, 147 Md. App. 540, 559-60, 810 A.2d 1, 12 (2002) ("The benefit subject to distribution, as we stated in Green and repeated earlier in this opinion, is the profit"); Green v. Green, 64 Md. App. 122, 494 A.2d 721 (1985); Smith v. Smith, 682 S. W.2d 834 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984), overruled on other grounds, Gehm v. Gehm, 707 S. W.2d 491 (Mo. Ct. App. 1986); Fisher v. Fisher, 564 Pa. 586, 591, 769 A.2d 1165, 1169 (2001) (over a dissent which would give the nonowning spouse more control over when the options are exercised); and Chen v. Chen, 142 Wis. 2d 7, 15, 416 N. W.2d 661, 664 (Ct. App. 1987) ("The trial court determined a percentage . . . and divided the profit from the stock option contracts accordingly").
Deferred distribution of the profits works best when the parties expect to exercise the option within a fairly short period of time after it vests, and to sell the stock as soon as the option is exercised. If no limits are placed upon when the option will be exercised or when the resulting stock can be sold, the owning spouse could delay the exercise or sale longer than the nonowning spouse desires, or could exercise the option or sell the stock sooner than the nonowning spouse prefers. Because this method gives the nonowning spouse little control over the option and the resulting stock, it tends to work best when the owning spouse has superior financial expertise, and the nonowning spouse trusts the owning spouse to make a good decision in the financial interests of both parties. Since the parties are sharing the profit from each option, the owning spouse has a natural incentive to maximize both spouses’ profits, so long as the owning spouse can be trusted to behave in an economically rational manner.
Another common method for dividing stock options is to make the nonowning spouse an equitable owner of a portion of the options. This method is normally implemented by directing the owning spouse to set aside a certain number of options for the benefit of the nonowning spouse. These options cannot be exercised by the owning spouse alone. Rather, the owning spouse is ordered to exercise these options only when requested to do so in writing by the nonowning spouse. The resulting stock can be either sold immediately, or promptly transferred to the nonowning spouse. It will ordinarily be necessary to have the nonowning spouse make a separate payment to hold the owning spouse harmless from tax consequences, as the owning spouse may be liable to the IRS for taxes on the nonowning spouse’s shares. In situations in which actual transfer of the options is not possible or is otherwise inadvisable, this method provides a reasonably close approximation of the same end result.
For cases awarding equitable ownership of certain options to the nonowning spouse, see Keff v. Keff, 757 So. 2d 450 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000), and Callahan v. Callahan, 142 N. J. Super. 325, 361 A.2d 561 (Ch. Div. 1976). See also In re Marriage of Valence, 147 N. H. 663, 669, 798 A.2d 35, 39 (2002) (directing husband to exercise options as soon as possible, except that he could hold the options for the minimum period necessary to obtain favorable tax treatment, but allowing the wife to consent otherwise in writing, so that she could effectively make independent decisions).
It may be possible to mix both the deferred division of profits and the equitable ownership approaches:
[The trial court] ruled that the husband could exercise the options and then sell any or all of his shares if and when the options vest. If so, the judge determined that the husband must share with the wife one-half of the net gain (i. e., the gross proceeds less the purchase price and less the tax consequences to the husband) from the sale. If the husband decides not to exercise his vested options, the judge ordered that the husband notify the wife of his decision and allow her to exercise her share of the options through him. The wife would then be responsible for the tax consequences resulting from the sale of the shares.
Baccanti v. Morton, 434 Mass. 787, 802, 752 N. E.2d 718, 731 (2001). Thus, the husband had the right to exercise the options and sell the stock immediately upon vesting, paying the wife her share of the profit. If he declined to exercise the options or sell the stock immediately, he was required to hold the stock for the wife’s benefit, allowing her to exercise and sell her share of the options as she desired.
The equitable ownership method suffers from most of the same advantages and disadvantages as a direct transfer. It gives the nonowning spouse control over when to exercise options and sell stock, which is a powerful benefit when both spouses are equally able to make good investment decisions. It limits the owning spouse’s ability to commit financial misconduct, although not as much as direct transfer, because the nonowning spouse still bears the risk that the owning spouse will disregard instructions. The greatest limitation is again the fact that some nonowning spouses will not have the financial skills to make good investment decisions, and will not in the press of other matters be sufficiently motivated to seek expert assistance.
The ultimate form of equitable ownership is of course division in kind. Several state court decisions have stated that such division is preferable in situations in which it is permitted by the employer. See In re Marriage of Valence, 147 N. H. 663, 669, 798 A.2d 35, 39 (2002); Fisher v. Fisher, 564 Pa. 586, 593-94, 769 A.2d 1165, 1170 (2001). But both cases noted that transfer was not permitted on the facts.
There may be some concern on the part of the courts that equitable ownership, short of an actual transfer of the stock options, may be too difficult to implement. In Fisher, for example, after holding that a direct transfer was preferable but impossible, the court ordered the direct distribution of profits, apparently out of concern that allowing the wife more choice regarding the exercise of the options would unduly limit the husband’s rights. But the husband’s rights would surely have been even more limited by a direct transfer, and the court held that such a transfer would be favored, if permitted by the plan. Another possibility is that the court was concerned that equitable ownership would be an administrative burden to the husband, who would be responsible for exercising the wife’s stock options when requested to do so. But this burden must be balanced against the benefit of giving the wife control over when her share of the options is exercised.
A constructive trust is not really an independent method for dividing stock options, but rather a useful device for facilitating enforcement of either deferred distribution of profits or equitable ownership. By providing that the owning spouse hold certain stock options in trust for the nonowning spouse (under equitable ownership) or for the benefit of both parties (under deferred distribution of profits), an order or agreement imposes upon the owning spouse a familiar set of duties. As a trustee, the owning spouse must use reasonable care to manage the options held in trust, perhaps even using the care that a prudent investor would use with his or her own property. There is also a developed body of law on trustee misconduct which can be invoked in the event that the owning spouse acts negligently or dishonestly.
For cases expressly approving a constructive trust, see Jensen v. Jensen, 824 So. 2d 315, 321 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2002), and Callahan v. Callahan, 142 N. J. Super. 325, 361 A.2d 561 (Ch. Div. 1976). See also Banning v. Banning, 1996 WL 354930 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (trust permissible but not required).
Constructive trust tends to work best with deferred distribution of profits, where the owning spouse is expected to use his or her best judgment for the benefit of both parties. Under equitable ownership, the owning spouse is required only to follow the nonowning spouse’s instructions, not to use independent judgment, and it is important to draft any constructive trust language with this limitation in mind. For a good example of language which clearly imposes no duty of independent judgment in making decisions, see Callahan, 142 N. J. Super. at 330-31, 361 A.2d at 564 ("He shall exercise her share of the options only at her direction").
Where a constructive trust is ordered, the trial court normally retains jurisdiction to supervise its implementation. See Jensen v. Jensen, 824 So. 2d 315, 321 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2002) ("[T]he trial court imposed a constructive trust upon appellant to keep half of the options for appellee’s benefit, expressly reserving jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the trust"). Indeed, continued supervision is generally necessary even where a constructive trust is not expressly ordered:
Unreasonable or spiteful spouses are not altogether unknown to trial courts charged with adjudicating the multifarious issues arising under the divorce code. The court of common pleas will have jurisdiction over the equitable distribution of the Fishers’ marital assets until all of the assets have been distributed; we have already determined that the stock options or their value cannot be distributed at the present time. Mrs. Fisher will be able, so long as options acquired during her marriage may yet be exercised, to petition the court if she has evidence that Mr. Fisher has violated 23 Pa. C.S. 3102(a)(6) (policy of effectuating economic justice between parties who are divorced) or otherwise deprived her, under principles of equity, of assets she is entitled to receive.
Fisher v. Fisher, 564 Pa. 586, 593-94, 769 A.2d 1165, 1170 (2001). Consequências Fiscais.
Regardless of whether the court defers distribution of profits or provides for actual equitable ownership of options, the court must include a separate provision accounting for tax consequences. If the options themselves are not actually transferred, all of the tax consequences will be due to the owning spouse. That spouse is therefore entitled to withhold from any payment to the nonowning spouse the taxes due on the nonowning spouse’s share of the options. See Fountain v. Fountain, 148 N. C. App. 329, 340, 559 S. E.2d 25, 33 (2002) (court "may choose to place conditions on the distribution, i. e. require . . . non-owner spouse to save owner spouse harmless from any tax liability incurred as a consequence of purchase"); In re Marriage of Taraghi, 159 Or. Aplicativo. 480, 494, 977 P.2d 453, 461 (1999) (trial court properly authorized husband to withhold taxes; "[a] sale of the stock upon exercise of the options is contemplated and husband will be taxed on the entire capital gain").
Immediate offsets of stock options have been very rare in the reported cases. The fundamental problem is that an immediate offset requires a determination of the present value, and the present value of stock options is extraordinarily speculative. Indeed, it is often so speculative that the present value simply cannot be computed. See Jensen v. Jensen, 824 So. 2d 315, 321 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 2002) ("Both expert witnesses in this case testified that the unvested stock options could be neither valued nor transferred"); In re Marriage of Frederick, 218 Ill. App. 3d 533, 541, 578 N. E.2d 612, 619 (1991) ("[T]he options could not be valued until such time as they were exercised"); In re Marriage of Valence, 147 N. H. 663, 669, 798 A.2d 35, 39 (2002) ("[U]nvested stock options have no present value"); Fisher v. Fisher, 564 Pa. 586, 591, 769 A.2d 1165, 1169 (2001) ("[I]t is impossible to ascribe a meaningful value to the unvested stock options, primarily because it is absolutely impossible to predict with reliability what any stock will be worth on any future date").
If the options are vested and there is a steady and stable market for the stock, it may be possible to reach a present value which both spouses can live with. If neither spouse is willing to accept the risk that future stock prices will not turn out as expected and this is a significant risk in the majority of all fact situations then it is necessary to use some form of deferred distribution.
Some courts have avoided the need to predict future stock prices by using the value of the stock at the time of divorce, minus the strike price for the option. See Richardson v. Richardson, 280 Ark. 498, 659 S. W.2d 510 (1983); Wendt v. Wendt, 1998 WL 161165 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1998), judgment aff’d, 59 Conn. App. 656, 757 A.2d 1225 (2000); Knotts v. Knotts, 693 N. E.2d 962 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998); Fountain v. Fountain, 148 N. C. App. 329, 559 S. E.2d 25 (2002); Banning v. Banning, 1996 WL 354930 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996); Maritato v. Maritato, 275 Wis. 2d 252, 685 N. W.2d 379, 385 (Ct. App. 2004) (option has no value if market value is less than exercise price on date of valuation). The problem with this approach is that it depends too much upon short-term market fluctuations. For example, the same stock options might be worthless when market prices are at a low point (e. g., late 2001) and very valuable when the market is at a high point (e. g., late 1998). The better approach, and the majority rule, is to divide the profit made at the time when the option is exercised, using a coverture fraction to exclude value attributable to postdivorce efforts.
One case makes an immediate offset using a valuation computed by an expert using the Black/Scholes valuation model. Davidson v. Davidson, 254 Neb. 656, 578 N. W.2d 848 (1998). This model, which is based upon an entire series of factors, produces a better value for stock options than is obtained by subtracting the strike price from the market price on the date of valuation. But the method is not easily applied, and any value reached remains highly speculative. See generally Wendt; Chammah v. Chammah, 1997 WL 414404 (Conn. Super. Ct. 1997) (both criticizing the Black/Scholes method); see also Fountain (trial court had discretion to reject Black/Scholes on the facts, as no specific valuation method is required; not criticizing the method itself). A clear majority of the cases use some form of deferred distribution.
Federal law clearly does not prohibit divorce-related transfers of stock options. Provisions prohibiting transfer are nevertheless common, because they are conditioned upon optimal tax treatment. But the only federal case to consider the issue, DeNadai, rejected the argument that the tax statutes are antiassignment provisions. ERISA’s more express antiassignment and QDRO provisions are not relevant to the issue, as stock option plans are clearly outside ERISA.
Nontransferability provisions included in stock option plans for tax reasons are enforceable under state law. But they will be construed very strictly, and they will not bind a divorce court unless their language is very clear. At a minimum, they probably must apply to involuntary transfers, and they might have to mention divorce-related transfers specifically.
While it may be possible to force the employer to accept a direct transfer order in individual cases, this should be a remedy of last resort for qualified stock option plans. The IRS has clearly taken the position in Rev. Rul. 2002-22 that any direct transfer destroys the qualified status of the share so transferred, resulting in adverse tax treatment. There is also a clear possibility that the IRS will raise unforeseeable assignment-of-income doctrine arguments in response to direct transfers of unvested options. Until tax law is more settled, the direct transfer of qualified stock options poses significant tax risks.
For vested nonqualified options, Rev. Rul. 2002-22 clearly opens the door to transfer without additional adverse side effects. Loss of favorable tax treatment is not an issue in this setting, as there is no such treatment to lose. Where state law permits, the direct transfer of nonqualified vested options may be a useful method of division.
Even nonqualified options, however, are still risky to divide by direct transfer when they are unvested. Rev. Rul. 2002-22 clearly falls short of accepting that 1041 overrules the assignment-of-income doctrine in the context of unvested options. Since commentators have generally rejected the Service’s position on this point, it is hard to know exactly what arguments the Service would make, and there is a risk that individual transfers will become expensive test laboratories for new tax law theories.
All of the tax law problems can be avoided to some extent by appropriate hold-harmless provisions in private settlement agreements. The problem is that there is no way to determine in advance the amount at issue (or the amount of attorney’s fees necessary to fight the IRS to determine the amount at issue). "At the very least, the extent of any award will have to be reduced to reflect the transferor’s deferred liability, assuming we have even the vaguest notion of what that might amount to." Rosettenstein, supra, 37 Fam. L. Q. at 207. To the great majority of litigants who prefer to avoid income tax quandaries, the clear message is to avoid any direct transfer of qualified stock options incident to divorce.
Finally, as Rosettenstein notes, even if direct transfer is permitted and not accompanied by burdensome tax consequences, it should not immediately be assumed that direct transfer is necessarily in the interest of the nonowning spouse. Unlike retirement benefits, stock options generate maximum value only if they are competently managed by the holder. The option must be converted into stock at the right time, and the stock itself must be sold at the right time. In many situations, the employee spouse may have a better ability to identify the right time, so that the nonowning spouse may actually do better to receive only a share of the profits and not actual ownership of the options. Also relevant are the spouses’ personal tolerances for investment risk, their willingness to adopt tax law positions which might be challenged by the IRS, and the degree to which each trusts the other to manage a jointly held asset for mutual benefit. When all of these factors are considered, direct transfer may not always be the best division method, even in situations in which it is legally permitted.
The state court cases generally prefer direct transfer as a division method wherever possible on the facts. Most of the cases find, however, that direct transfer is not permitted by the plan.
The method most often used to divide stock options is a deferred distribution of profits. The second most common method is an immediate offset based upon the difference between the market value and the option strike price on the date of valuation. This method is overly simplistic, and tends to reach extreme results when market conditions are unusually high or low. A better method could be reached by relying less upon immediate market conditions, but any attempt to reduce stock options to present value is inherently speculative. Deferred distribution is clearly the better division method.
A clear majority of the deferred distribution cases make a distribution of profits rather than awarding equitable ownership. This point makes an interesting contrast with the equally clear tendency to favor direct transfer where that is a feasible option on the facts. Minimizing the burden upon the owning spouse is clearly a very important factor; the courts are consistently favoring division methods which limit postdivorce connections between divorcing spouses. The result is to leave the owning spouse with complete control over when the options are exercised, subject only to the general supervisory jurisdiction of the court to avoid clear instances of misconduct. Whether this approach avoids litigation will ultimately depend upon the behavior of owning spouses. If owning spouses abuse the control which the courts are tending to give them, awards of equitable ownership may become more popular.
The Need for Reform.
State court decisions often suggest that direct transfer of stock options should be the primary method of division when such a transfer is legally permitted. No court or commentator in recent years has suggested any federal or state interest which benefits if divorce-related transfers are forbidden, and the consistent trend in federal law over the past two to three decades has been to allow divorce-related transfers. Federal law should be amended to recognize a QDRO-like device for transferring stock options, and to provide that such transfers do not result in the loss of qualified status for income tax purposes.
Questões? Ligar.
Read Our Article in the.
PA Family Lawyer.
Need Your Retirement Account Valued?
Be QDRO Smart. Be QDRO Savvy. Be QDRO Safe. SM.
&cópia de; 2009 - 2018 Pension Appraisers Online, Inc. - Have Questions? 1-877-770-2270 (toll-free)

The Great Divide.
By SmartMoney Staff.
After so many millions of couples have divorced, you'd think that the process would have become simpler. But unfortunately, it remains a nasty, brutish and all–too–common experience.
Slightly less than half of all marriages in the U. S. end in divorce, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. By the time a couple's divorce proceedings are complete, the two will spend, on average, $20,000 to $30,000 in legal fees alone, says Alan Feigenbaum, a certified financial planner and author of The Complete Guide to Protecting Your Financial Security When Getting a Divorce . Divorce is second only to the death of a spouse on the psychic pain meter, according to the experts who rate such things, and has been known to trigger panic attacks and major depressive episodes.
The good news is that there are more alternative methods to reach a settlement than ever. It used to be that most divorces were handled exclusively by lawyers who haggled over only one or two assets. Now more couples are handling their own divorces or using mediators to hammer out settlements for far less money. But that doesn't make divorce today any simpler.
Our divorce planner will help you navigate these stressful waters. This article will give you the basics.
There are a few ground rules to consider before we get started. How your assets will be divided in a divorce depends largely on where you live. In the 10 community–property states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin), marital assets will generally be divvied up evenly between the spouses. The remaining 40 states use the principle of "equitable distribution," which allows a judge to split up the assets as he deems fair. One thing to remember: A vast majority of divorces are settled out of court, which leaves plenty of room for negotiation.
The Easy Way Out.
Thanks to the Internet, there are more easy ways to get a divorce than ever before. If your divorce is simple — no shared debts or custody fights — you may want to handle it yourself. With information he found on divorceonline, Russ Grigsby, a project manager for Boeing in Seattle, wrote his own divorce plan, covering such details as visitation schedules for his two daughters. Then he downloaded free legal documents from the Washington state government website and filed for divorce. Three months later, he and his former wife went to court for a hearing, and within a half hour, their 18–year marriage was dissolved. The entire divorce cost just $125.
Couples who want a simple parting often use a mediator to work out the settlement. Divorce experts agree that more couples are using mediation now than ever before, says Emily Doskow, divorce attorney and author of "Nolo's Essential Guide to Divorce." The cost advantages can be staggering. An ordinary divorce agreement that doesn't go to trial costs $8,000 on average, says Doskow, and if it goes to trial it might drag on for months and cost even more. But, with a lawyer as a mediator, a handful of sessions can cost $250 an hour on average, she says. To find a mediator in your area, contact the Association for Conflict Resolution.
While it is cost–effective to try mediation, it won't work for a lot of couples. If you and your spouse are openly hostile, a judge may be your best bet, since he doesn't require your cooperation. Couples with large estates should also avoid mediation. Going back and forth on every asset can be tedious and could spark hostilities that weren't there before. Divorce experts also say that couples with disparate incomes should avoid mediation, as well as people who suspect their spouses are not disclosing everything they own.
ESTÁ BEM. You tried, but mediation and handling the divorce yourself are simply out of the question. You and your spouse are headed for a lengthy standoff with lawyers, which could get nasty and expensive. That's enough to make anyone nervous. Your best defense is to arm yourself with information about you and your spouse's assets and to understand the tax implications of whatever you do.
Opções de ações.
Dealing with stock options can be tricky. Approximately 10 million workers now have option plans, according to the National Center for Employee Ownership, but experts still waffle on the best way to divide them, especially when their precise value cannot be determined.
One common method, especially involving cases with nontransferable options, calls for the spouse who owns the shares to give his ex a percentage of the proceeds when they are sold. If the couple wants no future contact, the options' owner could write his ex a check for the amount the shares are worth now. But that's not always the wisest choice.
It's best to wait for the options to be sold. "That way both parties share in the investment risk," says Daniel Jaffe, a Beverly Hills, Calif., divorce attorney.
Splitting up unvested options is one of the biggest areas of contention these days, lawyers say. It's common for the spouse who owns the options to claim that they are worthless, but that argument rarely works. "In reality, the ability to buy a stock in five years at today's prices is a very valuable right," says Jaffe. If you have unvested options, the court will probably divvy them up like this: Let's say that your company has just granted you options that vest in three years. One year from now, your spouse decides to walk. Adivinha? The court will consider at least one–third of those options — for the year you were married after the shares were granted — as marital property. Your ex can pocket half of those.
That Monthly Check.
An alternative to traditional alimony is "rehabilitative maintenance," where temporary payments help the lower–earning spouse get back on his or her feet. In this case, if you opt for a lump–sum payment, the recipient gets a healthy nest egg and the payer can take the support amount as a tax deduction. But that tax deduction is often worth much less than it first appears. That's because alimony recapture rules come into play. On a $100,000 lump–sum alimony payment in 2008, a payer in the 33% tax bracket will save $33,000 in taxes in the year of payment (2008). But in the third year (2010), he would have $85,000 of taxable alimony recapture, resulting in a $28,050 tax bill (at the 2010 tax rate of 33%). For details, see our Deductible Alimony Calculator.
Gray Is Golden.
The most common types of retirement benefits are defined–contribution plans, which include 401(k)s, Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) and Keoghs. They pay out what you and your employer have contributed, plus any income accumulation, and are fairly easy to value. Unless you divide these plans just the right way, you can get hit with all kinds of unnecessary fees. With a 401(k), the spouse keeps all the gains earned before the marriage, but splits the earnings made while he or she was married typically in half with the ex, says Doskow. That money gets rolled into the ex's 401(k) or individual retirement account (IRA). Another option is to get a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), where upon retirement, the administrator of the retirement plan gives a percentage of that money to the ex. If you roll this money into an IRA, you can withdraw money at any age through set periodic payments, known as SEPPs, without incurring the 10% penalty. For more, see Splitting the Retirement Accounts.
One word of caution about pension plans. Since the plans are becoming less common, some divorce lawyers may be unfamiliar with how to value them. When a couple sits down to plot out a divorce, a spouse in his 40s may accurately claim that the current payout on his pension is $2,000 a month. The other spouse naturally believes she is entitled to $1,000 and agrees prematurely to accept that amount. But during the next 20 years, the income of the working spouse could easily double. Since the value of his pension will be calculated largely on his compensation during his last five years on the job, the payout will be far more than $2,000.
Selling the house and splitting the proceeds is often the cleanest way to go. And changes in the tax laws have made this option even more attractive. Couples can exclude up to $500,000 of capital gains from the tax man when they sell a primary residence, even after they have divorced.
If you decide to keep your home, be prepared for a few surprises. All too often a sentimental spouse will hold on to the house only to discover he lacks the capital to maintain it. And then there are those unexpected miseries. Jessica Levin claims she asked her husband, Ray, to remove her name from their mortgage when she divorced him two years ago. According to Levin, he agreed, only to call her months later to say that the house was in foreclosure, could she write a check? Levin, a 27–year–old retail manager, was aghast. "I hadn't got my name off the mortgage," she says. "There was nothing I could do until we either sold the house or he qualified for a mortgage."
The Kids' Educations.
Since the government required states to set guidelines for basic child support in 1988, which set monetary amounts for food and clothing, the battle over who's paying for the kids' necessities has become less contentious. But there are still plenty of battles over who is going to pick up that bill from Harvard.
If you and your spouse are amicable, the burden of footing the tuition bill can be divided equally between you. One option is for both of you to put money aside in a joint account or set up a minor's trust, preferably one that's irrevocable to shelter the booty from estate taxes if one parent should die. If drafted properly, an irrevocable trust can also shield money from creditors, in case you or your spouse should lapse on your mortgages. If your spouse is unwilling to spring for half of a college education, you may be able to trade off the cost of tuition for some other asset.
Hidden Charms.
Don't let trust get in the way of your good sense. It's wise to take an inventory of your spouse's holdings to see what you can't get your hands on. Like frequent–flier miles, for instance. Even though they are worth only two cents each, some people will go to any length to keep them. One woman recently received an extra $25,000 from her husband's pension — provided she agreed to leave the miles alone.
SmartMoney © 2007 SmartMoney. SmartMoney is a joint publishing venture of Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Hearst SM Partnership. SmartMoney is a registered trademark. Todos os direitos reservados.
The information provided is obtained from independent third-party sources that are not affiliated with Key and that are deemed to be reliable. The accuracy or completeness of this information is not guaranteed nor does Key make any warranties to you regarding the results obtained from its use. The information should not be deemed an offer or solicitation by Key or any of its affiliates with respect to the sale or purchase of any securities, nor shall it be considered investment or other advice. By using this information, you agree to the terms of the User Agreement/Disclosure.
Contate-Nos.
For general information or information about an existing account:
From checking accounts to mortgages, KeyBank offers a personal banking option that is right for you.
Applying online is easy, so apply for the product you are looking for — whether it's a checking account, a credit card or a home equity line of credit.
Direitos autorais & copy; 1998-2018, KeyCorp®. Todos os direitos reservados.

Search This Blog

Negociação forex online Magé

Dividindo as opções de ações em um divórcio

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Definição simples de negociação forex

Comércio x sistema simba

Aprenda a negociar revisão forex