• Home
  • About Us
    • Our Team
    • Our Mission
    • Testimonials
    • Service Areas
  • Services
    • Tax Services
    • Audit & Assurance
    • Accounting
    • Litigation Support
    • Valuation Advisory
    • Forensic Accounting
    • Business Consulting
  • Resources
    • Client Center
    • Online Tools
    • Important Sites
    • Timely Opportunities
  • MBA News
  • Careers
    • Senior Tax Accountant
    • Tax Manager
    • Bookkeeper / Accountant
  • Contact Us
  • Facebook
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Savvy
  • Twitter
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Our Team
    • Our Mission
    • Testimonials
    • Service Areas
  • Services
    • Tax Services
    • Audit & Assurance
    • Accounting
    • Litigation Support
    • Valuation Advisory
    • Forensic Accounting
    • Business Consulting
  • Resources
    • Client Center
    • Online Tools
    • Important Sites
    • Timely Opportunities
  • MBA News
  • Careers
    • Senior Tax Accountant
    • Tax Manager
    • Bookkeeper / Accountant
  • Contact Us

Blog Post

“Double dipping” might sometimes be OK in divorce cases

01 Sep 2016
Comment are off
MBA Site Administrator
Double Dipping in St Petersburg Florida

What’s known as “double dipping” is generally understood as the double counting of a marital asset in a marital dissolution — once in the property division and again in the spousal support award. Typically, courts frown on double dipping. But not always. For example, in the recent case Gallo v. Gallo, the Ohio Court of Appeals rejected not only this definition of “double dipping” but also its previous holding prohibiting double dipping.

Husband challenges double dipping

The husband in the case had an ownership interest in a business, and the parties stipulated to its value. But, on appeal, the husband argued that the trial court had erred in valuing the marital interest in the business using its future earnings and then also including the distributions from its earnings as part of his income to determine spousal and child support. Citing the Ohio Court of Appeals’ 2008 ruling in Heller v. Heller, he contended that the court could rely on the earnings only to determine the value of the marital assets or his income for setting support payments.

Court reconsiders

In Heller, the court had defined “double dipping” as the double counting of a marital asset. It explained that “where a court uses a business owner’s ‘excess earnings’ to value the interest in a business and also fixes support on that spouse’s total income (inclusive of the ‘excess earnings’ used to value the business), a ‘double-dip’ occurs.” It declared that a trial court can treat a spouse’s future business profits either as a marital asset subject to division or as a stream of income for spousal support purposes — but not both.

In Gallo, though, the appellate court changed its position. It clarified that a double dip occurs when a court twice counts a future income stream — once when valuing the marital asset and again when determining the economically superior spouse’s ability to pay spousal support. According to the court, it’s the future income stream — not the marital asset — that’s the subject of the doubling.

Therefore, the court found, if the marital asset is valued using a method that doesn’t specifically rely on a future income stream (for example, a market- or asset-based approach), no double dipping occurs. The court also noted that business valuations may be premised on future income streams even if the valuation method doesn’t include a calculation of excess earnings. Thus, it said, double dipping isn’t limited to situations where excess earnings factor into the valuation.

In the present case, the appellate court deduced that the value of the business was computed using the capitalization of earnings method. Then it determined that double dipping had indeed occurred when the trial court awarded the husband his share of the business in the property division and then considered his income from that asset, which was derived from the business’s future income stream, in setting support.

But the appellate court then overruled Heller to the extent Heller prohibited double dipping in any circumstances. The appellate court held that, in the interest of equity, trial courts should factor the effect of double dipping into their property division and spousal support decisions.

The appellate court said that a trial court “may ameliorate the inequity inherent in double dipping” by splitting the income-producing asset between the parties, thereby ensuring that each spouse shares in advantages and disadvantages associated with that asset. Alternatively, a trial court could determine that some circumstances, such as a disparity in income between the parties, override the unfairness in double dipping.

Reversed course

The case was remanded but only because the appellate court found that the trial court hadn’t considered the double dip. The appellate court took pains to make clear that the lower court didn’t necessarily have to change the current property division or support award. Ultimately, the husband may just have to live with the double dipping if the trial court decides the overriding principle of equity warrants it.

© 2016

About the Author
McClanathan, Burg & Associates, LLC. is a full service accounting firm. Our team members provide services including: Tax, Audit, Assurance and Accounting, Estate and Trust, Forensic Accounting, Litigation Support and Business Valuation.

Social Share

  • google-share

Search

RECENT NEWS

  • IRS Extends the Tax Filing and Paying Deadline for Individuals
  • Do you know the tax impact of your collectibles?
  • Making 2017 retirement plan contributions in 2018
  • When an elderly parent might qualify as your dependent
  • AMT Calculations: It’s Showtime

Categories

  • MBA Events
  • MBA News
  • Opinion & Editorial
  • Resources & Tips

Archives

  • March 2021
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • November 2013

Social Media

Facebook
Linked In
SavvyCard
Twitter

“Best
Congratulations to this year's honored business!
Featured in the Tampa Bay Times.
Click here to view my profile >>

Categories

  • MBA Events
  • MBA News

Archives

Sign Up For Newsletter

First Name:
Last Name:
Email Address (required):
Company:
Phone Number:
© 2014 McClanathan, Burg & Associates, LLC | Website Design by ThinkTankConnect.com

Send to Mobile

Text or Email McClanathan, Burg & Associates online business card to your mobile device using the form below
From the card you will be able to:
  • Get turn by turn directions to the company's office
  • Access a visual company directory of employee cards
  • Call, email or text the company
  • Share/Refer the company to others
  • Save the card to your phone's home screen for future access