In Re Marriage of Ondrasek v. Ondrasek
Trial court improperly considered capital gains tax in determining the sale of real estate and a building owned by service corporation. Nothing in record supports that a sale is imminent.
In Re Marriage of Laribee v. Laribee
Reduction of pension for taxes by 25% affirmed. Future taxes clearly impact on the present value of retirement plans.
In Re Marriage of Liddle v. Liddle
Reduction of stock portfolio for taxes was reasonable, as evidence supported a finding that stocks would probably be sold, as husband would be unable to make property division payments out of earned income.
In Re Marriage of Fowler v. Fowler
Where the parties did not present the trial court with any evidence or other reliable data as to the tax consequences of the court’s decision, the court does not abuse its discretion in failing to take those consequences into consideration.
In Re Marriage of Schorer v. Schorer
Trial court’s refusal to take into consideration tax consequences of sale of stock in closely held corporation is affirmed as there is no evidence in the record that any sale of the business is imminent.
In Re Marriage of Preuss v. Preuss
No error by not considering potential tax consequences of sale of family farm as wife testified that she has no plans to sell the farm. Evidence does not show that a sale is probable or imminent.
In Re Marriage of Rumpff v. Rumpff
Court did not need expert testimony to reduce value of pension by twenty percent. In absence of an expert, the court can use its own knowledge and experience to engage in reasonable speculation regarding anticipate tax impact.
In Re Marriage of Scheuer v. Scheuer
The court did not have to consider the tax consequences of husband’s withdrawal from his IRA to make the equalization payment since it was anticipated that he would sell or refinance the homestead. Husband’s choice to raise funds through a method which resulted in a penalty is his erroneous exercise of discretion, not the court’s.
Wright v. Wright
45% tax rate for maintenance determination was within the range of the expert’s testimony.
State ex rel Oman v. Hunkins
Statute allowing substitution of judge in divorce after appellate court has ordered new trial or has reversed or modified the judgment or order is mandatory.