The impact of realistic estrangement on child custody matters
In That Case: Department of State v. MuƱoz
ĀæQuiĆ©n fue "la mujer del CĆ©sar"?
Life After Love Gone Wrong Podcast: Season 3, Episode 7 - Invisible Scars: The Impact of Coercive Control on Children
Life After Love Gone Wrong Podcast: Season 3, Episode 5 - Parallel Proceedings: The Intersection of Criminal Law and Family Law
Life After Love Gone Wrong Podcast: Season 3, Episode 4 - Splitting Costs: Forensic Accounting in Divorce
Life After Love Gone Wrong Podcast: Season 3, Episode 1 - The Truth Behind Coercive Control
Jewish Divorce Talk: Episode 8 - Narcissism and Parental Alienation Talk
Let's Talk About the Anatomy of a Prenuptial Agreement
Jewish Divorce Talk: Episode 6 - āLetās Gett Seriousā Talk
Let's Talk About Common Law Marriage
The $6 Million Wedding
Marriage and Divorce Considerations for Health Care Providers
Let's Talk Family Law 101
Let's Talk Family Law Taxes
Estate Planning & Family Law: How To Protect Your Assets For Future Generations
End Game in the Fight Over Same Sex Marriage?
What is a petition for dissolution of marriage and what does it mean to serve the petition?
Protecting Separate Property in Arizona: Basic Principles
Polsinelli Podcast - Defense of Marriage Act
Hereās the next chapter in the saga known as Edith Schlain Windsor v. The United States of America. (For a quick recap, please read Tax & Estate Planning ā Small Win for Same Sex Couples?). Two representatives of the state...more
Effective tomorrow, September 2, 2016, new IRS final regulations will take effect which provide that for federal tax purposes, the terms āspouse,ā āhusband,ā and āwifeā mean an individual lawfully married to another...more
In recent guidance, the Department of Treasury and the IRS issued proposed rules that clarify under the Internal Revenue Code (Code) that the terms āspouseā and āhusbandā and āwifeā refer to individuals who are lawfully...more
This is the fourth installment of a seven-part series. Florida law generally provides, when there is no premarital agreement, a marrying personās right to alimony depends on the personās need for alimony and the other...more
In another federal action that employers need take note of, last week the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) issued its āCommission Guidance Regarding the Definition of the Terms āSpouseā and āMarriageā Following the...more
Did the Supreme Court legalize same-sex marriage? On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States denied review of seven petitions challenging federal court of appeal rulings in the Fourth, Seventh, and...more
In recent months employers around the country, have been scrambling to keep up with developments with respect to the evolving rights of employees in same-sex relationships. This articles touches on some recent guidance in...more
In This Issue: - ADA Reasonable Accommodation Requests: Avoid Rigid Policies and Consider Technology - IRS Issues Guidance on Qualified Plan Amendments Regarding Same Sex Spouses - OSHA to Refer Untimely...more
Employers have been considering the impact on benefit programs, including the qualified retirement plans, of the U.S. Supreme Courtās decision recognizing the validity of same sex marriages. In September, 2013, the IRS issued...more
The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (āIRSā) have issued Notice 2014-9 (the āNoticeā) and related Frequently Asked Questions (āFAQsā) providing much anticipated guidance on the application of the Supreme...more
Following the Supreme Courtās decision in United States v. Windsor, the IRS announced in Revenue Ruling 2013-17 that lawfully married same-sex couples would be treated as married for all Internal Revenue Code purposes. On...more
In IRS Notice 2014-19 and accompanying FAQs, the Internal Revenue Service (āIRSā) issued long-awaited guidance addressing the treatment of same-sex spouses under qualified retirement plans such as 401(k) and defined benefit...more
Last September, three months after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in United States v. Windsor, the IRS issued some much-anticipated guidance regarding the treatment of same-sex spouses. For employers who...more
On April 4, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released Notice 2014-19, which provides a series of Q&As regarding the application of the U.S. Supreme Courtās decision in United States v. Windsor and the IRSās prior...more
In June 2013, the Supreme Court held unconstitutional a federal law requiring only opposite-sex marriages to be recognized for federal law purposes. The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") issued initial guidance in September...more
On January 27, 2014, the Internal Revenue Service announced in Revenue Procedure 2014-18 a simplified procedure for certain estates to make a late portability election under section 2010(c)(5)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code....more
Each year, LPās Labor & Employment Practice Group is pleased to provide a short checklist of steps that all companies should consider taking to measure their readiness for the coming year. We hope that you find this 2014...more
Since the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor holding the Defense of Marriage Act ("DOMA") to be unconstitutional, and the related guidance issued thereafter by the Internal Revenue Service certain questions...more
The Virginia Department of Taxation recently announced that same-sex couples married in another state must file separate Virginia income tax returns even though they file a federal return as a married couple....more
Two significant events in 2013 underscored the nexus of marriage and taxes that make it possible for many couples to radically simplify their estate planning. ...more
Following a highly-publicized U.S. Supreme Court decision and subsequent guidance from both the Labor Department (DOL) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), employers need to rethink how they treat same-sex spouses under...more
The Internal Revenue Service and Department of Labor have issued recent guidance to clarify the impact of the U.S. Supreme Courtās ruling in U.S. v. Windsor. The new guidance addresses some of the implications of the federal...more
The recent United States Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor invalidated Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which had defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The ruling greatly expands the...more
Until the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013), the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) required employers providing subsidized benefits to same-sex spouses and domestic...more
Based upon an IRS determination which took effect last week, same-sex couples who enter into marriages in jurisdictions that recognize such marriages are now treated as married for federal tax purposes, regardless of whether...more