Young v. Commissioner IRS
240 F.3d 369 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A transfer of property between former spouses to satisfy an obligation that arose from their original marital property settlement agreement is considered "incident to the divorce" under 26 U.S.C. § 1041, resulting in a carryover basis for the transferee. Additionally, the portion of a taxpayer's judgment or settlement proceeds paid directly to their attorneys under a contingent fee agreement is includible in the taxpayer's gross income.
Facts:
- Louise Young and John Young married in 1969 and divorced in 1988.
- In 1989, they entered into a Settlement Agreement to divide their marital property.
- Pursuant to the 1989 agreement, John Young delivered a $1.5 million promissory note to Louise Young, which was secured by a deed of trust on 71 acres of his property.
- In October 1990, John Young defaulted on his obligations under the promissory note.
- After Louise Young obtained a judgment against him, the two entered into a new '1992 Agreement'.
- Under the 1992 Agreement, John Young transferred a 59-acre tract of land to Louise Young in full settlement of his obligations.
- Shortly thereafter, Louise Young sold the land to a third party for $2.2 million.
- From the sale proceeds, $300,606 was paid directly to Louise Young's attorneys for their contingent fees.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue asserted income tax deficiencies against both Louise Young and John Young.
- Both parties separately petitioned the U.S. Tax Court for review of the deficiencies.
- The Tax Court consolidated the two cases for trial.
- The Tax Court ruled that the 1992 property transfer was incident to the divorce under § 1041, meaning Mr. Young recognized no gain and Mrs. Young was liable for the capital gains tax upon her sale of the property.
- The Tax Court also held that Mrs. Young must include the contingent attorneys' fees paid from the sale proceeds in her gross income.
- Louise Young and her then-husband, James Ausman, appealed the Tax Court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a transfer of property from an ex-husband to his ex-wife, made four years after their divorce to satisfy a judgment that arose from his default on a promissory note required by their original property settlement, qualify as a transfer 'incident to the divorce' under 26 U.S.C. § 1041, thereby shifting the capital gains tax liability to the transferee spouse upon a subsequent sale?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Motz
Yes, a transfer of property between former spouses is 'incident to the divorce' under § 1041 if it is related to the cessation of the marriage. The court held the 1992 land transfer was 'related to the cessation of the marriage' because it was made 'to effect the division of property owned by the former spouses at the time of the cessation of the marriage,' as provided in the Treasury regulations. The 1992 Agreement explicitly arose from disputes over the 1989 marital settlement, and its sole purpose was to satisfy obligations originating from the divorce. The court reasoned that the policy of § 1041 is to treat former spouses as a single economic unit and defer recognition of gain until the property is sold to a third party. Therefore, Mr. Young recognized no gain, and Mrs. Young took his basis in the property, becoming liable for the capital gains tax upon its sale. The court also held that the attorneys' fees paid directly from the proceeds must be included in Mrs. Young's gross income under the anticipatory assignment of income doctrine, rejecting the Fifth Circuit's 'Cotnam' exception.
Dissenting-in-part - Judge Wilkins
No, a property transfer made between former spouses to satisfy a judgment is not 'incident to' the divorce merely because the underlying lawsuit involved a default on a note from the original property settlement. The dissent argued that the division of marital property was fully completed in 1989 when Louise Young accepted the promissory note. At that point, the marital economic ties were severed, and their relationship became that of a debtor and creditor. The 1992 transfer was not to 'effect the division of marital property' but was an arm's-length transaction to satisfy a judgment, which should have been a taxable event for John Young. The majority's holding creates an inequitable result by punishing the creditor spouse and providing a windfall to the defaulting debtor spouse. Judge Wilkins concurred with the majority's holding on the attorney's fee issue.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of 26 U.S.C. § 1041 by applying it to a transaction occurring years after a divorce and after the original settlement was reduced to a judgment. It establishes that as long as a transfer has a direct causal link back to the original division of marital property, it will be treated as 'incident to the divorce,' regardless of intervening legal actions like lawsuits for default. This shifts the entire capital gains tax burden, including appreciation that occurred during the transferor's ownership, to the transferee spouse. The ruling also solidifies the Fourth Circuit's position in a circuit split, aligning it with the majority view that contingent attorney fees cannot be excluded from a client's gross income, reinforcing the strength of the assignment of income doctrine.
