By Gregory Kohr, Partner, Marcum LLP and Noel Capuano, Director, Marcum LLP | AAML Pennsylvania Platinum Partner

Imagine you and your client have spent countless hours attempting to negotiate a settlement in their matrimonial matter, and FINALLY, a resolution has been reached. Now is a chance to breathe since the hard part is over, right? Unfortunately, that may be far from the case. 

While it may seem that the preparation of the Marital Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) is a straightforward process memorializing the terms that the parties agreed to, the fact is “the devil is in the details.” Choice of terminology, references to specific calculations/methods (or omission of same), and a variety of potential pitfalls can, and have, caused misunderstandings and misinterpretations, landing the parties back to where they started - in litigation. Cases with complex financial issues frequently utilize a forensic accounting expert to bring clarity to the process. In almost all of these cases, leveraging the services of a financial expert is an invaluable but often underutilized resource when preparing the MSA.

The following are sections of the MSA, but certainly not all, where vague or missing language may lead to unforeseen complications down the road:

Business Valuation

When one spouse owns an interest in a business, all or part of the business is considered part of the marital estate and may be subject to equitable distribution. In almost all of these instances, a business valuation, whether formal or informal, is necessary for several reasons. First and foremost, while the owner spouse will likely retain the business, the non-recipient spouse needs an understanding of what their equitable "share" of the business is worth to understand what they will receive. The MSA should reference the business value and the value of the asset(s) the non-recipient spouse will receive

in lieu of the business interest. The terms should be explicitly referenced in the agreement in order to preclude the parties from having "selective memory" years down the road.

It should also be noted that some businesses have no value; they provide a job for the owner and nothing more. This does not mean the business should not be referenced in the MSA; instead, it should be noted that 1) the business was considered, but 2) it was determined to have no value and was therefore not considered in determining the marital estate.

Alimony/Income Determination

Careful consideration should be taken when defining "income" for purposes of calculating alimony, and each component should be clearly laid out in the MSA. If one or both parties are W-2 wage earners, determining alimony should be relatively straightforward. The challenge comes when a spouse is self-employed or has a more complex compensation structure. 

If a spouse is self-employed, their income may be derived in the form of various expenses paid through the business, such as auto, personal credit cards, life insurance, etc. (known as perquisites). They may also own the building from which the company operates, giving rise to rental income. All of these economic benefits need to be considered for alimony purposes. Additionally, recognition needs to be given to the fact that the business owner can potentially manipulate their income in the process of what is commonly referred to as "divorce planning." An example would be a sudden decline in revenue that the owner attributes to external factors (competition, economy, etc.) when, in reality, they are simply working less. An accountant is frequently engaged in these cases to determine the business owners’ true economic benefit. 

Equity-Based Compensation

This issue comes up so frequently that it deserves further discussion. It is imperative to understand the type of equity-based compensation, how it is awarded/granted, how/when it vests, and how it is ultimately received. We have seen instances where equity-based compensation was defined incorrectly in the MSA, leading to complications when facilitating equitable distribution. Further, it should be noted that the existence of a grant/award of stock options or RSUs does not guarantee receipt of the same, as these forms of equity-based compensation can be subject to both vesting schedules and forfeitures. If the recipient spouse’s employment is terminated prior to vesting, they cannot monetize the awards, and alimony or equitable distribution could be impacted. The MSA should include language that explicitly addresses these potential situations to avoid surprises in the years to come.

Tax True-up Calculation

There are instances where one spouse has an asset that cannot be easily liquidated or divided for equitable distribution. In those cases, the non-asset-owning spouse will likely have to "ride along" until the asset is disposed of. When this occurs, there is often a tax consequence due to the owner spouse reporting pass-through taxable income. This gives rise to an inequity in that the asset-owning spouse will be responsible for 100% of the tax obligation for an asset that was to be divided as part of equitable distribution. Language is necessary in the MSA to lay out how a tax true-up will be calculated. The language should be detailed and specific to avoid misinterpretation, and the non-asset-owning spouse's personal tax preparer can verify the calculations are correct. Utilizing your financial expert will make this process easier for counsel and the parties to understand.

While accountants are often involved in determining business value and income, their experience and familiarity with the case can be a valuable resource when drafting the MSA and minimizing the potential for post-judgment disputes in the future.