Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.

Features

In an article in the January, 2004, issue of The Matrimonial Strategist, I discussed the use of temporary support orders in a divorce action to allow the payor to deduct undifferentiated family support payments or for the purpose of paying debts, such as counsel fees, in light of a series of recent cases. The leading case disallowing the deduction of family support payments is Lovejoy v. Commissioner, 293 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2002) (Colorado law; family support payments) but there are decisions involving the law of other states, mainly found in a series of Tax Court memorandum decisions. Some more recent cases now cast doubt on these precedents, leaving resolution of the issue uncertain, both for temporary orders, which by definition abate with the death of one of the parties to the pending divorce action, and for permanent marital settlements. They also raise the question whether an explicit termination provision would be effective if federal tax authorities conclude that the relevant state court would decide that the termination clause could not apply to the payor's child support obligation included within the support payments required by the order. A survey of state law reveals that this question is unresolved in almost every state, leaving the field wide open for federal tax determination of an important state law issue.

In this age of corporate greed, the courts are faced with many new issues surrounding restitution. The appeal of Bernard Jaffe Jr. gave the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals its first opportunity to define the term "dependent" under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, which requires district courts to order restitution to compensate victims for their losses "without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant."

Features

Most of us are familiar with using CPAs to value businesses, and psychologists and psychiatrists to make mental health assessments in custody cases. Pharmacological and DNA experts have become commonplace; so have employment experts in maintenance cases. However, there are many other uses of experts. Our imagination is the only limitation. Nevertheless, there are many things to consider when employing experts. Once you decide how to use your expert, you then must consider the expert's qualifications, the application of hearsay and other rules of evidence, as well as standards of professional practice.

Regulations established by the Labor Department's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) require covered federal contractors and subcontractors to collect information about the gender, race and ethnicity of each "applicant" for employment. On Oct. 7, the OFCCP issued a final rule that adds a definition of "Internet applicant" and requires contractors to collect gender, race, and ethnicity information from certain individuals who apply through the Internet. 41 C.F.R. Part 60-1.

National rulings you need to know.

A growing number of employees are blogging (posting comments, photographs, and even audio streams, to an online diary or journal), both at work and at home. The proliferation of workplace-related blogging has created an additional legal minefield to be navigated by the growing number of employers whose workforce has access to computers, the Internet and related electronic information. This article provides an overview of some of the more significant legal and business issues facing employers whose employees engage in workplace-related blogging, and offers recommendations for such employers to consider in an effort to minimize the potential for legal liability associated with such blogging.

Features

A look at rulings of interest to you and your practice.