EMAIL DETAILS

How is it tax deductible if it is a contractual settlement and even if it was I still don't understand their math.

RHB
202-333-1880

> On Oct 23, 2016, at 8:18 AM, SMancinelli <SMancinelli@ainbanklaw.com> wrote:
>
>
> See below.
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Rebekah J.H. Sullivan" <RSullivan@ksfmlaw.com>
>> Date: October 22, 2016 at 8:25:09 PM EDT
>> To: SMancinelli <smancinelli@ainbanklaw.com>
>> Subject: RE: Biden
>>
>> Dear Sarah,
>>
>> Thank you for the email. We are disappointed with the response, but appreciate the opportunity to have reasoned discussions about it. Kathleen also remains committed to resolving this fairly and amicably.
>>
>> With respect to the spousal support, the proposal was premised on the understanding that spousal support is tax-deductible, and would thus change Hunter’s tax liabilities and consequently increase his monthly take-home. The hope is that the parties can sell the lake house to reduce their fixed monthly expenses. If that happens, and you consider the tax shifting that comes with payment of alimony, the proposal is extremely reasonable – providing for both parties, but also requiring both parties to make sacrifices, which are necessary given the financial realities and large expenses.
>>
>> We think the best way forward is for you and Hunter to prepare a counter-proposal. We are open to considering a full settlement proposal, if that is Hunter’s preference. Once we are able to review that, we can discuss next steps from there. When do you think you could get us such a proposal?
>>
>> Best Regards,
>>
>>
>> Rebekah J.H. Sullivan
>> Kuder, Smollar, Friedman & Mihalik, PC
>> 1350 Connecticut Ave. NW
>> Suite 600
>> Washington, DC 20036
>>
>> www.KSFMLAW.com
>> Tel: 202/331-7522
>> Fax: 202/331-0388
>>
>>
>>
>> ******NOTICE*********
>> This e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s)
>> above and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product
>> or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this
>> message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify
>> the sender at (202) 331-7522 and delete this e-mail message from your computer.
>> Thank You.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: SMancinelli [mailto:SMancinelli@ainbanklaw.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, October 20, 2016 1:31 PM
>> To: Rebekah J.H. Sullivan
>> Subject: RE: Biden
>>
>> Rebekah-
>>
>> Thank you for the email. I have reviewed and discussed it with Hunter.
>>
>> For several reasons, the proposal presented in your email is not acceptable to Hunter. First and foremost, the amount proposed to be paid to Kathleen is simply untenable. Kathleen’s proposal seems to be premised on the idea that Hunter takes home $150,000 per month. That is not accurate. As we noted previously, Hunter has to withhold earnings for tax payments and business expenses. His after tax/expenses take-home pay is approximately $71,500. The proposal outlined in your email below requires Hunter to pay Kathleen $30,000 per month in spousal support and $10,000 per month in child support, leaving him with $31,500 to pay not only for his living expenses (rent, utilities, food, etc.) but also all of the parties’ recurring expenses as outlined on the document you forwarded to me. That document totals those recurring expenses at $34,097. It is impossible for Hunter to pay Kathleen $40,000 per month and also be responsible for payment of all of the parties’ expenses.
>>
>> As a general concept, Hunter feels strongly that if he is going to pay Kathleen support, she needs to be responsible for some of the recurring monthly expenses that benefit her as much as they benefit Hunter. As you and I have discussed, it will be critical for both Hunter and Kathleen to develop and adhere to a budget going forward. An integral part of the process of living on a budget is understanding and appreciating how to continue to pay for recurring monthly expenses and still have money left over for discretionary spending. Under the proposal outlined below, only Hunter is required to do that. That is not acceptable.
>>
>> Given what I outline above, Hunter will likewise not agree to use the proposed spousal and child support figures as a “floor” for any future negotiations.
>>
>> Let me also note that Hunter is not agreeable to delaying comprehensive settlement negotiations. It is not healthy for Hunter and Kathleen or their children, to live in this state of limbo. When I was first retained by Hunter, I understood from you that Kathleen wanted to move efficiently through the settlement process and execute a settlement agreement in a timely manner. I am not sure why now it is suggested that she is not prepared to get a divorce. Given that Kathleen has proposed to recalculate these figures in 6 months, I assume that is premised on the idea that Hunter may be earning more income next year. As I have said before, there are ways to structure a comprehensive settlement agreement in circumstances of fluctuating income. But if Kathleen wants to reap the benefits of Hunter potentially earning more in the future, then she will likewise have to bear the risk that Hunter may, at some point, earn less.
>>
>> When we first talked about this case, you suggested sitting down and having a four-way meeting to hammer this out. We remain agreeable to that. Alternatively, Hunter and I can craft a comprehensive settlement proposal for Kathleen’s and your review.
>>
>> Hunter continues to be committed to resolving this in an amicable and agreeable manner. He cares deeply for Kathleen and wants her to move forward feeling comfortable and secure. We simply need the arrangement to also work for Hunter and not put him an untenable financial situation. I remain confident we will be able to accomplish these goals.
>>
>> I am out of the office tomorrow (Friday) but available most of next week and look forward to hearing from you.
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>>
>> From: Rebekah J.H. Sullivan [mailto:RSullivan@ksfmlaw.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:15 AM
>> To: SMancinelli
>> Subject: Biden
>>
>> Dear Sarah,
>>
>> I met with Kathleen and discussed at length your request for a proposal. At this time, Kathleen does not want a divorce and we were not planning on making a proposal for a final resolution. At the same time, it is very clear these parties need to formalize their separation and reach an agreement with respect to finances, at least in the short term.
>>
>> We propose as follows:
>>
>> Once Hunter’s next paycheck clears, Kathleen will transfer the full value of the USAA account (including the paycheck) to her Wells Fargo account in her sole name. From these funds, Kathleen will pay her attorney’s fees, and family expenses that she has been customarily paying. We are attaching screenshot reflecting the current value of the account. Kathleen borrowed $10,000 from her parents (which must be repaid). As you can see, the current value is barely more than what is owed to Kathleen’s parents (for this loan).
>>
>> Beginning in November 2016 (we can discuss a reasonable date depending on Hunter’s pay schedule), Hunter will pay Kathleen $30,000 in spousal support and $10,000 in child support per month. This must be paid from an account in Hunter’s sole name to an account in Kathleen’s sole name and pursuant to a written agreement. Hunter will continue to pay directly (or have his office pay directly) all expenses they have been paying, including expenses for the DC home (mortgage, second trust, utilities, housekeeper, etc.), the lake house (until disposed of as set forth below), tuition, car payments, etc. I am attaching again the document that was provided to Kathleen which reflects those expenses. Kathleen will take over the payment on the Mercedes Benz, which Hunter will transfer to her.
>>
>> In any month in which Hunter receives/earns as remuneration more than $150,000 gross, he will pay Kathleen 50% of all funds received/earned above the $150,000 gross.
>>
>> The parties owe Kathleen’s parents $112,000 which must be repaid immediately. Kathleen would like the opportunity to discuss with her parents whether they would like to purchase the lake house from the parties, in which case the repayment of the $112,000 could be factored into the sale. Alternatively, the lake house should be sold and the proceeds put toward that debt.
>>
>> Kathleen will have sole use and possession of the DC home. Hunter will have access to the home with advance notice and as mutually agreed between the parties. Kathleen’s sole use and possession of the DC home will continue at least until the youngest child leaves home for college.
>>
>> The parties will re-evaluate spousal support and child support in six months, with the $30,000/$10,000 amounts being the floor of any ongoing support payments.
>>
>> Please let me know your response.
>>
>>
>> Rebekah J.H. Sullivan
>> Kuder, Smollar, Friedman & Mihalik, PC
>> 1350 Connecticut Ave. NW
>> Suite 600
>> Washington, DC 20036
>>
>> www.KSFMLAW.com
>> Tel: 202/331-7522
>> Fax: 202/331-0388
>>
>>
>>
>> ******NOTICE*********
>> This e-mail message is confidential, intended only for the named recipient(s)
>> above and may contain information that is privileged, attorney work product
>> or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this
>> message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify
>> the sender at (202) 331-7522 and delete this e-mail message from your computer.
>> Thank You.
>>
> <image001.jpg>
> <image001.jpg