The medium to high net worth Calgary Division Of Matrimonial Property team at MacLean Law is headed by founder Lorne N. MacLean, QC. Mr. MacLean handles high net worth family cases and takes them to the highest level to ensure a just result for his Calgary family law clients. His appearances in the Supreme Court of Canada have involved Young v Young where he was winning counsel for the wife in Canada’s biggest child custody case, Leskun v Leskun a thorny high income spousal support case and Kotar v Lightle Canada’s first appellate decision where Mr. MacLean won for the wife and established for the first time that a stockbroker’s lucrative list of clients is family property to be divided.
Complex Calgary Division Of Matrimonial Property cases demand a lawyer who can meet the challenge of explaining the law in a way compelling to the court so your chances of success are increased. Contact Lorne N. MacLean, QC at our Calgary Division Of Matrimonial Property by calling 403-444-5503 now.
Calgary Division Of Matrimonial Property
Mr MacLean handle Calgary Division Of Matrimonial Property cases involving family businesses and complex Calgary Division Of Matrimonial Property cases where capital gains and distributive taxes, company reorganizations and corporate butterflys occur to fairly distribute tax consequences between spouses in Calgary Division Of Matrimonial Property cases.
The Alberta Court of Appeal of Ravoy v. Ravoy, 2002 ABCA 6 had occasion to deal with how and what impact a Calgary Division Of Matrimonial Property involving land and a family business had on the fair matrimonial property division, The Court commented on several complex family property issues including tax issues, corporate reorganizations, the thorny issue of “double dipping” where income produced by a asset that was awarded to one spouse is at issue for support and how an owner’s income from a business is determined:
Taxes Must Be Considered But There Are Special Ways of Sharing in A Calgary Division Of Matrimonial Property Case
[9] The appellant submits that the learned Trial Judge erred in transferring the two vacant lots to the respondent by way of a butterfly transaction. Counsel is unable to persuade us of any reviewable error on the part of the Trial Judge in doing so. The option of a butterfly transaction was an approach suggested by the respondent’s expert at trial. The appellant’s expert confirmed the availability of such a transaction but expressed concern on the cost of implementation. The Trial Judge had ample evidence upon which to exercise his discretion in ordering a division by means of a butterfly transaction, the expense of which was to be borne by the respondent.
[10] The appellant submits that the Trial Judge erred in failing to consider the tax consequences of the transfer of assets. One of the s. 8 factors requires the Court to consider the tax consequences of any division. In our view, the Trial Judge did so based on the limited evidence before him by accepting the recommendation of the butterfly.
Pre-Tax Profits Of A Family Business Not Just The Owner’s Tax Return Determine Support
[13] The appellant challenges the imputing of income to Mr. Ravoy in the calculation of spousal support. Mr. Ravoy operates R & R Mechanical and pays himself $900 net every two weeks as salary. Expert evidence was led that this would represent an average gross income of $30,000. The expert went further and testified that the company had a capability of paying out $40,000, but it did not. Expert evidence was led to normalize Mr. Ravoy’s income from 1994 to 1999, using both his personal and corporate tax returns. His income was normalized at $70,000. The expert testified that that amount could be increased because of tax benefits available to a shareholder and employee of a company. The figure of $80,000 imputed by the Trial Judge is not unreasonable and can be supported on the evidence.
Calgary Division Of Matrimonial Property And Support Can Include Income From Matrimonial Property
[14] The appellant raises the issue of “double-dipping”. It is submitted that because the family business was accounted for in the property division, treating the appellant’s income derived therefrom as available to pay support amounts to double-dipping. This Court has recognized that a source of income can be an asset for one purpose and income for another; (see MacDonald v. MacDonald, 1997 ABCA 409 (CanLII), [1998] 6 W.W.R. 86 (Alta. C.A.); leave to appeal dismissed, [1998] S.C.C.A. No. 49 (S.C.C.) (Q.L.). Where a future income stream has in fact been divided, a trial judge might view support differently. However, the future income stream was not an apparent basis of valuation of the business in this case. It is acknowledged that while the issue of double-dipping was not placed before the Trial Judge, the evidence on valuation does not support a conclusion of double-dipping. We observe that even if it had, the Court maintains an overriding discretion under the Divorce Act to double-dip if there is need. (See Boston v. Boston (2001) 2001 SCC 43 (CanLII), 201 D.L.R. (4th) 1.)
Calgary Division Of Matrimonial Property And Use Of Capital To Earn Income For Support Will Be Considered
[15] The appellant submits that, in awarding spousal support, the Trial Judge should have imputed a minimum of $25,000 per year to the respondent attributed from the capital distribution plus $20,000 in rental income. We note that the Trial Judge deliberately lowered the level of spousal support upon the registration of the transfer of land to the respondent from $3,000 per month to $2,200 per month. From that order, we can conclude that he recognized that a transfer of capital assets to the respondent would lessen, but not eliminate, her need for support. The determination as to the amount of support was not unreasonable.
In short, medium to high net worth Calgary Division Of Matrimonial Property cases need a savvy Calgary family lawyer familiar with taxes and high level family law concepts to avoid mistakes. Click here for general Alberta Family Law information. This general information is no substitute for booking an initial consultation with one of our Calgary family lawyers to get specific strategies for your case.
Pick up the phone and call Lorne N. MacLean, QC at 403-444-5503 today, as delay means your share of Calgary matrimonial property may be at risk.
