• The Collaborative Process
    ▼
    • Overview
    • The Professional Team
    • FAQs
  • Find a Professional
    ▼
    • Divorce Professionals
    • Professional Resource Members
  • Divorce Options
    ▼
    • Upcoming Workshops
    • About Divorce Options
  • CDSOC Membership
    ▼
    • Member Benefits
    • Join
    • Member Resources
  • About Us
    ▼
    • About Us Overview
    • Our Mission
    • CDSOC Leadership
  • Events Calendar
  • Blogs
  • Contact
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

CDSOC

Collaborative Divorce Solutions of Orange County

Connect With A Professional Today:
(949) 266-0660

  • The Collaborative Process
    • Overview
    • The Professional Team
    • FAQs
  • Find a Professional
    • Divorce Professionals
    • Professional Resource Members
  • Divorce Options
    • Upcoming Workshops
    • About Divorce Options
  • CDSOC Membership
    • Member Benefits
    • Join
    • Member Resources
  • About Us
    • About Us Overview
    • Our Mission
    • CDSOC Leadership
  • Events Calendar
  • Blogs
  • Contact

Equal Division

Dividing Stock Options and Restricted Stock In Divorce

September 1, 2016 By CDSOC

by Thea Glazer, CFP®, CDFA™, MS Accounting
Glazer Financial Advisors, Laguna Hills, California

Stock options and restricted stock may be part of the marital estate. And they are some of the more complex assets. This brief overview provides a basic understanding of the factors you need to take into consideration. It does not go into all the many tax and technical issues that are aspects of equity compensation. Seeking professional guidance for your specific circumstances is always a good idea.

Many companies grant their employees equity compensation in addition to their salaries, commissions and cash bonuses. Equity compensation is non-cash compensation representing a form of ownership interest in a company. Among the most common are employee stock options and restricted stock or restricted stock units. In divorce, stock options and restricted stock are property to be divided. The employee’s separate shares are often also considered as income in the calculations of support.

Thea Glazer
Thea Glazer

Employee Stock Options (ESOs)

An employee stock option is the right given by an employee to purchase a specified number of shares of the employer’s stock for a specified price and for a specified time. There are two types of ESOs, Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) and Nonqualified Stock Options (NQs). The primary difference is that ISOs have an advantageous tax treatment explained below.

Stock options have a Grant Date, Exercise Price, Vesting Schedule and Expiration date. Example: Company ABC grants John Smith 3,000 non-qualified options on January 4, 2015 at a grant price of $10.50, a four-year annual vesting schedule and an expiration date of January 4, 2025. That means that John can exercise (buy) the 750 shares of stock annually on January 4 from 2016 through 2019. He does not have to exercise any shares until January 3, 2025. If he doesn’t exercise by the date of expiration, they will expire and be worthless.

Taxation of Stock Options Nonqualified stock options are taxed at the time of exercise as ordinary income. The amount taxed is the difference between the grant price and the fair market price. Most companies sell enough shares to cover the withholding tax and release the net shares or proceeds if the shares were simultaneously sold. If the shares are held once exercised and sold later, there may be capital gains tax as well. Unless shares are about to expire, most people exercise and sell simultaneously.

Incentive stock options are not taxed when they are exercised. If the shares are held for at least one year from exercise and two years from grant date, the gain is taxed at the advantageous long term capital gains rate.

Restricted Stock (RS) and Restricted Stock Units (RSUs)

Unlike stock options, restricted stock and restricted stock units are actual stock. There is usually no purchase price and, if there is, it is very, very nominal (one cent). Holders of restricted stock have voting rights while holders of restricted stock units do not. Restricted stock units cannot be “underwater” which happens to options when the grant price exceeds the fair market price so they are much less risky. Grants of restricted stock usually have about one-third as many shares as do options. Restricted stock grants have a grant date and vesting schedule. There is no expiration date and usually no grant price.

Taxation of Restricted Stock

Once a share of restricted stock vests, it is released. Upon release, the fair market value less any purchase price is taxed as ordinary income. Most companies sell enough shares to cover the withholding taxes and release the net shares. There is no decision making needed by the employee like there is regarding when to exercise options. Once restricted stock vests, it is automatically released. Many employees continue to hold the net shares until a time they need the cash, feel the stock has reached a good selling price or want to diversify their portfolios.

Transferability of Stock Options and Restricted Stock

Some plans allow NQs to be transferred to the former spouse of the employee, but the majority do not. It is very rare to see ISOs transferable. If they are transferred, they may lose their status as ISOs and fall under the tax rules for NQs.

RS and RSUs are not transferrable.

For non-transferable shares of options or restricted stock, the employee holds the shares on behalf of the non-employee spouse and exercises on his/her behalf or transfers released shares. There are IRS acceptable ways to allocate the taxation so the non-employee spouse is taxed at his/her rate rather than that of the employee.

Division of Equity Compensation in Divorce

Both stock options and restricted stock shares are divided by formulas. The most commonly used ones are Nelson and Hug.

The Nelson formula is: Date of grant to date of separation ÷

Date of grant to date of exercise or release

The Hug formula is:     Date of hire to date of separation ÷

Date of hire to date of exercise or release

The reason the grants were awarded determines which formula is applicable.

Valuation of Stock Options and Restricted Stock

It is rare to value the options rather than to divide the shares. That is because the value is constantly changing so it is imprecise at best. In order to correctly value the options, the following factors are in the variables of a complex formula, the Black-Scholes formula that is used in valuing stock options:

  • Grant price
  • Grant date
  • Date of expiration
  • Vesting schedule
  • Current stock price
  • Volatility of the stock price

Sometimes valuing the options is the only way to effectuate the property division by offsetting another asset. However, dividing the shares divides both the risk and reward to both spouses. I believe it is preferable when possible.

Collaborative Divorce Offers Flexibility

In Collaborative or mediated divorce cases, there is far more flexibility in dividing assets. Unequal divisions are also acceptable if the parties agree and have reasons to do so. In court, such flexibility is not nearly as possible. This is another great reason to consider alternative dispute resolution such as Collaborative Divorce to allow you to make the best decision possible for your circumstances, rather than a decision forced upon you by a judge.

Filed Under: Collaborative Divorce, Divorce and Emotions, Divorce and Money, Financial Tagged With: Assets, Divorce and Stocks, Divorce and Taxes, Divorce Financial Professional, Equal Division, Financial Agreement, Laguna Beach Divorce

When 50/50 Isn’t Always Equal in a California Divorce

June 6, 2016 By CDSOC

by Diana L. Martinez Collaborative Lawyer and Mediator, Law and Mediation Office of Diana L. Martinez

California is one of nine “community property” states as it relates to divorce. This means that assets and debts acquired and incurred during your marriage will be divided equally upon divorce. Exceptions exist for specific items received during marriage that are deemed “separate property” under the law. This includes gifts and inheritance.

This is one of the most misunderstood concepts in divorce law. Spouses often believe their divorce will be easy if they just split all of their property in half, or “50/50.” While strong emotions present a barrier to resolving issues during a divorce, not far behind is the misunderstandings by couples about the concept of what is “fair” when it comes to dividing up assets and liabilities.

From extensive experience as a mediator, consultant, and Collaborative Divorce lawyer, I am a strong advocate for giving spouses a greater voice in the outcome of their divorce. I am also a strong proponent of ensuring divorcing spouses have as much information as possible to make the best decisions moving forward.

Although the courts are required to enforce the laws, spouses in a divorce, with few exceptions (typically related to minor children) are not limited by the law; they can create their own, unique, agreements, based on their goals and values. Laws controlling the division of assets and debts, the amount you receive or pay in support, and the amount of time granted with your children exist to guide you IF you and your spouse are not able to resolve these items together. If you can’t resolve your differences, a judge will make the decisions for you. He or she is required to enforce the law, regardless of your personal goals and values.

You and your spouse may have some understanding of the law. But in negotiating your agreement, you may be better served by accepting less than the law allows in return for a greater benefit elsewhere. The benefit could be a better co-parenting relationship, or the opportunity to reduce or eliminate spousal support. It may even be the creation of balance where the laws aren’t able to provide it.

Annette and John Peterson provide a case study worth discussing as an example. The Petersons were able to resolve all disputes in their divorce except one: Annette’s pension benefits of approximately $100,000. This roadblock stalled the Petersons’ divorce for six years, from February 2010 until the California Supreme Court rendered its decision in January 2016.

In retrospect, after nearly six years of legal fees, lost time from work, and stress, Annette and John might have preferred finding a compromise outside of the contested court process. State laws governing pensions and federal laws governing Social Security created the sense of imbalance that Mr. and Mrs. Peterson fought so hard to correct, as each, individually, deemed most “fair”.

In California, pension benefits are community property when earned during marriage. Pension benefits are a form of deferred compensation for services rendered. Non-financial contributions to pension benefits, or “service credits,” are also considered “a form of deferred compensation for services rendered” and, therefore, community property.

But Social Security benefits are separate property under federal law. Federal law preempts state law. Social Security is not transferable, nor can it be assigned by the wage earner. There are, however, derivative rights upon divorce if:

  • you and your spouse are entitled to receive Social Security;
  • your marriage lasted 10 years or longer;
  • the ex-spouse did not remarry;
  • the ex-spouse is age 62 or older; and
  • the benefit the ex-spouse is entitled to received based on his/her own work is less than the benefit he or she would receive based on his/her former spouse’s work.

If each requirement is met, an ex-spouse could elect to receive either all of his/her own Social Security, or one-half of his/her former spouse’s Social Security, but not both.

As an employee of the County of Los Angeles, Annette did not contribute to Social Security. Instead, the County contributed to a defined pension plan for Annette through the Los Angeles County Employees Retirement Association (LACERA). As an attorney in private practice, John contributed to Social Security through mandatory payroll deductions.

Annette’s LACERA benefits totaled between $200,000 and $216,000. Based on Social Security calculations, John’s Social Security benefits totaled $228,000. Annette attempted to argue that the laws governing LACERA pensions and the laws governing Social Security created unequal benefits. Annette and John would split her LACERA benefits in their divorce (approximately $100,000 to each). But John would keep all of his Social Security benefits.

The trial court ruled in John’s favor, creating an actual 150% windfall for John ($328,000 from 50% of Annette’s LACERA and 100% of his Social Security). Annette asked the California Supreme Court to correct this unfair situation, suggesting the court give John less than half of her LACERA pension benefits.

The Supreme Court let the trial court’s ruling stand, citing the requirement under California law that community assets be divided equally in a divorce. Since Social Security is not a “community asset,” the court correctly divided the community assets and could not deviate from that equal division, even when it creates an unequal division overall.

But the Supreme Court pointed out that it was completely within Annette and John’s power to create their own, more equal solution, even though the court under the law could not.

So let’s go back to Annette and John’s original circumstances. What was the value to John if he had agreed to give Annette all of her LACERA benefits, instead of insist on following the state law giving him a far greater share? What would have been the value to Annette to propose an alternate payout to John to resolve this issue?

As of 2010 in California, the average cost of a divorce where the parties were represented by lawyers was approximately $50,000 each. This amount is on the low end for a contested divorce in Orange County, and it does not include the legal fees for an appeal. Over the period of six years, based on 2010 estimates, Annette and John would have spent more than $100,000 each. Resolving your divorce early and collaboratively can save on legal fees, lost work time, and other intangible and emotional costs.

Managing emotional trauma and stress for yourself and your family offers priceless benefits, far beyond feeling a sense of entitlement or unfairness. Attorneys frequently fail to focus on these practical impacts because they are hired as legal advisors and guides, not as therapists. Attorneys are not equipped to help people through their fears; they are not trained mental health professionals.

Alternative (also known as “consensual”) dispute resolution models often incorporate legal and non-legal professionals to help educate and guide couples through unexpected emotional landmines, often resulting in less, or better managed, conflict, and better informed and well reasoned results.

For example, the Collaborative Divorce model incorporates guidance from a “divorce coach” to help manage the emotions of divorcing spouses, often saving the spouses tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars, as well as years of stress embroiled in a contested divorce, and the subsequent modifications to orders after trial. The outcomes tend to be far more satisfying to both spouses, and result in fewer or no additional hearings after judgment to modify those orders.

Making decisions based on accurate legal and financial information, as well as balancing the practical impact on your family and finances often results in far greater and lasting benefit for you and your family. Sometimes, there is too high a price for the short-term gain of getting everything you can under the law.

Filed Under: Child Support, Collaborative Practice, Divorce and Emotions, Divorce and Money, Financial, Spousal Support Tagged With: Assets, CDSOC, Community Property, Diana Martinez, Divorce and Real Estate, Divorce and Retirement, Divorce and Trauma, Employee Benefits, Equal Division, Financial Settlement, Legal Fees, Orange County, Property Settlement, Retirement Benefits, Separate Property, Social Security

Primary Sidebar

Blog Categories

Categories

  • Awards and Honors
  • Blog
  • Child Custody
  • Child Specialist
  • Child Support
  • Children's Mental Health
  • Co-Parenting
  • Coaching
  • Collaborative Divorce
  • Collaborative Practice
  • COVID-19
  • Creative Divorce Solutions
  • Delayed Divorce
  • Divorce and Emotions
  • Divorce and Military
  • Divorce and Money
  • Divorce and The Law
  • Divorce Horror Stories
  • Divorce Options
  • Events and Training
  • Family Issues
  • Financial
  • General Divorce
  • Legal
  • Mediation
  • Mental Health
  • Self Help Divorce
  • Self-Representation
  • Spousal Support
  • Tips & Resources

Footer

CDSOC

Copyright © 2023 | All Rights Reserved | Website Design by The Crouch Group | Log in