Revenue Ruling 2002-22
Internal Revenue Service
2002-1 C.B. 849 (2002)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
A taxpayer and the taxpayer’s spouse divorced in 2002. Before the divorce, the taxpayer’s employer issued nonstatutory stock options to the taxpayer. The employer also maintained nonqualified deferred-compensation plans under which the taxpayer had the right to receive postemployment payments from the employer. Under the law of the state where the taxpayer and the spouse lived, stock options and deferred-compensation rights were subject to equitable distribution between divorcing spouses. The divorce judgment between the taxpayer and the former spouse provided that the taxpayer was to transfer to the former spouse one-third of the stock options and certain rights to receive payment from the taxpayer’s employer under the deferred-compensation plans. The former spouse subsequently exercised the stock options and received payouts from the deferred-compensation plans after the taxpayer ceased working for the taxpayer’s employer. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued a revenue ruling that discussed whether the taxpayer should be taxed on the transfer of the options and deferred-compensation rights under the assignment-of-income doctrine (i.e., the principle that income is taxed to the person who earns the income) or instead, whether the former spouse should be taxed when the former spouse exercised the stock options and received the deferred-compensation payouts.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.