<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>BV Source &#124; Pittsburgh Family Lawyer &#124; 2010 Super Lawyer &#187; double dip</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bvsource.com/category/income/double-dip/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bvsource.com</link>
	<description>Pittsburgh Family Lawyer Experienced in Resolving Divorce, Child Support, Marital Property, Alimony &#124; Listed in The Best Lawyers in America, SuperLawyers.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:52:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>More on Blazer: Retained Earnings Not Income for Alimony</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/blazer-retained-earnings-alimony/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=blazer-retained-earnings-alimony</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/blazer-retained-earnings-alimony/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:15:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[double dip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[owner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bvsource.com/?p=807</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Court noted that there is no statutory definition of "income" for alimony cases in California, and it was unclear whether retained earnings could be properly categorized as "income" for alimony purposes. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/blazer-retained-earnings-alimony/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Blazer: California Considers Double-Dipping and Personal Goodwill</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/blazer-double-dipping-personal-goodwill/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=blazer-double-dipping-personal-goodwill</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/blazer-double-dipping-personal-goodwill/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:13:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[business valuation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[double dip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[goodwill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[valuation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bvsource.com/?p=803</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In Blazer v. Blazer (No. DR 38292, Aug. 25, 2009), the California Court of Appeals discusses the excess earnings method and, in particular, the myriad ways to distinguish personal from enterprise goodwill. ]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/blazer-double-dipping-personal-goodwill/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Executive Compensation: Excessive Salary or Disguised Dividend?</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/executive-compensation-excessive-salary-or-disguised-dividend/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=executive-compensation-excessive-salary-or-disguised-dividend</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/executive-compensation-excessive-salary-or-disguised-dividend/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 16:12:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[agreements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business valuation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[double dip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[executive compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[normalization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[profit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[appraisal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[asset]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bonus]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[executive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IRS]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[owner]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[professional]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[valuation]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bvsource.com/?p=682</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Seventh Circuit held that the salary earned by a CEO of a privately-held business (including a $17 million year-end bonus) was neither excessive nor a disguised dividend.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/executive-compensation-excessive-salary-or-disguised-dividend/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Basics of Pennsylvania Law: Double Dip, Part V</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dip-part-v/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=double-dip-part-v</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dip-part-v/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 05 Jul 2009 18:00:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[business valuation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[double dip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[normalization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[compensation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[excessive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Jersey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[reasonable]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Steneken]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bvsource.com/?p=381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This series of posts contains summaries of Pennsylvania case law on the issue of double dipping in divorce. "Double dipping" occurs when an income-producing asset (such as a pension or business) is counted as marital property subject to equitable distribution, as well as income subject to an alimony or child support obligation.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dip-part-v/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Basics of Pennsylvania Law: Double Dip, Part IV</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dip-part-iv/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=double-dip-part-iv</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dip-part-iv/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:58:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[double dip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[family court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[alimony]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[McFadden]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pension]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bvsource.com/?p=377</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This series of posts contains summaries of Pennsylvania case law on the issue of double dipping in divorce. "Double dipping" occurs when an income-producing asset (such as a pension or business) is counted as marital property subject to equitable distribution, as well as income subject to an alimony or child support obligation.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dip-part-iv/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Basics of Pennsylvania Law: Double Dip, Part III</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dip-part-iii/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=double-dip-part-iii</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dip-part-iii/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:54:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[business valuation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[double dip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bvsource.com/?p=379</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This series of posts contains summaries of Pennsylvania case law on the issue of double dipping in divorce. "Double dipping" occurs when an income-producing asset (such as a pension or business) is counted as marital property subject to equitable distribution, as well as income subject to an alimony or child support obligation.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dip-part-iii/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Basics of Pennsylvania Law: Double Dip, Part II</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dip-part-ii/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=double-dip-part-ii</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dip-part-ii/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Jun 2009 18:51:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[double dip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bvsource.com/?p=376</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This series of posts contains summaries of Pennsylvania case law on the issue of double dipping in divorce. "Double dipping" occurs when an income-producing asset (such as a pension or business) is counted as marital property subject to equitable distribution, as well as income subject to an alimony or child support obligation.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dip-part-ii/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Basics of Pennsylvania Law: Double Dip, Part I</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dip-part-i/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=double-dip-part-i</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dip-part-i/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 13:15:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Pennsylvania]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decisions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[double dip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marital property]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[children]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bvsource.com/?p=368</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This series of posts contains summaries of Pennsylvania case law on the issue of double dipping in divorce. "Double dipping" occurs when an income-producing asset (such as a pension or business) is counted as marital property subject to equitable distribution, as well as income subject to an alimony or child support obligation.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dip-part-i/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Double Dipping &#8230; again</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dipping-again/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=double-dipping-again</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dipping-again/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:14:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Family Law News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[double dip]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[income]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bvsource.com/?p=152</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[At the Pennsylvania Bar Association Family Law Section Winter Meeting 2009, which took place at the William Penn Hotel in Pittsburgh this weekend, a panel of judges, lawyers and CPAs discussed hot topics in family law and business valuation. One of the hot topics, presented by Pittsburgh valuation professional Richard F. Brabender, was double dipping. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/double-dipping-again/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Variations on a Double Dip Theme: The Moore Case</title>
		<link>http://www.bvsource.com/variations-on-a-double-dip-theme-the-moore-case/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=variations-on-a-double-dip-theme-the-moore-case</link>
		<comments>http://www.bvsource.com/variations-on-a-double-dip-theme-the-moore-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 Feb 2007 01:52:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Brian Vertz</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[double dip]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://bvertz.wordpress.com/2007/02/16/variations-on-a-double-dip-theme-the-moore-case/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Tennessee Court of Appeals issued a decision in May 2006 that addresses the lingering question of whether gains from the sale of marital property may be included in income for child support purposes: the old &#8220;double dip&#8221; dilemma. In Moore (2006), the partial owner of a cycle shop settled his divorce in 1991, retaining [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.bvsource.com/variations-on-a-double-dip-theme-the-moore-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
