Court Opinion

ID: 9884013
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 02:31:01.113659+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:34.337922
License: Public Domain

LANCASTER, Justice
(concurring).
I concur with the result reached by the majority. I write separately to emphasize that the decision is based upon the facts of this case, and does not represent a departure from the general rule that tax consequences may not be taken into account when to do so would be speculative. Aaron v. Aaron, 281 N.W.2d 150, 153 (Minn. 1979); Miller v. Miller, 352 N.W.2d 738, 744 (Minn.1984); O’Brien v. O’Brien, 343 N.W.2d 850, 854 (Minn.1984). Restricting consideration of tax consequences to events that are likely to occur within a short time of the dissolution is a safeguard against unfair speculation. Although I am not convinced the consideration of future tax consequences in this case resulted in an equitable distribution of assets, I concur in the result because the record is lacking in evidentiary support for application of a lower tax rate, which may well be appropriate in many retirement situations.
BLATZ, Chief Justice (concurring).
I join in the concurrence of Justice Joan Ericksen Lancaster.
RUSSELL A. ANDERSON, Justice (concurring).
I join in the concurrence of Justice Joan Ericksen Lancaster.