WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

S 1100

An Act relative to the collateral consequences of alimony

194th Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by Paul Feeney

Summary — S 1100: "An Act relative to the collateral consequences of alimony"Note on documents provided- The materials supplied include text from two different bills that share the

Accompanied a study order (under JR10), see S2886
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · S 1100

Summary — S 1100: "An Act relative to the collateral consequences of alimony"

Note on documents provided
- The materials supplied include text from two different bills that share the same bill number (S 1100): an Idaho Senate bill about motorcycle profiling and a Massachusetts Senate docket titled "An Act relative to the collateral consequences of alimony." This summary focuses on the Massachusetts alimony bill (Senate Docket No. 1998 / S 1100), which matches the title and the April 22, 2025 hearing information you supplied. Where source documents conflict (sponsor names, committee referrals), I note those inconsistencies below.

Purpose and intent
- The bill aims to modify how alimony (spousal support) calculations are framed in Massachusetts General Laws (chapter 208, section 53), explicitly accounting for the federal tax treatment of alimony payments. Its apparent intent is to address the “collateral consequences” that arise when alimony is or is not federally tax‑deductible to the payor.

Key provision (text change)
- The bill amends Section 53 of chapter 208 by inserting after the word “incomes” (line 14) the following language (verbatim as provided):
", if federally tax deductible, or, if not federally tax deductible, the recipient’s need or 23 per cent to 28 per cent of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes, as"

  • Effect (plain language interpretation):
    • If alimony is federally tax deductible, the statute would apply the existing referenced measure (the text as amended is incomplete in isolation, but indicates the current treatment remains when payments are tax-deductible).
    • If alimony is not federally tax deductible, the statute would direct courts to consider either:
    • the recipient’s demonstrated need; or
    • an amount equal to 23% to 28% of the difference between the parties’ gross incomes.
    • The bill therefore creates a conditional rule tying a non‑deductible alimony baseline to a percentage range of the income difference, or to the recipient’s need—providing a clearer starting point for negotiation or judicial determination where federal tax treatment removes the prior tax‑deductibility incentive.

Who would be affected
- Parties to divorces and separation actions in Massachusetts where alimony is contested (payors and recipients).
- Family/dissolution courts and judges who make alimony determinations.
- Family law attorneys and mediators who advise clients on settlement offers and expected payments.
- Potentially, state agencies that administer child support/alimony enforcement and benefits.

Procedural status and timeline (from provided materials)
- Massachusetts docket filed: 01/17/2025 (Senate Docket No. 1998 / S 1100).
- Referred to The Judiciary (per docket text); bill description cites Representative Paul R. Feeney as the petitioner/sponsor in the Massachusetts docket. (Note: other supplied metadata lists different sponsors/committees and also includes unrelated Idaho material; those appear to be from a separate S 1100.)
- Hearing scheduled: April 22, 2025, 1:00 PM–5:00 PM in room A-2 (per your hearing note).
- The bill references a similar matter filed in a prior session (Senate No. 969, 2023–2024).

Potential impacts and considerations
- Seeks to mitigate fiscal/tax-driven distortions in spousal support negotiations introduced by federal tax law changes (e.g., the post‑2019 federal treatment where alimony is no longer deductible by the payor in many cases).
- The 23%–28% range is an explicit numerical guideline; adoption could standardize outcomes in many cases but may also raise questions about how the range was derived and how courts should select a point within the range for individual cases.
- The provided amendment text is succinct and somewhat syntactically incomplete in isolation; implementing guidance, judicial interpretations, or accompanying statutory cross‑references may be needed to resolve ambiguities (for example, how “recipient’s need” is measured and how the choice between need vs. percentage is made).

Conflicts / data quality note
- The bill materials you provided include an unrelated Idaho S 1100 (motorcycle profiling) with a fiscal note and Idaho statutory text; those materials do not pertain to the Massachusetts alimony bill aside from sharing the same bill number. Sponsor metadata listing "Rand Paul" and some committee referrals appear inconsistent with the Massachusetts docket (which lists Paul R. Feeney as petitioner). For an authoritative record of status and sponsors, consult the official Massachusetts Legislature docket for Senate No. 1100 / Docket No. 1998.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.