The Minnesota Family Law Podcast

The episode covers several substantive topics (child tax credits, PPP conformity, state tax deductions, Schmidt case) with moderate depth, but much of the content is explanatory overview rather than novel or contrarian insight. The discussion of tax credit phase-outs, IRS tools, and recent legislative changes provides useful reference material for family law practitioners, but limited truly non-obvious takeaways. Some practical gems exist (e.g., entity-level tax strategy workaround, matching child support to actual expenses) but are brief.

“The original tax credit before 2021 was $2,000 maximum per child, limited to you had to be under age 17 as of the end of the tax year. So if you are 6 and under, the additional credit is 1,600 for a total of, uh, $3,600 per child.”

“there's a workaround at an entity level where they're allowing for the state taxes to be claimed against those entities income to reduce the taxable income and not have that affect the $10,000 limitation at the individual level.”

The episode mostly synthesizes and explains existing policy and recent legislative changes rather than presenting original or contrarian analysis. The speakers confirm conventional family law practice (considering taxes in support calculations) and restate IRS guidance. The entity-level tax deduction workaround is somewhat novel for Minnesota but is presented as a known strategy other states have explored, not a fresh insight.

“Now, for purposes of doing calculations for support. And when we're looking at gross incomes for individuals, all the software, all of the schedules the experts prepare are always considering taxes.”

“there certainly have been a number of states exploring similar ways of handling this, trying to get the deduction at a entity level.”

Both guests are credentialed financial professionals with direct family law experience (Karen Krita and Tom Harges described as 'top financial professionals'). Karen explicitly states 22 years in family law and nearly 40 as a CPA, suggesting real practitioner depth. However, the transcript provides no titles, firm names, or evidence of their specific scale of impact or deal size, limiting assessment of true seniority.

“our guests are, uh, Tom Harges and Karen Krita, um, both two of our top financial professionals.”

“I've been a CPA for just about 40 years. I've been doing family law for 22 of that.”

The episode includes specific numbers (tax credit thresholds: $3,600 for children 6 and under, $3,000 for ages 7-17; phase-out limits: $150,000 for joint filers; $10,000 SALT cap; $1,000 child expense example). It references specific legislation (Minnesota 2021 tax bill, Schmidt case) and IRS tools. However, most evidence is generic regulatory detail rather than real case examples or concrete outcome data. Few client stories, business examples, or quantified impacts are provided.

“If you are 6 and under, the additional credit is 1,600 for a total of, uh, $3,600 per child. If you are between 7 and 17, you get an additional thousand dollars or a total of $3,000 for the credit.”

“For a joint return you could have adjusted gross income of 400,000 and still qualify for the credit. And um, there was another phase out of 200,000 for head of household and single.”

The host (Tom Tuft) asks reasonable follow-up questions and shows genuine curiosity (e.g., "Is this something you're running into questions about?", "Have other states tried this?"). However, follow-ups are often shallow; he rarely challenges claims or probe deeper into contradictions. The conversation feels collegial but lacks the sharp, probing questions that would elicit richer insight. No productive disagreement or skepticism surfaces.

“So it's, I mean it's a stimulus. I mean that's one of the goals. It sounds like.”

“Is this. I was just going to ask. Is this. Is. Have other states tried this? I mean, as far. I mean, I don't know if you know that, but has that been done before?”