Divorce money by state: property, support, legal fees, and the four states that tax alimony differently

Fifty states, one row each: how property is divided, whether spousal support runs on a formula or a factor list, whether one spouse can be made to fund the other’s lawyer while the case is still running, and whether the state’s own income tax follows the federal rule on alimony. That last column is the reason this page exists. As far as we can tell nobody else publishes it.

states decoupled from the federal alimony tax rule — each by a different mechanism

states where the federal rule is the whole answer

states with no income tax, so the question does not arise

community property states; the other 42 divide equitably

states where fees can be awarded during the case, not only at the end

What do you need?

The four decoupled states All fifty states The states with an actual alimony…The question to ask at your first…How this was built Related

6 sections on this page. Pick one, or show everything.

In this subject 6

The four decoupled states, and why each is decoupled differently

Federal law since 2019: alimony is not deductible by the payer and not taxable to the recipient, for instruments executed after 31 December 2018. The near-universal assumption is that the states went along with it. Forty-six effectively did, or have no income tax. Four did not — and no two of them did it the same way, which is why a rule of thumb does not work here.

State	Mechanism	What it means for you
California	Decoupled, and it just ended source	California did not follow the change for instruments executed 2019 through 2025. Under SB 711 it now conforms for any instrument executed on or after 1 January 2026, and for an earlier instrument modified after that date where the modification expressly says so. Two Californians with identical orders signed either side of that date have different state tax positions for the life of the order.
New York	Chose not to follow it source	New York expressly declined to adopt the TCJA change. On the New York return you subtract alimony paid and add back alimony received. The state said so in a technical memorandum within days of the federal law taking effect.
New Jersey	Never used federal conformity at all read it on Justia — a commercial publisher, not the state’s own site	New Jersey’s Gross Income Tax Act does not build on federal adjusted gross income. It defines income through its own closed list of categories, with alimony taxable to the recipient and deductible to the payer under New Jersey’s own provisions. The federal repeal did not decouple New Jersey — New Jersey was never coupled.
Arkansas	Selective adoption, never carried the change across read it on FindLaw — a commercial publisher, not the state’s own site	Arkansas maintains its own income tax code and picks up federal provisions selectively rather than automatically. Its own individual return instructions still provide for alimony inclusion and deduction.

Why this matters more than it sounds

In a decoupled state, alimony that is invisible on your 1040 still moves money on your state return. The payer gets a deduction the federal government no longer allows; the recipient owes state tax on income the IRS does not see.

That changes the right number to negotiate. A settlement modeled purely on federal treatment is mispriced in four states, and in California it is mispriced differently depending on whether the instrument was signed before or after 1 January 2026.

Maine, the last one open, is answered

Maine follows the federal treatment. Maine Revenue Services told us in writing on 11 September 2026 that Maine conforms to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, through 31 December 2025 unless otherwise stated in Maine law, that there are at this time no Maine income modifications — additions or subtractions — for alimony, and that Maine therefore currently conforms to the federal tax treatment. That is an examiner’s answer in correspondence, not a published ruling, and the date in it is fixed, not rolling: if Congress changes the federal rule after 31 December 2025, Maine follows only when its Legislature moves the date. How we got it.

Massachusetts was a fifth, for three tax years, and is not now

Massachusetts follows the federal treatment today, and did not for 2019, 2020 or 2021. The Department of Revenue told us on 1 October 2026, pointing at TIR 23-5, that Massachusetts conforms to the federal alimony treatment for tax years beginning on or after 1 January 2022, and before that conformed to the Code as it stood on 1 January 2005 — which still contained the old inclusion and deduction. So for three Massachusetts tax years, alimony under a post-2018 instrument was deductible by the payer and taxable to the recipient on the state return while being neither on the federal one. The four-state count above describes the present; this is the one that used to be in it. Anyone looking at a Massachusetts return for 2019 to 2021 should read the Massachusetts page, where the Department’s answer is quoted.

Because that gap was invisible until the Department named it, on 1 October 2026 we checked the other thirty-six states in this table that follow the federal rule for the same thing: a fixed conformity date that sat before 22 December 2017 in any tax year from 2019 onward. None has one. Every fixed-date state carried a post-2017 date for every year from 2019, and the rolling states have no date to fall behind. Massachusetts is the only one.

The story behind this table

Four decoupled states, four unrelated mechanisms, and the four words in an Arkansas statute that separate it from an almost identical Alabama one. Read the piece →

All fifty states

Each state name links to its own page, where every entry below is quoted from the statute with a link to the source.

State	Property	Support	Interim fees	State tax on alimony
Alabama	Equitable	Factors	—	Follows federal
Alaska	Equitable	Factors	Yes	No income tax
Arizona	Community	Formula	Yes	Follows federal
Arkansas	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Decoupled
California	Community	Factors	Yes	Decoupled
Colorado	Equitable	Formula	Yes	Follows federal
Connecticut	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Delaware	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Florida	Equitable	Factors	Yes	No income tax
Georgia	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Hawaii	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Idaho	Community	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Illinois	Equitable	Formula	Yes	Follows federal
Indiana	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Iowa	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Kansas	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Kentucky	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Louisiana	Community	Capped	—	Follows federal
Maine	Equitable	Capped	Yes	Follows federal
Maryland	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Massachusetts	Equitable	Capped	Yes	Follows federal
Michigan	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Minnesota	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Mississippi	Equitable	Factors	—	Follows federal
Missouri	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Montana	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Nebraska	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Nevada	Community	Factors	Yes	No income tax
New Hampshire	Equitable	Formula	—	No income tax
New Jersey	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Never followed federal
New Mexico	Community	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
New York	Equitable	Formula	Yes	Decoupled
North Carolina	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
North Dakota	Equitable	Capped	Yes	Follows federal
Ohio	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Oklahoma	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Oregon	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Pennsylvania	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federalSame result, opposite route: Pennsylvania never incorporated the Code. Alimony was never taxable or deductible there, before or after 2019.
Rhode Island	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
South Carolina	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
South Dakota	Equitable	Factors	Yes	No income tax
Tennessee	Equitable	Factors	Yes	No income tax
Texas	Community	Capped	Yes	No income tax
Utah	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Vermont	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Virginia	Equitable	Capped	Yes	Follows federal
Washington	Community	Factors	Yes	No income tax
West Virginia	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Wisconsin	Equitable	Factors	Yes	Follows federal
Wyoming	Equitable	Factors	Yes	No income tax

Reading the columns. Property — community property states start from the community estate; equitable distribution states divide fairly, which is not the same as equally. Support — “Formula” means a statutory guideline calculation; “Capped” means factors with a statutory limit or durational presumption; “Factors” means a judge weighs a list and there is no formula. Interim fees — whether attorney fees can be ordered while the case is running rather than only at judgment.

The states with an actual alimony formula

Alimony is the least predictable number in a divorce because most states give judges a factor list and no arithmetic. 5 states are different — they have a statutory guideline calculation. If you are in one, run it before you negotiate rather than after.

State	The formula
Arizona	guideline formula
Colorado	guideline formula
Illinois	guideline formula – 750 ILCS 5/504(b-1). Amount: 33 1/3% of the payor’s net annual income minus 25% of the payee’s net annual income, capped so the payee’s resulting income does not exceed 40% of the parties’ combined net income (subparagraph (b-1)(1)(A)). Duration: length of marriage x a statutory multiplier – <5 yrs: .20; 5-<6: .24; 6-<7: .28; 7-<8: .32; 8-<9: .36; 9-<10: .40; 10-<11: .44; 11-<12: .48; 12-<13: .52; 13-<14: .56; 14-<15: .60; 15-<16: .64; 16-<17: .68; 17-<18: .72; 18-<19: .76; 19-<20: .80; 20+ years: court discretion for a term equal to the marriage’s length or indefinite (subparagraph (b-1)(1)(B)). Guideline formula applies only where combined gross annual income is under $500,000 and the payor owes no prior support/maintenance obligation; otherwise non-guideline (factors-only) maintenance under (b-1)(2).
New Hampshire	guideline formula
New York	guideline formula

A further 6 — Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, North Dakota, Texas, Virginia — use factors but impose a statutory cap or a durational presumption on top. That is not a formula, but it does put a ceiling on the argument. Details are on each state’s page.

The question to ask at your first meeting

If you are the lower earner, this is the most actionable thing on the site

In 46 of the 50 states we could confirm that a court may order one spouse to pay the other’s attorney fees while the case is still running — not only at the end.

That distinction is not technical. A fee award that arrives at final judgment is close to worthless to someone who could not afford representation during the case; by then the damage is done. An interim award is the mechanism that stops a wealthier spouse winning by attrition rather than on the merits.

Ask it in these words: “Can we move for an interim award of attorney fees now?” Do not let “we will sort fees out at the end” go unexamined — in most states it does not have to wait, and New York goes further still, creating a rebuttable presumption that fees are awarded to the less monied spouse.

How this was built, and what is missing

Every cell in the table above was traced to a state statute, court rule, or revenue department publication, and each state page carries the citation and a link. Where a fact could not be confirmed from a primary source, it is recorded as unestablished rather than filled with a plausible answer. We did not cite a single law firm, tax-preparation company or directory site as authority for anything on these pages.

Known gaps, all published on the relevant state pages:

Attorney fee-shifting in a small number of states where it appears to rest on case law rather than statute.
Child support model classification in several states whose guidelines sit in administrative rules or court rules we could not retrieve in full.
What a guardian ad litem or custody evaluator actually costs — in any state. There is no official published schedule anywhere we could find, and we will not repeat law-firm estimates as though they were sourced.

If you can close any of these, tell us. Corrections are published at thecusp.app/corrections with the date, what changed, and how long the error was live — including the one we made on this very subject and fixed within a day.

Getting your finances in order — the national page, in three tracks depending on whether you earn more, less, or about the same
Who speaks for your child — guardians ad litem, evaluators, and who pays for them
What divorce costs — filing fees by state, traced to the statute
All topics — every page on the site

Sources last checked30 August 2026

Page published30 August 2026

What this means. This is when the sources on this page were last read against their originals — statutes, court rules, official schedules — taken from the date this page was built from its sources. It is not the date the page was last edited. Adding a link or fixing a typo does not move it; re-reading the statute does. Law changes without notice, so treat anything time-sensitive as needing a fresh check. Where we get something wrong we publish it at thecusp.app/corrections with the date, what changed, and how long the error was live.

We did not only read the statutes — we asked. What fifteen state revenue departments told us, dated and in their own words.