Quick question

[kevkermit]

I am the Custodial Parent.  Have claimed the kids every year on taxes except one time signed so that ex could claim the kids.

My ex is requesting court allow him to claim the kids on taxes because he has been paing child support since the time of divorce and hasn't been able to claim them.  

Is it likely he will be able to claim them?  

How do they determine something like that?

[socrateaser]

>I am the Custodial Parent.  Have claimed the kids every year
>on taxes except one time signed so that ex could claim the
>kids.
>
>My ex is requesting court allow him to claim the kids on taxes
>because he has been paing child support since the time of
>divorce and hasn't been able to claim them.  
>
>Is it likely he will be able to claim them?  

Depends on the jurisdiction's laws. It's specific to each State. In CA, for example, the issue of federal tax exemption is rendered entirely moot, because the guidelines are calculated to take into account the final after-tax net, payable to the custodial parent. So, if the non-custodial parent takes the exemption, that parent's support payments will be increased to equalize the gain received from the tax benefit, and the outcome is $0.00, either way. Which means that there's no point in fighting for the exemption, because there's nothing to be gained by winning.

However, I don't know how your State's courts and laws are constructed on this issue, so I can't tell whether or not there is an actually monetary benefit obtained from the tax exemption, and thus I can't advise you as to whether your ex's claim would be viable.

>How do they determine something like that?

Assuming that there is a benefit to the exemption in your jurisdiction, the court would probably to look to whether the net effect of whomever takes the exemption being of benefit to the child(ren). The only way that the exemption could be beneficial to the children that I can see, is if the custodial parent has no income and thus no income tax to pay, in which case, by giving the non-custodial parent the exemption, that permits a net after tax gain to all of the parties.

However, if the custodial parent can obtain a child tax credit by filing a return even absent any income, and that tax credit would be increased by her taking the exemption, then the benefit to the children may be greater by giving the custodial parent the exemption.

There is one other possibility from which I could see the non-custodial parent's receiving the benefit of the tax exemption would be more valuable to the children, and that is if the non-custodial parent's tax savings is greater than the custodial parent's child tax credit, and the non-custodial parent then is ordered to pay the difference to the custodial parent for the children's benefit -- which is what would happen under CA law.

In short, I can't see how your ex could possibly obtain the tax exemption because there is no scenario under which the children will benefit from his obtaining the exemption.

Sorry about the long winded explanation. Sometimes I need to write it out, just so I can read it back and see if I've covered the possibilities completely.

Happy Holidays.

[kevkermit]

Thanks Soc,

I did some calculations on my own and to my knowledge my ex and his wife make approx. 21,000 per year and 8400.00 of that they don't pay taxes on during the year.  Ex's taxable income would be roughly 4900 without claiming the kids and mine would be 55,700.00.  Huge difference.

Between my husband and myself we make roughly 75,000.00 per year.  

I figured it out and with the standard deductions and exemption allowances for everyone, my ex would end up with no tax at all.  My ex's total tax savings by claiming the kids would be 488.00

Mine would be $960.00.  

In addition to this, with the income that they have, the child tax credit that they would be entitled to would not even benefit them at this income level because they wouldn't even have 2000.00 worth of taxes to use the credit towards in which we would.

Well, thanks again and hopefully nothing will change regarding the taxes.

[4honor]

We are in in WA. As an example of how different states are, our guidelines assume that the NCP gets the federal tax deduction every year. Thus an NCP is ALREADY paying higher support to compensate.

The DA (when support enforcement is involved, as it is in 90% of cases in WA -- they are where payments are sent , they are the "state's" attorney in these matters) stated that even an NCP who has not historically had the federal tax deduction can ask for it during any modification and will likely be awarded it.

HOWEVER, there will be times when the tax advantages to the child will be best served by giving the fed deduction to the CP... in which case, their income is increased (making the NCP's income share and ultimate support) go down.  Less taxes = more net income.

[Sherry1]

the tax exemption.

[socrateaser]

Please feel free to post your personal experiences on this board in response to poster questions. However, unless you first contact me privately and provide me with your real identity, including your ID# under which you are licensed to practice in one of the United States, or Canada, then I will not permit you to dispense legal advice, which includes tax advice, because I am prohibited from engaging or assisting others in the unauthorized practice of law -- defined as the application of professional legal judgment, or application of law to facts to reach a legal conclusion.

Failure to follow this rule will result in any/all of your posts being deleted en mass and without review.

Thanks in advance for your cooperation.

[Sherry1]

modification I attended the session with the lawyer with my husband   because we weren't completely sure what to expect or what was going to be needed from me, if anything.  Being very new and uneducated about the child support system at the time, I was a little concerned because we were to provide our tax records and I wasn't completely sure what they were going to be used for.  The lawyer told me that only the income of the bio parents would be used when calculating his child support and that my income as the spouse would not be used as a basis for calculating my husband's child support.

I hope this clairifes my personal experience and I will make sure to only post from personal experiences if I post here again.

[socrateaser]

>modification I attended the session with the lawyer with my
>husband   because we weren't completely sure what to expect or
>what was going to be needed from me, if anything.  Being very
>new and uneducated about the child support system at the time,
>I was a little concerned because we were to provide our tax
>records and I wasn't completely sure what they were going to
>be used for.  The lawyer told me that only the income of the
>bio parents would be used when calculating his child support
>and that my income as the spouse would not be used as a basis
>for calculating my husband's child support.
>
>I hope this clairifes my personal experience and I will make
>sure to only post from personal experiences if I post here
>again.

Yes, thanks for the clarification.

You may not be aware that child support guidelines are different in every jurisdiction. Some States rely only on the paying parent's income while others use an "income shares" model that considers both parents. Most States do not factor in the tax implications of child credits, some States do not give credit to the paying parent for additional daycare or healthcare insurance premiums.

And one State, CA, considers EVERYTHING, which results in both parents being responsible for their legal share based on their respective incomes, and neither parent being able to use a tax exemption, credit or other child support like payment or benefit to improve their position relative to the other parent.

So every state operates just a little different than every other, and no one's situation is the same, unless they live in the other person's jurisdiction.