Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 09-25-2012, 05:00 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,448
Mess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the rough
Default

The issue to me is that he is working for 4 years, and taking the fifth year off. He is therefore intentionally underemployed.

The company plan is irrelevant. He could just as easily be putting the money in savings himself each year and then taking an unpaid leave.

He is either working at 75-80% of full time for 5 years, or he is working full time for 4 years and not working at all for the fifth.

If it wasn't through a plan, the result would be that a court would imput a full time income for the fifth year since he is voluntarily choosing not to work that year.

He should paying support on an imputed full time income for all five years, no matter how the plan is set up.
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 09-25-2012, 05:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 669
Nadia is on a distinguished road
Default

Mess, he is working full-time but only getting paid 75-80% of his total income. He will continue to receive an income in his fifth year and will "still be employed" so to speak, but just will not be going into work. From my own research I have found that he is supposed to declare it as income on his Tax Return. So, it will be declared as income on his Notice of Assessment, upon which child support will be based.

Last edited by Nadia; 09-25-2012 at 05:35 PM.
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 09-25-2012, 05:35 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Toronto
Posts: 5,448
Mess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the roughMess is a jewel in the rough
Default

Well, again, it boils down to, he is working 80% and earning 80% over a period of 5 years voluntarily. He should be imputed an income of what he is capable of earning at 100%.

It's not like he is being forced to not take a vacation.
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 10:32 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 669
Nadia is on a distinguished road
Default

His true annual income is $124,000 but he is electing to be only paid 80%. Which kind of explains why the amount of child support has not been adjusted since 2009 when his real income was around $100,136 similar to what is calculated to be now at 80%.

The increase in his contribution towards the 4 over 5 year plan by $400 per month over the past year or so would suggest he has received an increase in salary. But contrary to our Family court order has decided not to share this information.

Accordng to our Family Court Order, we are supposed to adjust Child Support annually (by June 1st) and exchange information on any changes in income. If the applicant (him) refuses to adjust child support in line with guidelines then the respondent (me) is entitled to full costs should it be necessary to take the matter to court.

So, I've written him a civil email asking him to have the amount of Child Support adjusted to the "real" earnings. If he refuses to respond, then what? Where do I go from here? How do I explain all this in a way that it can be understood?

Last edited by Nadia; 09-26-2012 at 10:40 AM.
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 10:39 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,677
OrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
If he refuses to respond, then what? Where do I go from here?
Motion to change, grounds being material change in circumstances (his income) if a specific number was in the original agreement/Order.

Otherwise, if he is to pay in accordance with the guidelines (and provide disclosure), contempt motion to enforce.
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 10:52 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,035
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

Just a question here...what happens in the 5th year? If you are going after his true income now of $124,000, in year 5 when he actually doesn't have an income, but rather is living off income that he has already earned, are you going to agree for his CS payments to basically completely drop because his true income at that time would be far less? Or are you going to double dip? Make him pay off the $124,000 now AND in year 5 request he pay off his past income?
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 10:55 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 669
Nadia is on a distinguished road
Default

Thank you OrleansLawyer. I think a contempt motion (only after I have exhausted every possibility of trying to settle outside of court). But I could be wrong.

The paragraph in question states:

(a) "Commencing in 2009, on or before June 1st of each year, the parties shall exchange the following information with each other in order to determine any change in the quantum of child support being paid:
(i) Their income tax returns and notices of assessment for the previous taxation year;
(ii) A current paystub evidencing his or her gross annual income received to date in that year;
(iii) Any other documentation and information to review child support

(b) In light of these provisions, the parties shall readjust the child support payable retroactive (to January 1st of that year) to attempt to avoid the cost of an unnecessary court application. The parties shall adjust the amount of child support, effective January 1st of that year, by July 1st, based upon the gross annual income earned by the applicant father from the prior year.

(c) Should the parties fail to disclose the said information to one another in a timely manner, the defaulting party shall be liable to the other for her/his costs if a court application is necessary.
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 11:02 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 669
Nadia is on a distinguished road
Default

Those are very good points Berner-Faith. I'm going to try and respond:

Over 5 years he would be receiving a total of 500,000, only 80% of what he should be receiving in real income (600,000). Had he chosen not to register on the 4 over 5 year plan. He voluntarily chose to have 20% of his income put aside into what I consider is essentially a savings plan so that he could take a year off.

Should he be paying less child support because he "elected" to only receive 80% of his total income over 5 years?

So, there would be no double dipping so to speak. He will be paying child support based on what he would have received in income had he chosen not to register on this 4 over 5 year plan.

Last edited by Nadia; 09-26-2012 at 11:10 AM.
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 11:04 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 994
FightingForFamily will become famous soon enough
Default

IMO he is entitled to use this plan. Often these plans are used for enrichment and further education/training during the year off.

You are entitled to CS in the amount of his take-home pay for the 5 year period. His income will be slightly reduced each of these 5 years but you will continue to have regular income.

He did include the 4/5 plan in his documentation though it was not labelled correctly. He certainly hasn't been hiding it.

I don't really understand that he finally finished paying spousal support of 1500 and suddenly you turn around and slap him in the face of 1000 per month in section 7. Where the heck did that come?

With FRO garnishing 50% of his salary his assessment of being unable to afford to live or buy tires for his car is quite likely accurate.

With my salary of of 63k per year, paying CS and spousal, after deductions I make around 22k per year, which is MINIMUM WAGE. Thus I had a higher income when I was 17 working at Tim Hortons then I do now.
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 11:05 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,677
OrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Should he be paying less child support because he "elected" to only receive 80% of his total income over 5 years?
It would depend on his reasons for doing so. The onus is on you to show that he should be earning a higher income.

If his actions will reflect well on his future career ambitions or are otherwise reasonable, there is no guarantee the courts will impute an income to him above his line 150.
Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Self employed financial disclosure during year billm Financial Issues 5 05-04-2012 03:21 AM
Working on trying to figure out a Parenting Plan E-Gal Parenting Issues 2 09-22-2011 03:32 PM
Separation Agreement - Pension valuation. wmike Divorce & Family Law 4 11-19-2009 06:30 AM
Support for 23 year old son gooddadgoingmad Financial Issues 3 07-19-2007 10:29 AM
Paying spousal support on $40 000 per year sammysdad Financial Issues 4 03-12-2007 10:04 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:38 AM.