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
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 11:07 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,035
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

Nadia I understand what you are saying... but you have to look at the double dipping aspect... will it average out in the long run for you?

If this is a plan that is non-taxable income in the 5th year, then in reality he has no income in the 5th year and he would be entitled to a drop in CS... do I think he should be focusing on less CS...not at all... but you have to factor in if taking him to court is really going to be in your best interest, because if you want to go off his real income for the first 4 years, you can't then decide in the 5th year to change the rules because they suit you.

All I am saying if you are going to sent a pattern once you go to court and right now that pattern (using his real income 100%) works in your favour, but in year 5 his real income could be 0% or be the 20% he put away.
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 11:17 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 669
Nadia is on a distinguished road
Default

Bernerfaith:

The income is tax deductable in the fifth year. There is no drop in income in the fifth year. As I explained earlier his annual income of 100,000 that he will receive in year five will be declared as income and appear on his NOA as it has done in previous 4 years. He is only paying tax on what he is receiving as income for year one through to four.

I am either doing a terrible job of explaining all this OR have it all wrong. This is how I see it:

Year one: receives 80% of his salary but earned 100%
Year Two: receives 80% of his salary but is earned 100%
Year three: receives 80% of his slary but earned 100%
Year four: receives 80% of his salary but earned 100%
Year five: receives 80% of his salary but earned 100% but doesn't go into work

The question is should he be paying for what he is earning over 5 years (including year five) or what he has chosen to receive in respect to a reduced salary?

But you are right, is it worth pursuing in court? To be honest, I have not decided.

Last edited by Nadia; 09-26-2012 at 11:25 AM.
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 11:33 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,035
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

How is he receiving 100% in the 5th year? If for 4 years he is putting 20% away, the 5th year he is really only receiving 80%, just like every other year?
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 11:39 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,678
OrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the roughOrleansLawyer is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Year one: receives 80% of his salary but earned 100%
Year Two: receives 80% of his salary but is earned 100%
Year three: receives 80% of his slary but earned 100%
Year four: receives 80% of his salary but earned 100%
Year five: receives 80% of his salary but earned 100% but doesn't go into work
So, he receives 80% in year five but earns 0% due to not working, correct?

Berner's point is that, based on his earnings, you either get child support on 80% of his income for 5 years or child support for 100% of his income for 4 years and then 0% in the fifth year.

This would be based on his income, with any child support above that to require income to be imputed to him (either every year or specifically the 5th year).
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 11:48 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 498
sahibjee is on a distinguished road
Default

in addition to the $$$s there is another human side of things. this matter can be pursued in court and a favorable or unfavorable result can be earned. things may be sour now but should one really bring things to the level where the two cant even talk to each other on such trivial matters?

its a matter of careful calculations but since i have not been there my calculations may be wrong, yet with the amounts being received quoted above, i dont think raising 3-4 kids without any financial contribution from the CP should be a problem.

remember that slavery was once 100% legal in this country it was the LAW!. just because the law is unreasonable it does not mean you have to be too.
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 11:59 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 498
sahibjee is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FightingForFamily View Post
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.
I can see that happening with 100% validity as i am not far off myself, the only difference is my ex-lawyer successfully argued a spousal support which was at least 50% less than the minimum at SSAG.

here was his argument, may be others can use it too

"my client has to pay his criminal lawyer $XXXX.xx" per month, after paying the crim lawyer he is loaning $XXXX.xx/m for his own living. if he does not pay the criminal lawyer, the lawyer leaves him. then he cant defend against the criminal charges and goes to jail, in which case not only spousal but also the child support will terminate. therefore no spousal support should be ordered until the disposition of criminal charges"

in addition to above what also worked in my favor was that I started paying CS the day we broke up, well before the ex filed an application in court, as well as her rent for until two months after her filing the application, the judge really commended these actions.

yet after paying all those amounts i am in a sload of loans per month.
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 01:05 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 669
Nadia is on a distinguished road
Default

Sorry Berner Faith,

I think this might be more accurate:

Year one he is receiving 80% (100,000) of his salary but IF he was not registered on the plan would be receiving 100% around $124,000

Year two he is receiving 80% of his salary but IF he was not registered on this savings plan he would be receiving 100% around 124, 000

Year three he is receiving 80% of his salary but IF he was not registered on this plan would be receiving around 124,000

Year four he would be receiving 80% of his salary but IF he was not registered on the plan he would be receiving 100% i.e. 124,000

Year five he would be receiving 80% of his salary but IF he was not registered on the plan he would be receiving 100% i.e.124,000

The question is - is it reasonable to expect him to pay child support in line with what he would have been receiving if he was not registered on this savings plan?

Registration on the plan is not mandatory and is voluntary. He decided by choice that he would take a reduced pay check but does that mean he pays less child support?

I am basing this on what "mess" said several posts ago.

The situation would be different, if for example he was forced to switch jobs and income dropped or he was laid off. Of course child support should be reduced to match what the income is. BUT he is choosing/electing to have a reduced salary.

Look at this way: The employer is giving him a choice. They are saying, (a) hey buddy you can get 124,000 (your full salary) every year or you can register on a 4 over 5 year plan where you get a paid/self funded sabbatical in your fifth but only get paid 80% of your salary for 5 years.

In respect to whether it is worth pursuing. I don't know. It all depends upon his financial situation. If as he is claiming, that he is already finding it difficult to make ends meet and is relying on his line of credit to pay off credit cards, I am not sure why he is on the plan in the first place. If he is already in arrears for child support, how is increasing the level of child support going to help any but just continue to accumulate more arrears.

Last edited by Nadia; 09-26-2012 at 01:38 PM. Reason: additional info
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 01:25 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

sahibjee, please don't pull the thread off topic. Nadia has a legitimate question. You may start your own thread if you don't want to help her.
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 01:46 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,035
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

I understand what you are saying but lets put some other numbers to it...

An income of $124k for 3 kids (I thought I read somewhere you had 3 kids, sorry if this is not accurate) would warrant CS of $2222 per month or $26664 per year

An income of $120k for 3 kids would warrant CS of $1845 per month or $22140 per year...

Difference being $377 per month or $4524 per year... so it $4524 worth fighting over in court?

Now in the long run, over 5 years that works out to over $22k... however is an extra $4500 a year, as important to you as lets say a good working relationship with your ex?

You are getting a large amount of CS (if you have 3 children), which should be more than enough to cover what needs to be covered plus some.

People are entitled to take vacations, he just so happens to have a job that is allowing him a year off, but still basically getting paid... he could just as easily take his vacations throughout the 5 years and not get paid, which would reduce his income.

Fact being, he is not living off of $124k per year, he is living off of $120k, which is what his CS should be based on. He is not hiding income, in which point imputing would make sense, he is simply saving...

May I ask why if you are receiving over $2000 a month in CS, plus $1000 in Section 7, why you would even fathom taking this to court? You are basically getting $36K per year, which is more than I make in a full year, and I work full time at 50 plus hours a week.
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 09-26-2012, 02:01 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 669
Nadia is on a distinguished road
Default

I do not have 3 kids. I have two. I have never stated I have 3.

I am not receiving 2000 in Child Support.

According to our court order which is based on his 2008 income I am supposed to be receiving 1400. I am receiving 1089 in Child Support.

The additional 1000 is for special section seven expenses for a child with special needs who requires a specialized program. I am paying 1500 towards the specialized program. And no I do not earn anything close to what he is receiving as a reduced salary.

The year off would be in addition to regular vacation time.

Last edited by Nadia; 09-26-2012 at 02:13 PM.
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 09:58 AM.