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.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 01-30-2012, 11:36 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 504
frustratedwithex is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

My understanding is CRA just wants you to agree on who will claim the dependent.

My ex. wrote up a letter with both of our names and SIN # at the top of the page, then went on to explain we had shared parenting and described the routine.

He went on to explain that we had agreed who would make the claim. He did not say anything about who was paying support, (I think this part is the important part), just that we had agreed who would make the claim. He also listed the childs name and SIN #.

I signed it and CRA approved his claim.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 01-30-2012, 03:10 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 994
FightingForFamily will become famous soon enough
Default

How does this appear to everywhere as a good clause to support the claim from CRA?

As the parties agree to share custody, they confirm that they will financially support the children by contributing equally to their combined child support amount in accordance with the Child Support Guidelines.

(a) Dad’s table amount is $X per month for 2010.
(b) Mom’s table amount is $Y per month for 2010.
(c) The parties agree that the total support obligation for the family is the sum which is $X+Y per month for 2010, and each party is responsible for $(X+Y)/2.
(d) Mom agrees that Dad is owed the balancing amount of Y-((X+Y)/2) per month in child support.


Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 01-30-2012, 06:45 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 504
frustratedwithex is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

The letter my ex sent didn't say any of this;

Quote:
(a) Dad’s table amount is $X per month for 2010.
(b) Mom’s table amount is $Y per month for 2010.
(c) The parties agree that the total support obligation for the family is the sum which is $X+Y per month for 2010, and each party is responsible for $(X+Y)/2.
(d) Mom agrees that Dad is owed the balancing amount of Y-((X+Y)/2) per month in child support.
It just said we agreed who was going to make the claim and we both signed it.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 01-30-2012, 08:13 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Vaughan
Posts: 2,360
billiechic is on a distinguished road
Default

i think keeping it simple is best. The quote posted from the CRA indicated that the parents had to agree. So a letter with your full names, SINs, names of children and who will claim which child (or in which year) is the most detail they need. Anything else is going to confuse them.

When I hadto clarify I sent in the first page of our order, and the page that dealt with claiming the eligible dependant. I did not send any details on CS, and they were fine with it.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2012, 03:21 PM
billm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,430
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

Regarding claiming eligible dependent in a 50/50 offset CS situation.

I'm not sure if this document has been posted, but I find it very clear regarding my situation (I am denied eligible dependent despite having 50/50 access with offset CS).

My SA states:

The monthly sum to be paid from one parent to the other starting on the 1st day of September, 2008
for so long as each child of the marriage remains a child of the marriage according to the following formula:
(it then goes on to describe the CS offset method, adjusting yearly).

But in this document:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/p102/p102-lp-11e.pdf

on page 35 it states that the agreement must obligate both parents to pay each other. (Whether they, for convinience, only write one cheque from the greater income earner to the lesser has nothing to do with it).

So specifically it seems my SA, though equivalent in outcome to what the CRA is stating is required for a 'payor' to claim a dependent, does not technically meet the requirements. This is because it makes the payment obligation of the offset from the greater income earner to the lessor in writing, rather than stating they must both pay each other. This is crazy because no one actually pays each other! So this is a complete and utter playing with words on the part of the CRA, and makes no sense.

I am wondering if I can use my current SA wording though to win an appeal to claim an eligible dependent since it is painfully obvious that my situation and SA matches in practice the very specific example in the CRA document linked above - specifically example 2 on page 35.

Or do I have to slightly change the wording of my SA and beg my ex to sign it?

Last edited by billm; 11-01-2012 at 03:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2012, 03:37 PM
Tayken's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 6,486
Tayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant futureTayken has a brilliant future
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billm View Post
Regarding claiming eligible dependent in a 50/50 offset CS situation.

I'm not sure if this document has been posted, but I find it very clear regarding my situation (I am denied eligible dependent despite having 50/50 access with offset CS).

My SA states:

The monthly sum to be paid from one parent to the other starting on the 1st day of September, 2008
for so long as each child of the marriage remains a child of the marriage according to the following formula:
(it then goes on to describe the CS offset method, adjusting yearly).

But in this document:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/p102/p102-lp-11e.pdf

on page 35 it states that the agreement must obligate both parents to pay each other. (Whether they, for convinience, only write one cheque from the greater income earner to the lesser has nothing to do with it).

So specifically it seems my SA, though equivalent in outcome to what the CRA is stating is required for a 'payor' to claim a dependent, does not technically meet the requirements. This is because it makes the payment obligation of the offset from the greater income earner to the lessor in writing, rather than stating they must both pay each other. This is crazy because no one actually pays each other! So this is a complete and utter playing with words on the part of the CRA, and makes no sense.

I am wondering if I can use my current SA wording though to win an appeal to claim an eligible dependent since it is painfully obvious that my situation and SA matches in practice the very specific example in the CRA document linked above - specifically example 2 on page 35.

Or do I have to slightly change the wording of my SA and beg my ex to sign it?
Billm,

Excellent find on that document!

Good Luck!
Tayken
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2013, 04:00 PM
billm's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,430
billm is on a distinguished road
Default

Update to the document referenced in my post. The link is no longer valid.

In case this link stops working, the title of the document is
P102 Support Payments - Includes Form T1158
(it is the guide book for form T1158)

Here is the new link to an updated version of the guide

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/p102/p102-12e.pdf

and the page of interest is 11 now. Interesting that they added an example of 50/50 where the SA states that one pays the other CS, where the CRA states only the CS recipeient can claim eligible dependent. They also have an example with 50/50 but the SA states they pay each other CS, and the CRA states they can both claim eligible dependent (though not for the same year for the same child).

These situations are equivalent (one pays offset or each pay the other), but the wording has to be just right to claim eligible dependent - Total red tape BS!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by billm View Post
Regarding claiming eligible dependent in a 50/50 offset CS situation.

I'm not sure if this document has been posted, but I find it very clear regarding my situation (I am denied eligible dependent despite having 50/50 access with offset CS).

My SA states:

The monthly sum to be paid from one parent to the other starting on the 1st day of September, 2008
for so long as each child of the marriage remains a child of the marriage according to the following formula:
(it then goes on to describe the CS offset method, adjusting yearly).

But in this document:
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tg/p102/p102-lp-11e.pdf

on page 35 it states that the agreement must obligate both parents to pay each other. (Whether they, for convinience, only write one cheque from the greater income earner to the lesser has nothing to do with it).

So specifically it seems my SA, though equivalent in outcome to what the CRA is stating is required for a 'payor' to claim a dependent, does not technically meet the requirements. This is because it makes the payment obligation of the offset from the greater income earner to the lessor in writing, rather than stating they must both pay each other. This is crazy because no one actually pays each other! So this is a complete and utter playing with words on the part of the CRA, and makes no sense.

I am wondering if I can use my current SA wording though to win an appeal to claim an eligible dependent since it is painfully obvious that my situation and SA matches in practice the very specific example in the CRA document linked above - specifically example 2 on page 35.

Or do I have to slightly change the wording of my SA and beg my ex to sign it?
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 03-23-2013, 03:37 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 52
now i see the moon is on a distinguished road
Default

I'm in exactly this situation (denied despite shared custody and it says in our agreement who will claim which of our two children). I'm a *net* payor. My "objection" is still in the system being evaluated. I am so mad. Totally red tape bs that makes no sense and I feel like I'm in a dictatorship or something. How do class action lawsuits work? Something has to give!
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 03-23-2013, 11:21 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,836
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

My experience was the same as Frustratedwithex's. Ex and I have shared custody of our daughter. Last year (2011) we both claimed the AED (because we'd managed to omit this issue from our separation negotiations and each of us thought we were entitled to it - honest mistakes). CRA sent us both a notice of reassessment telling is us to clarify who gets the deduction or it will be denied to both of us. We sent them a signed statement saying we agreed that he would claim in odd-numbered years and I would claim in even. Minimal details - just our names & SINs, daughter's name & SIN, the fact that we had shared custody, and that we would alternate claiming the AED. That's all CRA really wants to know.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 03-25-2013, 08:57 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 52
now i see the moon is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stripes View Post
My experience was the same as Frustratedwithex's. Ex and I have shared custody of our daughter. Last year (2011) we both claimed the AED (because we'd managed to omit this issue from our separation negotiations and each of us thought we were entitled to it - honest mistakes). CRA sent us both a notice of reassessment telling is us to clarify who gets the deduction or it will be denied to both of us. We sent them a signed statement saying we agreed that he would claim in odd-numbered years and I would claim in even. Minimal details - just our names & SINs, daughter's name & SIN, the fact that we had shared custody, and that we would alternate claiming the AED. That's all CRA really wants to know.
This is not going to work for me. They already have our separation agreement, which details who will claim which child, and have still denied me.
Reply With Quote
Reply


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
Eligible Dependant-Shared Custody-2 Kids-Yet Again KnotUntied Financial Issues 5 05-01-2014 12:00 PM
Sole,Joint,Shared Custody and Child Support Marcos Divorce & Family Law 34 11-14-2011 04:19 PM
Amount for an Eligible Dependant rmccallion Financial Issues 13 02-22-2011 01:02 PM
claiming eligible dependent frustratedwithex Financial Issues 3 10-14-2010 03:27 PM
50/50 parents claiming equivalent to spouse Deputy Daddy Financial Issues 5 02-06-2010 05:20 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:40 PM.