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
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 03-26-2013, 08:34 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 29
skins56 is on a distinguished road
Default

So this can not be claimed if separated from the child's birth parent and now living common-law with someone else?
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 05-01-2013, 06:58 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 139
Marcos is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by billm View Post
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 The link is no longer valid.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!!
Great info Billm.

I've been doing a lot of research on this myself. Here is what i've found:

In shared custody with a minimum 60/40 split in time sharing, each parent can:

1. Each Parent can Apply for the Canada Child Tax Benefit and the Universal Child Care Benefit; Each parent will get their share of the benefit on a monthly basis. Meaning you're get "X" amount and the other parent will get "X" amount. (it used to be one gets 6 months and the other gets the other 6 months)

2. Each Parent can apply for the "Eligible Dependent Tax Credit" NOT IN THE SAME YEAR. Both parents will need to decide who claims. Here is the caveat: In order to claim this your agreement must state that Parent A pays X amount and Parent B Pays X amount to the other. [It should NOT say that for convenience Parent A pays Parent B X Amount instead] - Yes, it's just wording.

3. Each parent can claim their portion of the Child Care Expense. The same Caveat as Point 2 seems to apply. - I believe this has to be claimed along with the Eligible Depend Claim, so you'll have to work this out with your ex. (Almost 100% sure about this last part)

That's basically all you can claim.

Now, somewhere on the CRA site it also states that a separation agreement or court order that only deals with Child Support Payments DOES NOT have to be registered.

As some folks have done and mentioned in this thread, a simple letter to CRA stating that the child spends 50/50 time with each parent and that each would take turns claiming the dependent tax credit my suffice.

Since, you've already registered your agreement, you may wish to have it amended and re-registered with CRA, they may accept it.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2013, 12:43 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,838
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

Two quick comments:

1. Yes, you have to be careful with the wording and say that you pay each other CS, rather than saying one party pays offset, even though it makes no difference in terms of the money changing hands. The former wording means that you're both technically CS recipients - each of you is paying the other - and so you're both eligible to claim the credits/deductions allowed for recipients.

2. I've been able to my claim child care expenses in years when I didn't claim the AED deduction (because ex and I alternate years) - CRA didn't have a problem with it.
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2013, 07:36 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 43
cool river is on a distinguished road
Default

[It should NOT say that for convenience Parent A pays Parent B X Amount instead]

Why not? is this just your opinion? Is it based on experience?
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2013, 10:20 AM
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

Quote:
Originally Posted by cool river View Post
[It should NOT say that for convenience Parent A pays Parent B X Amount instead]

Why not? is this just your opinion? Is it based on experience?
Google CRA Eligible dependant and find out for yourself. This has been explained thoroughly in numerous posts.
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2013, 10:37 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 43
cool river is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mess View Post
Google CRA Eligible dependant and find out for yourself. This has been explained thoroughly in numerous posts.
You'll have to point me to those posts because as far as I know I've been through them all and haven't noticed an explanation for this particular point (i.e., why you shouldn't actually write down "for convenience a payment of xx will be paid from parent A to parent B]. In fact, I can't imaging leaving it out, legally, because otherwise how would FRO know what amount they're dealing with (assuming payments are dealt with by FRO)? I don't think you'd expect them to do the subtraction themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2013, 10:50 AM
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

1. The main clause should state that each pays the other according section 9 (a) of the child support guidelines;
(i) a sub clause should state that for xxxx(year), a setoff between the two payments will result in a payment by party A to party B of $xxx.xx.

It should be clearly formatted so that the statement indicating the setoff amount is clearly subordinate to the clause directing that each pays the other.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cool river View Post
You'll have to point me to those posts because as far as I know I've been through them all and haven't noticed an explanation for this particular point (i.e., why you shouldn't actually write down "for convenience a payment of xx will be paid from parent A to parent B]. In fact, I can't imaging leaving it out, legally, because otherwise how would FRO know what amount they're dealing with (assuming payments are dealt with by FRO)? I don't think you'd expect them to do the subtraction themselves.
Please read the first post in this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2013, 10:54 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 43
cool river is on a distinguished road
Default

Thanks, Mess, for the clarification, but now we're back to my original question, in a different form: why does the second clause need to be clearly subordinate? Is this recommendation based on experience or your opinion or some kind of case law?
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2013, 10:55 AM
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

Again, please read the first post in this thread. Real life examples of parents being denied the eligabile dependant credit are all over this message board.
Reply With Quote
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 05-02-2013, 11:00 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 43
cool river is on a distinguished road
Default

reading the first post in this thread does not answer my question. Why do you say it needs to be subordinate (or not mentioned at all Billm)?

I'm asking because i'm working on language for my divorce order (what I want it to look like) and I have in the words "for convenience, parent A pays parent b..." based on advice from this forum and from the CRA interpretation bulletin examples. I admit I didn't notice that the "for convenience" part wasn't actually recommended for the text of the agreement, so it's possibly a good point. But I want to know why you are suggesting it be subordinate or why Billm says it shouldn't be there at all. (PS CRA has rejected me too for the reasons in the first post as my agreement refers to the legislation underpinning but then says I pay parent b xx amount).
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 01:00 PM
Sole,Joint,Shared Custody and Child Support Marcos Divorce & Family Law 34 11-14-2011 05:19 PM
Amount for an Eligible Dependant rmccallion Financial Issues 13 02-22-2011 02:02 PM
claiming eligible dependent frustratedwithex Financial Issues 3 10-14-2010 04:27 PM
50/50 parents claiming equivalent to spouse Deputy Daddy Financial Issues 5 02-06-2010 06:20 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:20 AM.