Daycare Expenses - Where to find ruling?

[HolySmokes]

Hi,
I see there are a few threads discussing division of daycare expenses. It seems as though there are two options (assuming 50:50):

1) Two receipts are issued and each parent claims half expense.

2) As the child support payor, I can pay for daycare expenses less my ex's marginal rate

My problem is convincing my ex-wife of this, she thinks she can claim the entire amount, not give me a receipt and still expect me to pay 50% of the gross daycare amount (double dipping).

Any suggestions where I can find "fact" to this dilema?

Regards,

[FL_Needs_To_Change]

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/E/pub/tp/it495r3/it495r3-e.pdf

Taken from the above government link,

Who may claim the deduction
General rule
¶ 13. Subsection 63(1) provides that an amount paid as or
on account of child care expenses incurred for services
rendered in a taxation year for an eligible child may be
deducted:
(a) only by the taxpayer, when there is no supporting
person (e.g., a taxpayer lives alone with the eligible
child throughout the year); or
(b) only by the taxpayer with the lower income, when there
is a taxpayer and a supporting person and the
circumstances described in ¶ 17(a) to (c) do not apply.
An amount paid as or on account of child care expenses
incurred for services rendered in a taxation year for an
eligible child may be deducted by the taxpayer with the
higher income or partly by both that taxpayer and the
supporting person under certain circumstances (see ¶ 17).
For further information on the calculation of child care
expenses and examples, see ¶s 21-23 for the general rule and
¶s 24-25 for the higher income taxpayer.

17. By virtue of subsection 63(2), the taxpayer with the
higher income will be allowed to deduct child care expenses
under subsection 63(1) (see ¶s 24-25) during the period that
the supporting person with the lower income was:
(a)...
(b)...
(c)...
(d) living separate and apart from the taxpayer at the end of
the year and for a period of at least 90 days beginning in
that year because of a breakdown of their marriage or
common-law partnership. However, such a claim is
valid only if the taxpayer with the higher income paid
those child care expenses and the person with the lower
income is a supporting person. As indicated in ¶ 10,
this requires that the two parties have:
• resided together at some time during the year; and
• reconciled within 60 days after the end of the year.
Because they must have been residing together at some
time during the year and been separated at the end of the
year, such a deduction is available to the taxpayer with
the higher income only for the taxation year in which
the separation occurred. However, as noted in ¶ 18, this
restriction does not apply when the person with the
lower income is not a supporting person.
If any of the situations described in (a) to (d) above applies,
see ¶ 24 to determine the maximum amount that the taxpayer
with the higher income may deduct for child care expenses
for a year.

Etc., Etc,.

[#1StepMom]

We have a clause in the court order that states that each party is responsible for paying their proportionate share of the daycare costs, and my stepson's mom (who claims the total costs in her taxes) is to share the return on daycare with my husband in the same proportionate amount.

[HolySmokes]

Thanks FL_Needs_To_Change and #1StepMom.

...so the most effective way to pay net half is to use the marginal rate scenario as you described #1StepMom, however I need some sort of proof (hopefully without going to a lawyer) that this is procedural. Any thoughts?

[FL_Needs_To_Change]

I went looking for potential case law to support a split in these costs rather then a proportionate share relative to income.
I came across this site, which is a good site to book mark for anyone potentially needing case law surrounding section 7 extra ordinary expenses.
It is a Manitoba site, but has several case law from every province.

Articles

[FL_Needs_To_Change]

Originally Posted by HolySmokes

however I need some sort of proof (hopefully without going to a lawyer) that this is procedural. Any thoughts?

Proportionate sharing of these expenses is a "guiding principle", from which the court may depart, however you would have to show a valid reason, IE hardship other then that associated with the undue hardship claim but rather would cause such harship that one parent would not be able to meet the basic living expenses/support for the children.

[HolySmokes]

Hi FL_Needs_to_Change,

Thanks for the link. This is what I found. Great work!

S.7; Mother works and earns $29,113. Day care cost is $320 monthly which court finds reasonable in circumstances. Share net ,after tax cost, of $226 proportionately.
Gran v. Gran, [1997] S.J. No. 330, Sask.Q.B., Laing J., May 20, 1997