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
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2006, 12:25 AM
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1
stillstrong is on a distinguished road
Default Ex is Military

Hello, all!!
Just a couple of quick questions that perhaps someone out there could provide some input or direction.
My ex is military. We have been separated for 3+ years. I have custody of our 2 young children and he sees them alternate weekends/holidays when his hectic work schedule can allow it. We have an excellent relationship, the kids have a tight bond with their dad, and I hate to rock the boat, if you know what I mean, but......... I'm just barely making it financially. I work full time, but only make $25k/year. Child support of $700/month is faithfully paid. He pays 2/3 of childcare/extra curricular actitivies. But I live pay cheque to pay cheque...barely.
When he goes on tour he makes an extra $30k approx. over and above his regular pay ($50k). And that extra UN/NATO pay is tax free and is not on his tax return. He also makes another $500/month tax free from Veterans Affairs for a disability pension.
Can that extra pay that he makes be included in his gross annual income when calculating child support? How do I get proof in income from him as that money does not show on his tax return?
He is getting ready to deploy to Afghanistan for a 2nd tour this summer, but I'm undecided if I want to go ahead and see if I can receive more childsupport for fear of upsetting the "balance".
Thanx!!!
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2006, 06:17 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,943
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity
Default

stillstrong,

I did reply to this yesterday, but there is a "gliche" with the posting and some posts are not showing up or posting multiple posts.

The courts do have the jurisdiction and mandate to input an income to a party for child support calculation purposes.

In your situation, it is somewhat difficult to determine what the payor's actual income is being that its not reported on the respective ITAX return due to its tax free status. I further add these "under the table bonus's" are paid in US dollars. I have some limited knowledge on this; I have a cousin who is based out of Trenton, who is going to Afganistan for a tour of duty. She did mention to me a few weeks ago what she was going to receive something like $1300 US dollars per month danger pay. (9600) for the tour in addition to the regular wages.

I honestly feel that some income should be inputed as it is employment income. Question is how much to input and what frequency.

The income may not be reported on one's income tax, but you can bet that somewhere the military has tracked the transfer of the money via payroll deposits. A good way to find out is to request banking records. It's definitely paid by cheque or automatic deposit. There would be a paper trail somewhere.

One thing to keep in mind is "tours of duties" are not consistent. One never knows when they are going to be sent away. It is similar to trying to predict future overtime hours. Generally child support is calculated from past 3 years income, not future years income.

As far as the VA pension income, this amount should definitely be included in payors income for child support calculations. The income is consistent and fixed.

LV
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-15-2006, 11:37 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 88
DadofTwoGirls is on a distinguished road
Default

I don't agree with the nickel and dime approach to these support calculations. In the above mentioned examples I see two separate reasons why the income should not be considered for support purposes. In the first case, the payor has chosen to go to a high risk theatre of operations to carry out a mission mandated by the Government. Why should anyone, including the children, benefit from the personal risks that this individual is taking - other than that individual? The purpose of the tax-free nature of the income is to reward the individual for the personal sacrifices he/she is making. To sit here, safely in Canada and argue in the comfort of your low-risk home is absurd.

In the second case, the individual is receiving a medical pension for a chronic injury to himself as a result of his service to his country. As such, the individual has lost or restricted use of his body as a result of his job. This loss is his own and he has to live with it. The Government has attempted to compensate him in the only way they can - monetarily. How then, do the children (and hence child support payments to mom) have a right to any portion of that remuneration for his loss? They don't!

How would an individual with any true character or morality consider those sorts of money in support payment calculations?

I truly find it petty and selfish.

If I found out that one of my parents had attempted to base support payments on such income, I would have been very disappointed.

It seems that sometimes we forget to take a step back and consider the morality of what we are doing in these nasty divorce situations.

We all ought to give our heads a shake sometimes and be quite thankful for what we have instead of stressing about what we think we deserve.

It's really about what the kids deserve. Above all, they deserve two loving parents who spend more time smiling than they spend worrying about their perceived entitlements.
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2006, 12:22 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 860
Grace has a spectacular aura aboutGrace has a spectacular aura about
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DadofTwoGirls
It's really about what the kids deserve. Above all, they deserve two loving parents who spend more time smiling than they spend worrying about their perceived entitlements.
I think the children deserve each parent contributing to their financial needs based on their "true" income. Stillstrong, you seem to have a good relationship with your ex, perhaps you could work this out between the two of you or through mediation.
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2006, 08:35 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 88
DadofTwoGirls is on a distinguished road
Default

So then is it Line 150 based or not? Only if that's more advantageous to the payee and then some other formula if that's more advantageous?
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2006, 10:45 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 238
god knows the truth will become famous soon enough
Default

If the parents were still together, the children would benefit through family income---why should it be different b/c they're divorced. The father didn't divorce the children.
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2006, 11:36 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 88
DadofTwoGirls is on a distinguished road
Default

In the case or the Afghanistan deployment, the effect is on the taxable income and not Line 150. It is not "extra pay", it is a reduction in taxes.

The children certainly do benefit. The father has more disposable income to spend on his children.

It is the same for the disability pension. The father would have more money for the children. At the other home, the mother does not have the disability for which the father is being compensated. She also did not assume the personal risk of the deployment. So, why should she be benefit?

The rules cannot be arbitrarily applied based on maximizing the benefit to the payee.
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2006, 11:53 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 479
Decent Dad is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

oh boy... here we go...

GNTT... I hear that statement all the time... along with "well, child support is for the children".... and multiple variations thereof. Or.. "how dare you buy a car when your children are eating gruel and working the coal mines"... but I digress.

You cannot begin to equate what two people do together vs what two people do apart. People always rationalize this and the laws (re)enforce the concept; even though you are divorced, you shall act as one body... um, well, when it is convienent, and especially when it involves money from A->B. Imputing income and going after non-reoccurring income is all the rage now.

Also, you can get into endless debates regarding whatif's involving married vs divorced couples: hmmm.. well, if they were together, maybe she would work. If they were together, maybe he wouldn't go dangerous missions. And on and on. I really dislike those kinds of arguments as it is that kind of rationalization is what gums up the entire SYSTEM - from top to bottom.

If the father makes more money, let him DECIDE to spend it on however he wants. And if he wants to buy something for the kids, all the better. What is going to happen is basically the guy will give up and go, hey its not worth it anymore, screw it. No more missions. hmm.. maybe I'll retire.

To answer the original question, why not ask your ex for some help. Maybe point out specific purchases (e.g. a new bike). Or suggest an amount per month. Take a soft approach instead of the hammer. You might also have trouble with non re-occurring income, etc. and you could be in court a long time. Avoid court when you can.

BTW, her net income right now is more than his.
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-16-2006, 11:10 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 238
god knows the truth will become famous soon enough
Default

D D you tend to bend and twist posts and situations to accommodate your thinking. you hear 'the money is for the kids' and other versions of.. all the time b/c it is, at least it should be. A divorced family is not one in body, as you have said, a divorced family is one financially--especially when there are children involved.
You suggested that "stillstrong" ask ex to chip in for certain items(example you gave was bike).That's purely hypocritical on your part. Several weeks ago there were posts about child support and i said i ask my ex to chip in for certain activities for the kids, whether he wanted to or not was his choice. I named the numerous activities and exposure to various aspects of life that my kids have had the pleasure of experiencing. I simply mentioned that i've asked my ex to chip in and you were appauled at that, saying that shoudl be covered by child support. I then posted again and mentioned a few things i've had my children involved with and where they're been and you had no response b/c you knew child support would not cover all those experiences and activities, pay half for food, clothing etc. you actually did answer....by evading the question.
The very thing you condemned me for is the very thing you're suggesting to stillstrong. same player;different stages.
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-17-2006, 01:27 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,943
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity
Default

I would just like to comment that the standard financial form - issued by the Ont courts form 13 is very clear in what is to be included in ones income. As listed in PART I for the preceding 12 months, that being pensions, overtime and other bonus's. Moreover this is a space for trusts ie: estate gifts and "Other income"

http://www.ontariocourtforms.on.ca/e...mily/index.jsp

lv
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



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:12 AM.