Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Claiming eligible dependant

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    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

    Comment


    • #17
      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 The link is no longer valid.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!!

      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?

      Comment


      • #18
        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!

        Comment


        • #19
          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.

          Comment


          • #20
            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.

            Comment


            • #21
              So this can not be claimed if separated from the child's birth parent and now living common-law with someone else?

              Comment


              • #22
                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.

                Comment


                • #23
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    [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?

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          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.

                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            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?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                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).

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X