Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Claiming eligible dependant

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

  • #31
    1. This is the main paragraph
    .....(a) this is a sub paragraph or clause
    ..........(i) this is a sub-sub paragraph of clause
    1. is the main condition. (a) is a subordinate condition, it does not control 1. (i) is further subordinate, it does not control 1. or (a)

    That is how legal contracts, orders, legislation, etc. are read. It is simply how it works.

    If 1. states that each pays the other, then this is the condition that supercedes all other subordinate clauses. It must be read that way by CRA.

    Clause 1. (a) will state the payment scheme for the year(s) following, which will satisfy the needs of FRO.

    Comment


    • #32
      OK that helps. So you're saying NOT making it subordinate would cause them to read it as though parent A is the "payor" (regardless of any previous words in that paragraph) according to their definition and therefore not eligible?

      Comment


      • #33
        Just bumping this to see if anyone has reached resolution, or has learnings that can be shared?

        I find myself in the same boat as many of you. I claimed my son as an eligible dependent, was granted the tax break, and now am in a state of reassessment from CRA.

        My ex and I have a signed Separation Agreement, however, it has not been registered with the courts yet.

        We agreed that we would alternate years in which we would claim our son as "eligible dependant".

        Our child support clause is too vague for CRA. We stated both of our annual incomes that the guideline table amounts are based on, but not the actual table amounts and stated "both parties pay child support, with the husband paying the offset amount of xxx/month to the wife".

        As part of CRA's re-assessment, my ex and I were requested to write a letter that stated our parenting arrangement, how we agreed to claim our son at tax time, and our child support arrangements.

        We wrote the letter up, quoting the relevant clauses from our SA, signed it and faxed it to CRA.

        CRA has responded by stating that while they acknowledge that our shared parenting is 50/50, and we've agreed upon who will claim our son, they are rejecting my eligible dependent claim as we stated that "the husband pays the offset amount to the wife" they go on to say that there is no proof that the wife has any sort of child support obligation to me.

        Now, CRA is requesting that I send them the Separation Agreement. I already know that the child support clause won't cut it......

        So contrived, but what can I do here? I would like to amend the Separation Agreement, by adding an appendix that clearly outlines the child support obligations of both of us, and describes that both of us are payors and recipients of child support.

        Can we go ahead and add an appendix, then have it notarized? Or do we have to go back to our respective lawyers for this utterly ridiculous change?

        Comment


        • #34
          Your agreement needs to say the right words (to quote the movie Labyrinth), namely, that you pay child support to her and she pays child support to you, and for convenience, you pay the net amount.... (see the CRA's examples and copy exactly).

          I use the federal model, we share custody, our judgment says that we will each claim one child. However, because my judgment does not say that my ex pays me (I am the net payor, so of course it says that I pay him), I have been denied my claim by CRA. I argued with them, wrote letters etc. Nothing worked. Ex refuses to change the wording voluntarily.I didn't know the right words to use at the time of the trial and asked my lawyer and the judge for advice. My lawyer didn't know the right words to use. The judge didn't. I didn't yet know the outcome of CRA "use the right words." Hence, my judgment doesn't use the right words even though I am eligible. Tell your lawyer. Tell the judges. This is stupid.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by cool river View Post
            ...I didn't know the right words to use at the time of the trial and asked my lawyer and the judge for advice. My lawyer didn't know the right words to use. The judge didn't....
            THIS is a definitive reason why divorce lawyers SUCK.

            It is an absolute joke that they don't know this very important and simple aspect of a well written agreement.

            It boggles the mind that they don't know this stuff at all. Not one of my ex's many lawyers, or the lawyers I have talked to have ever mentioned this.

            Comment


            • #36
              Thats because CRA keeps changing what they will accept.

              Comment


              • #37
                I'm thinking that CRA would accept this wording:

                “The husband and wife are both payors and recipients of child support. The wife has to pay the husband $xxx/month. The husband has to pay the wife $yyy/month. For convenience, the husband agrees that the wife does not have to write him a monthly cheque and he will simply pay her $zzz/month. The husband and wife agree that this will fulfill both of their child support obligations.”

                I’m thinking that I will also need to state that this amendment is retroactive back to when child support payments first commenced, and was always the understanding and intention of the husband and wife.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Canada Gold 2010 View Post
                  I'm thinking that CRA would accept this wording:

                  “The husband and wife are both payors and recipients of child support. The wife has to pay the husband $xxx/month. The husband has to pay the wife $yyy/month. For convenience, the husband agrees that the wife does not have to write him a monthly cheque and he will simply pay her $zzz/month. The husband and wife agree that this will fulfill both of their child support obligations.”

                  I’m thinking that I will also need to state that this amendment is retroactive back to when child support payments first commenced, and was always the understanding and intention of the husband and wife.
                  I would not even say that much, in your bolded wording, as it will just give CRA more reason to be confused, or push back again. I would drop everything from "for convenience" on. Or better yet, just reword it to say both you and wife pay "each other" child support for child X. Use your names, in the wording, that you amend agreement with.

                  CRA likes "pay each other".

                  The last bit you tacked in there, just seems to give them something to say "oh...husband must pay her, deny him then".

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    I agree that everything on from "for convenience" sounds very convoluted, however, I took that right from the CRA website, from a section that deals with Shared Custody and the Amount for an Eligible Claim; there is an example shown with Ryan and Chloe, who have one child and they agree that Ryan, who pays offset child support, can make the eligible dependent claim on their child.

                    My agreement, as it is written right now, says that "we both pay child support", however, the only further explanation is that "the husband pays the offset amount to the wife".

                    I called CRA and requested that they inform me of the proper wording of the clause. Of course, they wouldn't tell me, and were very ambiguous with me......just told me to go get the SA amended.

                    The rep I talked to seemed to understand the concept of offset child support, while I seemed to understand from her that the clause needs to indicate that while it is only the "offset" amount that physically changes hands, the clause has to indicate that both parents have an obligation to provide child support to each other.........at least, I think I understood that part........wish they would be more straight.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Canada Gold 2010, I feel every ounce of your frustration. I'm currently dealing with a supervisor at the final appeals level and hoping now that I've been able to concretely prove that an offset method is used (my ex is on welfare - they wrote a letter about imputing salary against her and that we pay each other), that this should be enough. Unfortunately, it's all about who you get as a rep at the CRA. There's no rhyme or reason. You might get someone who is understanding and you might now. My advice, follow the examples on the CRA website that give examples to this very item. I am in the midst of going back to court with my ex and this is one item that is set to be remedied. I should know about my appeal shortly. If it unsuccessful, I will be going to tax court against the CRA.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        PS: Our court ordered agreement was apparently ok by "2011 standards" but not now. It's a pile of junk the way the CRA works. Don't let your lawyer or paralegal or anyone else tell you they are going to use the "divorcemate" software or anything else to make your agreement. Ensure YOU know exactly what you need worded so that you don't get hung. Again, I'm sorry that like myself and many many others you are experiencing this.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Canada Gold 2010 View Post
                          I agree that everything on from "for convenience" sounds very convoluted, however, I took that right from the CRA website, from a section that deals with Shared Custody and the Amount for an Eligible Claim; there is an example shown with Ryan and Chloe, who have one child and they agree that Ryan, who pays offset child support, can make the eligible dependent claim on their child.
                          I totally agree. I mean it's clear as day that the wording is exactly like what the guide from CRA says. How can this be wrong??!

                          Also would anyone know or agree that having a written clause in the SA state something like "The parties agree that they will alternate tax years for claiming ***** as an eligible dependant. Mother will claim child during even numbered tax years and father will claim child in odd numbered tax years".

                          Would the above not be enough for CRA to understand??

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I would say yes, it would. But again CRA has their own English language that that don't publish.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Hi All,

                              I've just heard back from CRA appeals and they have verbally told me that they are going to accept my appeal. They are following up with me tomorrow with specifics but it looks like it's gone through and my wording was "approved"!

                              If I can be of assistance with wording after I hear from them tomorrow I would be more than happy to assist as I know how frustrating this is.

                              I will say this. Never accept no. Ask for specifics and ask always to speak to a supervisor. If you can be calm, courteous and present an intelligent and peaceful argument, they seem willing to assist. Again, totally dependent on who you get. Either way, lesson learned. Next time we revamp our agreement, both a lawyer and an accountant will look it over!

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Glad to hear it all worked out for you, vocalfather!

                                If you are able to share how you worded your clause, I'm sure it would be greatly appreciated by others.

                                In the last week, I've spoken to four family lawyers. All of them were aware of the issues that folks experience with the CRA when claiming eligible dependent in shared parenting arrangement, the very stringent wording requirement that CRA demands in child support clauses, but none of them, astonishingly, new the exact wording to land upon!

                                I then spoke with a Financial Divorce Specialist, who provided wording that is pretty much word-for-word of what is outlined on the CRA website, concerning Shared Custody and the Amount for an Eligible Dependent. She indicated that none of her clients have experienced any issue with CRA as a result of the wording.

                                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