Child support payer cannot claim dependent

[lynx002ca]

Has this changed at all for 2017 Tax Year, thanks for any help

2.I’m paying child support. Can I still claim my child as a dependant?

If you’re paying child support, you can’t claim your children as dependants on your return, except in the year of separation, assuming you would have otherwise qualified. You also can’t claim a deduction for your child support payments, unless the court order or agreement is dated prior to May 1997. Even though it might not be deductible on your taxes, you still need to indicate the child support amounts you paid.

[rockscan]

If you pay cs and you have nothing in your agreement on sharing the claim then no you cant claim it.

For those that pay cs and claim it the reason is most often because the parties have joint physical custody and one parent claims the child in even years and the other parent in odd years.

So if you pay cs only and have less than half shared physical custody the answer is most likely no you cant claim the child.

[lynx002ca]

I have 50/50 split of two kids and only was able to claim one child one time in the first year. This law is so terrible IMO, make me pay cs all year and then make me pay again at tax time while she gets to claim both kids.

[blinkandimgone]

Yes, you can claim if you are paying offset support.

Your agreement needs to specify the dollar amount you each pay, and the payments must actually be made.

[Janus]

I heard there was a horrifying change. It used to be that you could say


"Mom pays $900, Dad pays $1100, so for convenience Dad will pay $200"


But now Mom has to actually pay the $900, and Dad has to actually pay the $1100, which is insanity... especially if one side decides to default on payments.

[blinkandimgone]

Yes, pretty much that ^^.

I had posted a link to the info a while back but couldn't even begin to imagine where.

[Janus]

Idea: Would this work?


Take the situation where one parent owes $900 and the other owes $1100. If they both actually pay each other the full amount at the same time, then there is no problem. In the real world, there might be a time lag when one parent has paid and the other has not. This could have serious consequences, on either end. Many people don't have that kind of float available in their bank accounts.


My idea is that the CS agreements (of the future) be structured as follows.


Parent A will pay offset plus $1
Parent B will pay $1


Parent B doesn't even have to pay the amount, it won't matter. But perhaps it might satisfy CRA?

[clusterone]

Here's a link to the page that summarizes the issue from the author of the original paper. It also provides a link to the original article.

It's very helpful:

https://www.corkumfinancial.ca/share...unt-july-2017/

[failed@life]

You have to make sure your wording is such that it states both parents pay each other. Any mention of "guidelines" or anything like that and they will deny you. And that is only if the other parent agrees.

Keep in mind if you pay less afterwards due to income changes they will withhold your tax return (they will claim you didn't pay enough cs), so they get you either way...

[OrleansLawyer]

But now Mom has to actually pay the $900, and Dad has to actually pay the $1100, which is insanity... especially if one side decides to default on payments.

Many people hold the view that the tax court got it wrong in that case; the law is developing. CRA still tells people over the phone that the "for convenience only" wording is acceptable, and meets the requirement under s.118 of the ITA.

[Corona99]

Ok so I need to clarify.

Dad makes 75,000.

Mom makes 100,000

They have 2 kids (13 and 9)

Mom pays Dad 182$ in set off child support.

They have 55/45 joint custody.

Mom is an accountant. She says she gets to claim one child and dad can claim one child for the child tax benefit.

From what I’m reading, if she actually just pays the $180 and they don’t do that I’ll pay you 1100 and you pay me 850 craziness - that means that she cannot claim either child as she pays child support, and he gets to claim both children.

Am I interpreting this correctly?

Thanks.

[Rioe]

Ok so I need to clarify.

Dad makes 75,000.

Mom makes 100,000

They have 2 kids (13 and 9)

Mom pays Dad 182$ in set off child support.

They have 55/45 joint custody.

Mom is an accountant. She says she gets to claim one child and dad can claim one child for the child tax benefit.

From what I’m reading, if she actually just pays the $180 and they don’t do that I’ll pay you 1100 and you pay me 850 craziness - that means that she cannot claim either child as she pays child support, and he gets to claim both children.

Am I interpreting this correctly?

Thanks.

Yup, they have to word it exactly the way CRA needs to see it, showing that both parents are recipients.

State explicitly that mother pays father X amount and father pays mother Y amount, and don't mention that it's only an offset that changes hands.

If they word it any other way (ie, mother pays father $182 offset) CRA won't let anybody but the father claim it.

There have been a number of threads here of people having to go through the CRA appeal process and get the wording changed in their order. Reading those may help you get the perfect wording. It would be so nice if family lawyers realized this so they could make the agreements right in the first place.

[Corona99]

It actually works to his benefit. Ex wife is very high conflict and actually stole his whole tax return last year. She’s out for blood. With the way their agreement is worded only he can claim them, so at least he will recoup some of the $ she took.

[dadonown]

Wow, did not realize this was a possibility. Wish I had know this a decade ago.