No Child Care Receipts

[CuriousBug]

Can someone stop paying section 7 expenses until receipts are given, and the amount of the cost is proven?

The situation:
The Mother claims that Child Care Costs are $1400 monthly (gross costs).
The Father has been paying 70% of this cost for 6 months.
The Father recently received the Mother's Notice to Disclose. There are no transactions in the bank statements consistent with $1400 monthly.
The Father would like receipts dating back 6 months to prove this cost is accurate, and that it was in fact being paid.
The Mother's Child Care Expense Claim Form in her 2012 tax return did not include the SIN Number of the Nanny, leading the Father to wonder if there are any legitimate receipts, and if the Nanny is even claiming the income.
The Father recently learned that Section 7 costs are to be calculated on a Net basis (which is not currently being done).
The nanny is not related to either party, nor is she a live-in nanny. She is friends with the Mother, which makes the Father wonder if these transactions are legal, and if the costs are true.

There is no court order or written agreement in place. He's been paying on his own good will but now, with this information coming to light, he's concerned that he's being taken advantage of.
Legally, can he refuse to pay Section 7 expenses until the true costs can be shown, as well as proof that it HAS been paid every month? Can the Mother say they were cash transactions, therefor there is no proof? Will that fly?

Secondly, the Mother chose to get a private nanny. Based on her income she would qualify for subsidy if she used an approved means of child care. Should this factor into things? She is choosing not to put them in daycare so her friend can be their nanny.

[HappyMomma]

If she is claiming the expenses on her income tax then she MUST have a receipt, therefore, she should be able to provide it.

I wouldn't pay another cent without a receipt. But that's just my opinion.

[OntarioMomma]

I believe when both parents are paying for child care, the child care provider should be a neutral third party, not a friend of either side.

I wouldn't pay another nickel until proper receipts are provided.
Unfortunately I think the Father is at a loss for what he's already paid.

[CuriousBug]

Thank you so much for the input.

With no order in place, is it understandable to stop paying section 7 without proof of payment? Or does it look uncooperative?

What if she claims they were cash transactions? I've always understood that if you can't prove it then it didn't happen.

[dad2bandm]

Without receipts...there is no requirement for Dad to pay right now. I would ask for receipts, and proper accounting of these expenses, to be split proportionally to income (and yes, there is a "netting" with tax decuctions, etc).

If I were Dad, I would hold onto the daycare money though, because Mom can simply come back, with proper receipts, and then Dad would be on the hook for these costs.

But certainly, he should have proof of the expense.

Likely, if the "ex" is not claiming this on her tax returns, and it's a "friend" that does this "babysitting", the friend is likely doing it under-the-table. That shouldn't be Dad's issue.

Unless of course, he's getting a deal...which it sounds like he is not.

[HappyMomma]

Thank you so much for the input.

With no order in place, is it understandable to stop paying section 7 without proof of payment? Or does it look uncooperative?

What if she claims they were cash transactions? I've always understood that if you can't prove it then it didn't happen.

You make it very clear that you have no issue paying for the expense but you must insist on a receipt. Like I said - if she's claiming it on her taxes there MUST be one.

[CuriousBug]

Thank you!

[OrleansLawyer]

Can someone stop paying section 7 expenses until receipts are given, and the amount of the cost is proven?

If there are no receipts then no money was paid.

can he refuse to pay Section 7 expenses until the true costs can be shown

If receipts are not provided then there were no expenses incurred. Why would he be paying if there wasn't an expense?

Can the Mother say they were cash transactions, therefor there is no proof? Will that fly?

If she says there were cash transactions she is acknowledging payment.

If she says there were no payments then it is incumbent upon the payor to prove his claim that payments were made.

Bank records may be of assistance in proving that she received the payments. However, if it was done exclusively by cash, there is a not insignificant possibility that the money never went on the books, in which case evidence of the payments will not exist.

Based on her income she would qualify for subsidy if she used an approved means of child care. Should this factor into things?

The net cost is what is shared. If she is incurring a higher cost without reasonable cause then this should not be shared.

is it understandable to stop paying section 7 without proof of payment?

Use cheques or bank transfers. Or have her sign a receipt indicating payment was made. If she refuses, why pay?

[CuriousBug]

Thank you for the insight.

I should have been clearer in my original post:
If the MOTHER paid the nanny cash, therefor she has no paper trail (ie: no proof of payment via cheque, money order, bank transfer, etc), is that an acceptable reason of why she cannot provide proof of payment or receipts.

[OrleansLawyer]

If the MOTHER paid the nanny cash, therefor she has no paper trail (ie: no proof of payment via cheque, money order, bank transfer, etc), is that an acceptable reason of why she cannot provide proof of payment or receipts.

The onus is on her to prove the payments. An affidavit from the babysitter may be proof of the payments, although I would still want a receipt. Tax benefits need to be applied to the amount to find the net amount to be split.

If the amount is unreasonable, it becomes disputable.

[CuriousBug]

The onus is on her to prove the payments. An affidavit from the babysitter may be proof of the payments, although I would still want a receipt. Tax benefits need to be applied to the amount to find the net amount to be split.

If the amount is unreasonable, it becomes disputable.

Thank you.