Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Child Support over 150K income

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

  • Child Support over 150K income

    Hi everyone,

    I wonder if anyone had experience with CS for income above 150k? Are there any different rules there?

    Thank you

  • #2
    The federal child support guidelines address this. Are you looking for something specific?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
      The federal child support guidelines address this. Are you looking for something specific?
      Let's say there is hypothetical (not my) scenario. You earning 149,999 a year, your ex 0, you have 1 child, shared 50/50. Your CS is 1,299.


      Next year you earned 300k. Your CS becomes 2,379, so almost double. I am curious the meaning of this warning in DM/MSC:
      "Child Support (Table): Self's income over $150,000; CSG Table Amount may be inappropriate"

      Comment


      • #4
        This article explains it quite well.

        https://www.separation.ca/help-centr...child-support/

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
          This article explains it quite well.

          https://www.separation.ca/help-centr...child-support/
          thank you. Unfortunately article says that court practically never deviates from CSG, then why even having such rule...

          A 1999 Supreme Court case on this issue stated that there is a strong presumption in favour of using the Table amount for all income over $150,000, and that the support payor will have to show that the Table amount would be unsuitable in order for the court to deviate from it. In that case, the court upheld the use of the Table amount for an income of around $1 million/year.


          If both parents make over 150k, (200k and 300k), it would've be super nice if CS was limited to 150k. Both parents not struggling financially, but these 720 a month CS offset with a creative lawyers on two sides easily become 6 digits lawsuit, cost of which will far exceed lifetime CS payments.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Bogdan View Post
            Yep .. that's my understanding from lawyers as well ... didn't even know the rule existed, as the presumption is you pay full CS regardless of income level (including over 150k/year).
            I heard from my lawyer that you could argue to have the spousal support reduced in these circumstances
            See the case below , here even a lawyer got screwed because of income guidelines . The mother was greedy for money and apparently even 18000$ a month was not enough for her .

            In Pelchat v Chisholm, the court was tasked with determining the payor spouse’s income for spousal and child support purposes. This case was contentious because the payor’s income was highly irregular and there was a large difference in the amount of regular base income vs. dividend/ bonus payments.

            Case Background
            The Applicant filed an interim motion for child and spousal support. The payor requested that he be allowed to pay support on his base income and then pay equity disbursements to the recipient as he receives them on an agreed upon proportion.

            It is not uncommon that income is irregular due to income being divvied up in irregular payment structures. Sometimes income is apportioned through shares, dividends, bonuses, etc. As a result, for the purposes of support payments the base income usually does not accurately reflect the income available for support.

            Although this may seem unfair to a recipient, the allowing of the unbalanced payments is for practicality seeing as how imposing payment on someone for an amount of money they are not guaranteed or in possession of, could create serious cash flow and uncertainty issues. It is a goal of the courts to try to avoid this from happening.

            In the present case, the husband is a lawyer earning about $950,000 per year, which is comprised of about $650,000 in regular income payments and another $300,000 in dividend payments. He requested that he be allowed to pay child and spousal support based on his monthly draw of about $650,000 annual income, which equates to child support of about $8,000 per month and about $10,000 per month in mid-range spousal support. He agreed to share the additional distributions of equity from his firm with his wife when he receives them on an agreed upon proportion.

            The mother argues that support should be payable on the husband's total 2017 income of $989,000, which equates to approximately $12,000 a month in child support and $20,000 per month in spousal support. The mother’s argument is that is it unfair that she be required to wait for additional payments and should be entitled to receive consistent payments on his average yearly income of over $900,000.

            Case Analysis
            The court referred to an earlier Ontario case that addressed irregular income for the purposes of support payments. In Easton v. Coxhead, the judge took into consideration multiple factors in assessing whether the bonus income should be accounted for in regular support payments.

            The judge pointed to the fact that paying additional equity distributions when they are received ensures that the recipient is not being paid too little or too much and avoids significant adjustments later on. The judge also thought it important to note that given the structure of the payor’s job, additional amounts are not guaranteed.

            Additionally, the judge took into consideration the cash flow of the payor and noted that requiring him to pay on the bonuses before they are received would create a grossly disproportionate amount of his monthly disposal income going to the recipient.

            The father must cooperate with both disclosure and payment of additional equity distributions when received and his historic ability to do this carried much favour. Finally, there was no demonstrated need by the mother for the additional amount of support each month to meet her expenses. She will have more than enough to meet her needs and those of the children.

            In taking into consideration the same factors, the judge in Pelchat v Chisholm agreed with the judge in Easton v. Coxhead and accordingly found that the father should pay support based on his annual draw with spousal support in the mid-range and that he will share his additional firm distributions when and if they become available.

            Comment


            • #7
              How was she greedy? Her spousal was temporary and was to be reduced when she went back to work after seriously injuring herself. Full table was ordered for the kids and as the judge rightly pointed outthey should not have to wait for the additional funds like it was during the marriage.

              People with high incomes always feel persecuted because they have to pay. You have kids, you pay for their lifestyle. They arent the ones that got divorced!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                How was she greedy? Her spousal was temporary and was to be reduced when she went back to work after seriously injuring herself. Full table was ordered for the kids and as the judge rightly pointed out�they should not have to wait for the additional funds like it was during the marriage.

                People with high incomes always feel persecuted because they have to pay. You have kids, you pay for their lifestyle. They aren�t the ones that got divorced!
                1) How could the spouse pay her support when he does not have the income to pay .Have you ever heard of advance installment income taxes for self employed persons? Asking for entitlement to a spouses money which he does not have is Greed ,which the judge pointed out that the amount being paid was enough to support her , 18000$ a month is not enough ,WOW.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by AlexLitty View Post
                  1) How could the spouse pay her support when he does not have the income to pay .Have you ever heard of advance installment income taxes for self employed persons? Asking for entitlement to a spouses money which he does not have is Greed ,which the judge pointed out that the amount being paid was enough to support her , 18000$ a month is not enough ,WOW.

                  He was pulling a monthly income through their marriage and hadnt stopped. Not to mention he was holding onto disclosure with a new business venture.

                  She wasnt asking for more. She was asking for disclosure and fully agreed to reduce her spousal when she went back to work.

                  Get over yourself. Rich people arent victims of anything but their own greed.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rockscan View Post

                    Get over yourself. Rich people aren�t victims of anything but their own greed.
                    this comment is nothing but jealousy. So called "rich people" in many cases is hard working class, that achieved their level of income due to hard work, years of education and sleepless nights. They first are being abused by the CRA - the rich one pay 52% of income. From the remainder they pay sometimes over 80% of their income to their ex, as she was smart enough to take kids away and suddenly claim it was her who was caregiver, even if both worked and kids were in daycare and couple had a nanny. Then we have a doctor earning 300k with 20% expenses for the clinic that Family Court refuses to admit for the support purposes. His income is 240, but on hand is 120, minus support - he lives for ~36k a year, with kids living with him 50% of the time.

                    By putting this "rich" doctor on 36k a year budget, you putting at risk all his patients. And same would be with other "rich" specialists. You can't demand from professional earning salary of teenager at mcdonalds to provide service that requires years of education without getting some consequences.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by respondent View Post
                      this comment is nothing but jealousy. So called "rich people" in many cases is hard working class, that achieved their level of income due to hard work, years of education and sleepless nights. They first are being abused by the CRA - the rich one pay 52% of income. From the remainder they pay sometimes over 80% of their income to their ex, as she was smart enough to take kids away and suddenly claim it was her who was caregiver, even if both worked and kids were in daycare and couple had a nanny. Then we have a doctor earning 300k with 20% expenses for the clinic that Family Court refuses to admit for the support purposes. His income is 240, but on hand is 120, minus support - he lives for ~36k a year, with kids living with him 50% of the time.

                      By putting this "rich" doctor on 36k a year budget, you putting at risk all his patients. And same would be with other "rich" specialists. You can't demand from professional earning salary of teenager at mcdonalds to provide service that requires years of education without getting some consequences.

                      Im not jealous at all. I make excellent money as does my husband.

                      Your comments show further greed at having to pay tax. Dont like it, dont live here.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                        Im not jealous at all. I make excellent money as does my husband.
                        Top 1% earners in Canada pay same amount of income tax as entire 90% of one on the other side of the list Canadians. I don't see anything wrong if people demand from government that public money spent wisely. It is also natural that people that spend more could be more upset on how public money are wasted.


                        Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                        Your comments show further greed at having to pay tax. Don�t like it, don�t live here.
                        Are you now advocating for men to flee the country? What a plot twist...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by respondent View Post
                          Top 1% earners in Canada pay same amount of income tax as entire 90% of one on the other side of the list Canadians.
                          Sounds like we have an income inequality problem if the 1% can pay so much tax and still be so wealthy. If your stat is true, it is an argument for higher marginal taxation rates, not lower.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Janus View Post
                            Sounds like we have an income inequality problem if the 1% can pay so much tax and still be so wealthy. If your stat is true, it is an argument for higher marginal taxation rates, not lower.
                            It would be a bad idea from many prospective.

                            First of, by raising taxes even higher, you make people reconsider their residency and move to tax heaven country. Sure, doctor can't WFH, but many can, and government is risking getting 0 income tax if you raise those 52% people are already paying.

                            Second issue you create very little motivation for people to work, to get education, to put an effort etc. Why bother if the end result is about the same?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by respondent View Post
                              It would be a bad idea from many prospective.

                              First of, by raising taxes even higher, you make people reconsider their residency and move to tax heaven country. Sure, doctor can't WFH, but many can, and government is risking getting 0 income tax if you raise those 52% people are already paying.

                              Second issue you create very little motivation for people to work, to get education, to put an effort etc. Why bother if the end result is about the same?
                              Very nicely said. If you make 250k income working as a doc and your million savings earn 250k income . You pay 52% tax tax ,which means all your salary as a doc is paid to the government as taxes , why would you work. This is the the reasons docs have stopped working or are retiring in droves or moving abroad , why work extra to pay the government ,whats the incentive when you can live off your savings. They got further screwed by removal of small business deduction limit if corporate passive income exceeds 150k .

                              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