75/25 arrangement Is there child support?

[StillPaying]

2 things to add... make each party physically pay each other. Add into the agreement who gets to collect the tax credits. If you want to spilt them that is.

You keep saying this in multiple threads, yet it's still wrong.

Paying a setoff amount doesn't matter with regards to child benefits. And they don't alternate years anymore. CRA will pay based on 40%+ access, and they pay you 50% of what you personally would receive if you had the kids full time.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...d-benefit.html
(I got this from Google)

[StillPaying]

Newfie76 behavior is principled and they are stating facts backed up by rulings in Canlii.

So "facts backed up by rulings" state no payment is due, but that is corrupt and N76 believes he should pay and will. The honourable sucker excuse - I get it know.

[Challenger]

My guess is that OP would receive full table support for 6 months, and pay offset the other 6.

Actually, this would a lot depend on the judge and how reasonable ex is.

I’ve seen a case when family moved from 0/100 to 50/50, with receiver salary moved from 0 to 150k and it took case judge 2 years to agree updating CS. No one of course ordered repay support overpayment, judge was just irritated by payer mentioned this.

Get same type of judge, and good luck with your « just » 6 months change.

[noteasy]

You keep saying this in multiple threads, yet it's still wrong.
Paying a setoff amount doesn't matter with regards to child benefits. And they don't alternate years anymore. CRA will pay based on 40%+ access, and they pay you 50% of what you personally would receive if you had the kids full time.
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...d-benefit.html
(I got this from Google)

I keep saying it because it is true, backed up by Tax law, case law and even the CRA website.

You provided a link for the Canada Child Benefit. Normally I am detailed on this but failed to put in the words "eligible dependent" credit in this post for you.
Here is the correct link from the CRA site, click "yes" to those 2 questions THEN you will get to see the section "You can claim this amount except if:":
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...ine-30400.html

You can claim this amount except if:

• The claim is for a child you had to make support payments for in 2022. However, if you were separated from your spouse or common-law partner for only part of 2022 because of a breakdown in your relationship, you may be able to claim an amount for that child on line 30400 (plus any allowable amounts on line 30425 and line 31800 of your return) if you did not claim any support amounts paid to your spouse or common-law partner on line 22000 of your return. Claim whichever is better for you

This also counts for claiming dependents and the associated credits.
The law and the case law on this is very clear:
-Party A must pay party B
-Party B must pay party A
-They must actually pay each other the amounts and not an offset. This statement is backed up by law and case law as well.
-The parties must agree who is claiming the credit.

So while some people claim to not have had issues or that they won their CRA hearing because the agreement said they are to pay each other both of those sets of people can get bitten later on if the CRA comes knocking and they do, hence, the case law on it created when people lost their cases against the CRA.

Harder vs the Queen is your start on this then the tax code then further cases that came up circa 2018

[blinkandimgone]

Whuch is entirely irrelevant if OP is partnered, only child tax would be relevant.

[rockscan]

I keep saying it because it is true, backed up by Tax law, case law and even the CRA website.

You provided a link for the Canada Child Benefit. Normally I am detailed on this but failed to put in the words "eligible dependent" credit in this post for you.
Here is the correct link from the CRA site, click "yes" to those 2 questions THEN you will get to see the section "You can claim this amount except if:":
https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...ine-30400.html

You can claim this amount except if:

• The claim is for a child you had to make support payments for in 2022. However, if you were separated from your spouse or common-law partner for only part of 2022 because of a breakdown in your relationship, you may be able to claim an amount for that child on line 30400 (plus any allowable amounts on line 30425 and line 31800 of your return) if you did not claim any support amounts paid to your spouse or common-law partner on line 22000 of your return. Claim whichever is better for you

This also counts for claiming dependents and the associated credits.
The law and the case law on this is very clear:
-Party A must pay party B
-Party B must pay party A
-They must actually pay each other the amounts and not an offset. This statement is backed up by law and case law as well.
-The parties must agree who is claiming the credit.

So while some people claim to not have had issues or that they won their CRA hearing because the agreement said they are to pay each other both of those sets of people can get bitten later on if the CRA comes knocking and they do, hence, the case law on it created when people lost their cases against the CRA.

Harder vs the Queen is your start on this then the tax code then further cases that came up circa 2018

This has been discussed ad nauseam on various other threads and is NOT what the OP is asking about. You don't need to keep posting and arguing a moot point. This is hijacking the thread which you have been asked not to do.

[noteasy]

This has been discussed ad nauseam on various other threads and is NOT what the OP is asking about. You don't need to keep posting and arguing a moot point. This is hijacking the thread which you have been asked not to do.

Wow. So you chose to single me out instead of Stillpaying? Are you a moderator Rockscan?
hmmm

Whuch is entirely irrelevant if OP is partnered, only child tax would be relevant.

It is relevant because it also applies to the dependent credit as well.
It is not just what money is exchanged it is how it is exchanged so it is the dependent credit that is affected too (someone partnered can claim that)
There should be a big sticky post for this as it has burned many people.

[blinkandimgone]

It's been very thoroughly discussed on many, many threads dedicated to this exact topic.

And you may want to go back to the link you posted and read again. You have to answer yes to BOTH parts of the question, if the answer to "Were you single, divorced, separated or widowed " is no, you're not eligible.

OP's question is about CS in the context of family law, not tax law, so maybe we can keep this thread on topic.

[noteasy]

It's been very thoroughly discussed on many, many threads dedicated to this exact topic.

And you may want to go back to the link you posted and read again. You have to answer yes to BOTH parts of the question, if the answer to "Were you single, divorced, separated or widowed " is no, you're not eligible.

OP's question is about CS in the context of family law, not tax law, so maybe we can keep this thread on topic.

Please stop.
Simply put one cannot claim the eligible dependent tax credit or dependent credit if you are a payor of support but not a receiver of support.
and actually no it has not been thoroughly discussed. There is more case law for different situations in regards to this that has not been posted.

You may personally think it is not relevant but others do especially others that don't go searching through old posts.

I sure as heck would want someone telling me of this very important aspect of child support that would end up costing me about $4k per year if I didn't know about it. Why I have 3 prolific post dominators trying to squeeze my posts out is curious and frustrating especially when on this very subject at least 2 of them are flat out wrong.

It it was so well known how is StillPaying getting it wrong?
Why are you saying I am wrong with the dependent credit is clearly in play?

[blinkandimgone]

You're hijacking this thread to discuss something unrelated that OP is NOT asking about. Since you've brought this up in multiple threads it seems you really want to talk it to death. Go start your own thread on it and stop hijacking every thread about it. That way, when people do search for it, it will show up with the numerous other threads on the topic.

This will be the last time you're "asked".

[StillPaying]

Actually, this would a lot depend on the judge and how reasonable ex is.

I've seen a case ....

This is different. Talking about gender, or 1 off, whim changes is not this issue. Access is agreed to on a specific permanent schedule every 6 months. It's easy to see the child costs between 100% vs shared 50% times. The purpose of child support is simple and obvious in this scenario. Judges have full control on cs, so place your bets.

[Newfie76]

It is never wise to try and mount your case based on gender bias. Judges hate this.
.

I never implied I would mount my case on gender. That would be suicidal. I just stated an obvious fact that every case I’ve read in Canlii is very much waited toward women in respect yo one of the parents dropping below the 40% threshold. ♂️ I can’t make this up.

[Newfie76]

Judges have full control on cs, so place your bets.

Yes they do. And from all the Canlii reports I’ve read on the subject to date… I’m exhausted reading them all omg… I’ve yet to find even one judge :
1) not follow calculations based on 12 months (not 6, not 3, not 8).
2) direct someone with more than 60% custody over the 12 month period (it’s ALWAYS 12 months based on Canlii cases) to pay CS to the parent that falls below the 40% threshold.

3) However, if one parent thinks that they should ethically pay child support outside of the 40% threshold. There is no law stating they can not. I was originally curious if anyone has had knowledge of a case where a judge did NOT follow the 40% threshold and 12 month period for calculating. So far no evidence of this. Stating it is not case law. Reference to a case would be what I am looking for. Or personal experience on your own case. Because every single case I’ve read, the judge provides reference to the “law” that ALL calculations are made on a 12 month basis with 40% threshold being enforced. There is even several cases where the custody dropped to 39%. The 61% parent was told to pay no CS while the other obviously was told to pay CS. If there are any factual cases out there that is in contradiction to this, please let me know. I’d love a read.

Why am I driven to pay CS, when the law states I am not required to, is based on my ethical base that every parent no matter the amount of access should be paying CS. Any parent that does not, is a dead beat parent. That includes the majority of women that receive CS and are working, but yet pay nothing. Gender bias? Ha! Every parent should pay CS!

And as for the other topic going around the thread on CRA child benefits. I and my ex have been paying offset using the subtractive method. CRA has reviewed this. We both receive Child benefits every month. And yes it’s clearly written in the CRA tax law that this is acceptable. I can provide a link if required. It’s not even debatable. It law! Written in black and white. We also have two children and claim a dependent each at tax time. Our agreement clearly states this and CRA tax laws permit it. Again this is also clearly written in tax law.

[StillPaying]

Your lawyer says no child support is due. Your female case law read says no child support is due. Regardless of that, you want to pay. What's the issue here?

[Newfie76]

Your lawyer says no child support is due. Your female case law read says no child support is due. Regardless of that, you want to pay. What's the issue here?

Homework…. I’m making a proposal for support. Lawyers only make money from conflict. If the question of wanting more comes up, education is your best friend. Again I was inquiring with the forum in parallel to my Canlii research. My research says one thing… while some opinions on here say another.

If anyone actually has info or experience on falling below the 40% threshold. I’d be interested to hear or read on it. Sometimes it’s just one case that the system begins to use as caselaw.

Otherwise, I’m moving forward on what I think is ethical and the true best interest of the children (without using them as human shields like our legal system does).