CCTB - Question

[samej]

If she claims the kids for CCTB there is more money in the pot between the two of you for the kids.

You won't be paying spousal support so there is more money on your side as well as her side.

This is a win/win for the kids, you and your ex. Your basic problem seems to be that it benefits your ex.

You can co-operate and she gets money from the government instead of you. As her income goes up the CCTB goes down. When she establishes herself and has a decent income, the arrangement becomes pointless, but you still won't be paying spousal support.

Count your blessings. If she had the kids full time, you would be paying spousal, child support, she would still be receiving the same government benefits and there would be no end to it untlil the kids turned 18.

I think she is offering a workable arrangement that helps everyone keep their head above water here. If you decide to fight her, you should come up with some practical reasons.

Agreed - the net benefit is more money between both households, and it benefits everyone, including you who get to keep more of your paycheck.

Check the CRA site that you are OK under this arrangement - I think that as long as only one of the parents claim CCTB they're fine with it. Also check if this means you'll surrendering the "Equivalent to Spouse" deduction for your child - that's a major savings in income tax that she'd gain and you'd surrender.

[Mess]

If she claims the kids for CCTB there is more money in the pot between the two of you for the kids.

You won't be paying spousal support so there is more money on your side as well as her side.

This is a win/win for the kids, you and your ex. Your basic problem seems to be that it benefits your ex.

You can co-operate and she gets money from the government instead of you. As her income goes up the CCTB goes down. When she establishes herself and has a decent income, the arrangement becomes pointless, but you still won't be paying spousal support.

Count your blessings. If she had the kids full time, you would be paying spousal, child support, she would still be receiving the same government benefits and there would be no end to it untlil the kids turned 18.

I think she is offering a workable arrangement that helps everyone keep their head above water here. If you decide to fight her, you should come up with some practical reasons.

[Barrhaven_dad]

While we were together she was getting the CCTB. The job she has taken now pays less than minimum wage with a commission potential that she hasn't come near yet. In her previous career she would make between $40 and $45K per year. She could get a better job easily (I work in the industry so I know that for a fact). I just can't get past the fact that they want me to lie to CRA so that she can gain financially from it.

[Epona]

Do you have proof your ex is "under-employing" herself? Due to companies and small businesses down-sizing, any job is a good one. For each job advert, there are hundreds of applicants. It is very difficult to get employment at this time.
With the price of everything going up (inflation went up over 2% within one month), your ex is likely feeling the financial "pince" painfully. Granted, you're feeling it too -- everybody is.
Do you and your ex split the CCTB now (sorry can't look at your original posting as it isn't showing)?

[Barrhaven_dad]

Hi there, I recently received my separation agreement (draft copy) from my ex's lawyer and they have made a request that I essentially give up any tax benefits for my kids (don't claim any expenses - daycare, activities, etc). I found it strange that they would ask for that in lieu of spousal support so I did some research and came to the realization that if I do what they have requested (essentially give up my kids according to CRA - we have 50:50 custody agreed on already), my ex can then apply for CCTB and would end up getting roughly $800 per month out of it. To me it seems like they are telling me to lie to CRA, not claim any expenses for my kids, and essentially give my ex all the tax benefits. They say this to me in the agreement and then say pretty much that if I don't agree to do this they are going to take me to court to get spousal support.

I believe that they have come to the conclusion that there isn't enough money to get out of me via spousal and child support payments and are now trying to find a way to get money from the Government by getting me to say that my ex has sole custody (in the eyes of CRA anyways). Can they even do this??

My ex has underemployed herself and in my opinion is trying to get maximum money for minimal work. This to me is extremely frustrating as I work very hard to provide for my children (and my ex when we were living together), yet she can take a low paying job and expect me to magically come up with money to support her.

I am at the point that I feel that it would be in the best interest of the kids to live with me full time until my ex can stand on her own two feet. Why should my ex be rewarded for under-employing herself, living beyond her means, and putting our children at risk?

I am meeting with my lawyer today to discuss this so any input that someone could give me would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks