Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How to Calculate Lump Sum Spousal Tax Payment

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

  • How to Calculate Lump Sum Spousal Tax Payment

    Here is a clause in my Court Order:

    "The sum of $XX,XXX, payable on or before MMM-DD-YYYY. This Amount shall be included in the Applicant's income and shall be deducted from the Respondent's income for income tax purposes pursuant to sub-sections....of the Income Tax Act."

    "The Respondent shall indemnify and save the Applicant harmless with respect to any income tax that she is obligated to pay as a result of the spousal support payment of $XX,XXX as set out in section (above)."

    "The Applicant and Respondent shall exchange any supporting documentation necessary to substantiate the tax amount owing by the Respondent to the Applicant"

    I am the respondent and have paid the amount as per the Court Order and have claimed it as a deduction, which the CRA accepted.

    We are now having a dispute as to the actual tax amount owing to my ex (Applicant):

    She claims that as a result of the lump sum payment, it increased her overall taxable income that pushed her into a higher tax bracket, and therefore I owe all her tax owing amount for 2018. She sent me her tax return without the lump sum and one with. She then looked at the tax differences between her two returns and claims I owe that amount...rather sizable portion.

    My lawyer and I disagree. We both believe that all I need to indemnify her from is the tax that is owed ONLY on the lump sum amount. In other words, take her average overall tax rate and multiply the lump sum payment by the tax rate and I have the tax amount owing...which is considerably less.

    My lawyer said the language was very standard for this clause and is always meant to pay the tax amount ONLY for the lump sum.

    who is right in this case? Thought I would ask the experienced folk on this board...and thanks.

  • #2
    you and your lawyer are correct.

    "The Respondent shall indemnify and save the Applicant harmless with respect to any income tax that she is obligated to pay as a result of the spousal support payment of $XX,XXX as set out in section (above)."

    Your ex will just have to cut back on a few Louis purchases.

    Comment


    • #3
      I don’t know about that Arabian.

      I think she has a very good case to say that it’s the increase in taxes that she has to pay as a result of the lump sum payment- being the amount that her taxes increased as a result.

      Who drafted the separation agreement? Who was responsible for that section.

      The general rule of contract interpretation is that any ambiguity in the clause goes against the drafter of the clause. Because they were the one who could have refined the language to eliminate the vagueness.

      If the clause was only meant to be interpreted as the tax on the amount of the lump sum payment- it should’ve been written that way. But it wasn’t...

      It says that you will indemnify her for the taxes she has to pay as a result of the lump sum payment. Well she has to pay a higher amount of taxes as a result of the payment. Therefore she has a very valid argument.

      If your lawyer is saying it’s standard language and *everyone* knows it’s supposed to mean your interpretation, ask him for the leading case law authority to back that up.

      Just because “standard” language gets used in agreements, does not mean it’s actually good or valid language.

      Comment


      • #4
        I would talk to a tax accountant, not a lawyer. Lump sum spousal support is not supposed to be taxed according to the CRA (see 3.46 of this and read the example: https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-age...-payments.html)

        Comment


        • #5
          It is up to his ex and her lawyer to factor in her tax position prior to agreeing to SS. IF she had competent counsel, this (her tax position) would be one of the most basic items to argue prior to arriving at an amount. In my situation, it was the judge who raised this matter, and then discussion ensued.
          Last edited by arabian; 07-04-2019, 11:41 PM.

          Comment


          • #6
            The language was drafted by both parties and refined by the judge herself when creating the court order.

            Lump sum retro spousal payments can be tax deductible as per the language in the Court Order. i have already filed my taxes claiming that lump sum amount and the CRA accepted it and already received my refund.

            My lawyer said I cannot be held liable for any other increases in income that caused the spike in her overall tax payable. So if she obtained a much higher paying job during that time (and she did), I cannot be held responsible for her complete tax owing amount.

            Comment


            • #7
              Family Law Judges, there Orders and Seperation Agreements can not, and do not, trump CRA tax law - it is not their jurisdiction (see also: seperation date, pension splitting, and CCTB issues people have had).

              I would get a second option from an Accountant as this is significant money and CRA usually automatically processes Returns and only later goes back to Audit and request money be refunded. Perhaps everything is fine, as you say, but for the $50-100 from a professional you would know. You also can call CRA themselves to ask.

              Otherwise, I agree with Iona that the wording is that you are responsible for the difference between her taxes owing on the return prepared without the lump sum and the taxes on the return with the lump sum.
              Last edited by tilt; 07-05-2019, 10:06 AM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by arabian View Post
                It is up to his ex and her lawyer to factor in her tax position prior to agreeing to SS. IF she had competent counsel, this (her tax position) would be one of the most basic items to argue prior to arriving at an amount. In my situation, it was the judge who raised this matter, and then discussion ensued.
                Maybe they were quite competent and worded the clause purposely. It's completely plausible they worded it the way they did on purpose.

                If you're debating competency- I'm looking at the OP's lawyer and wondering why they didn't specifically word the clause as:

                "The sum of $XX,XXX, payable on or before MMM-DD-YYYY. This Amount shall be included in the Applicant's income and shall be deducted from the Respondent's income for income tax purposes pursuant to sub-sections....of the Income Tax Act."

                "The Respondent shall indemnify and save the Applicant harmless with respect to any income tax that she is obligated to pay [remove: as a result of] only on the spousal support payment of $XX,XXX as set out in section (above)."

                That's what I would do in a contract negotiation. This is the same thing.

                Comment


                • #9
                  If both parties were responsible for the drafting- and therefore the ambiguity or vagueness. I would split the difference between the amounts and call it a day.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I believe the negotiating process is now over and it is an Order.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by KW_Divorced View Post
                      The Respondent shall indemnify and save the Applicant harmless with respect to any income tax that she is obligated to pay as a result of the spousal support payment of $XX,XXX as set out in section (above).

                      It should have read:

                      The respondent shall indemnify the applicant against any income tax she is obligated to pay ON THE SPOUSAL SUPPORT PAYMENT OF...

                      I think she is right because as a result of the payment means bumping her income up to the higher bracket. The problem is that your agreement says “any income tax she is obligated to pay as a result of...”

                      Your lawyer will tell you what you want to hear and an ensuing battle earns him money.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Well my lawyer won't be representing me if it goes to that, and I will send him my bill for the tax difference as he has misled/misrepresented the tax impact to me...in writing.

                        There has to be protection for those of us who pay these lawyers huge amounts of money to represent our interests, and they fail at that and get away with collecting huge fees with NO downside impact to them.

                        I am simply fed up with this process. 7+ years and STILL going on...with no end in sight.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Just thinking here:


                          If the lump sum SS payment was $30,000 and ex's income was $70,000, the jump in tax brackets would not impact the original $70k. All inflated taxes owing would be a direct result of the $30k would it not? The $70k is static, the only variance involved is the extra SS payment. The income tax rates on the lump sum SS would start at the $70k marginal rate, and go up from there as her income crosses the various tax thresholds.


                          That is how I read it. I don't think the ex's marginal rate would start at $zero given the way the clause reads.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by KW_Divorced View Post
                            Well my lawyer won't be representing me if it goes to that, and I will send him my bill for the tax difference as he has misled/misrepresented the tax impact to me...in writing.

                            There has to be protection for those of us who pay these lawyers huge amounts of money to represent our interests, and they fail at that and get away with collecting huge fees with NO downside impact to them.

                            I am simply fed up with this process. 7+ years and STILL going on...with no end in sight.


                            On the other hand, anyone who opens themself to tax implications absolutely should speak to an accountant about these types of clauses. An accountant (specifically a tax accountant) would be able to give full advice on tax implications, benefits, deductions etc. The way I look at it is, you paid a lawyer $20,000 to get divorced, paying $200 to protect your remaining assets is a small price.

                            If anything I would suggest you speak to an accountant now and ask the question if the spousal support roll over is what is impacting it. If it is, you may want to ask if anything could be done to fix it like depositing it in an RRSP or something.

                            To me this is much like people who get a severance or buy out, go buy a boat or fancy new car and then don’t realize the tax implications when April 30 comes around. She may have been able to protect herself by doing that which would be an excellent argument against paying her tax bill.

                            Also, your lawyer will ignore your demand to pay it. That’s part of their indemnification when you sign off. If a judge agreed with the language that was modified, it was done in accordance with the law and there is probably a fine print statement in your retainer contract.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Thanks all as usual for your useful comments and feedback.

                              I have the funds to pay her tax obligation (even the high amount she is claiming), and my intent was always to indemnify her tax obligation ONLY on the payment. So if need be, I can suck it up and pay it all and be done with it, which is what I will likely do to avoid another lengthy battle.

                              Will be worth paying several thousand more and will save myself legal fees and stress anyway.

                              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