Tweet
THANK YOU ALL - much appreciated. I'll update when I get answers from CRA.
-
-
So... I've been reading this over and over... As a payor, I CAN NOT deduct my legal fees? Ex has sole custody so there is no CS going my way at all.Comment
-
RJDoe: I believe this is the situation: You are using the offset calculation because you have shared (i.e. 50-50 time) custody, and you are CS PAYOR because you earn more. Then, if your ex is NOT contributing enough according to their income, then you can deduct the legal fees (because really you are fighting to have the ex contribute more CS **for the child's benefit**). In terms of $/cs payments, you are fighting to pay LESS CS, because your ex should be paying MORE.Comment
-
Offset: both parents pay CS and both parents receive CS, even if the payment is simplified by making it the difference. So both parents could claim the legal fees.Originally posted by dinkyface View Post
Non-offset: only the CS recipient can claim.
Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me that a payor can't claim fees required to make sure the amount paid is fair, if the recipient is playing games, but I guess in that case the payor should have asked that costs be paid by the recipient and the issue is moot because the fees would be zero.Comment
-
Update: talked to CRA who didn't know about the Tax Technical News #24.. Had to fax it to them!!!! They are having a SENIOR manager look into it! I feel like I may be audited after this ;pComment
-
Trignani v. The Queen, 2010 TCC 209 (CanLII)[18] The first argument appears to be based on a long-standing principle that has been applied in the context of spousal support. Under this principle, legal fees incurred to establish a right to spousal support were considered to be on account of capital and not deductible by virtue of s. 18(1)(b). This is in contrast to fees incurred to enforce a pre-existing right, which are on current account.
[19] More recent judicial decisions have questioned the correctness of this principle and it appears that the CRA no longer follows it: Nissim v. The Queen,1998 CanLII 184 (TCC), [1999] 1 CTC 2119; Income Tax Technical News, No. 24, October 10, 2002. At this point, however, the jurisprudence is not clearly established: Nadeau v. The Queen, 2003 FCA 400 (CanLII), 2003 FCA 400, at para. 7.Comment
-
Tayken you did nothing wrong - you merely gave the poster your opinion. I think alot of people on this forum rely heavily (too much so?) on your giving us legal cases to look up. Thank you for the information you provide to us. I am always quite impressed by the time and trouble you take to help everyone out. Don't let one little comment from someone put you off. You DO make a difference and help people and we are extremely grateful.
If anyone is interested I got a letter from CRA today telling me my audit was ok for 2010. This is the 2nd time they audited me (ex's g/f no doubt). I don't get upset when they audit me, I merely send them the info they request. As with most CRA issues, they have their rules and regulations but ultimately it comes down to the assessor. There is an appeal process if you disagree with the decision. Not a big mystery as CRA provides plenty of information should you decide to appeal a decision. You certainly don't have to be a lawyer to appeal and you don't have to cite any case law to appeal. Just be prepared to wait a long time for decisions and be assured that if you owe them money, and your appeal is unsuccessful, you will pay hefty interest.Comment
-
I meant to say that it was the 2nd time I was audited for 2010. I get audited every year. No big deal. They're just doing their job I guess.Comment
-
To save people searching, a quick summary would be that tax lawyers and family lawyers seldom have overlapping practices and, therefore, it is a crap shoot to me.The other threads for which OrleansLawyer provided guidance on how to estimate what is "tax deductible" should be linked.
The discussion within this thread includes a number of cases that note up well. It would be prudent to ask your lawyer to include a letter with the bill to apportion a percentage (or number) to the deductible categories since a paper shield is better than nothing.Comment
-
My question is if the Judge order cost at trial of 75000 and stated that 7500 was atributed to a support order. Can I get a letter from my lawyer stating that i spent 40000 in legals for support. Will Cra accept the letter from the unethical lawyer lol. stated that the client spent 40000 on legals even when the judge ruled only 7500 was used for support arguementComment
-
You can only claim money which you actually paid - not what your bill is.Comment
-
CRA frequently requests copies of orders pertaining to divorce and spousal support.Comment
-
Originally posted by arabian View Post
The other side was ordered to pay the amount and the judge ordered 7500 as support order then can the respondent claim 40000 if the lawyer provide a letter which is different then what the judge ordered will CRA accepted thisComment
-
If you spent 40,000.00 in legal fees defending a support order then you can claim it. That is assuming that you actually paid the money.
Anytime you deal with CRA be prepared to PROVE you actually paid something - namely, receipts or bank records.Comment
-
For clarity:The other side was ordered to pay the amount and the judge ordered 7500 as support order then can the respondent claim 40000 if the lawyer provide a letter which is different then what the judge ordered will CRA accepted this
You paid 75,000 in legal fees;
You were awarded costs of 7,500, specifically to cover the entirety of the portion of fees to obtain support payments; and
You want to know if you can, based on a letter from your lawyer, claim 40,000 was spent on obtaining support?Comment
Comment