Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Support Payment Question (Recalculation)

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

  • Support Payment Question (Recalculation)

    Hello:

    I currently share custody of my two daughters (7+9) with their father 50/50. Here are the details of this arrangement

    I'm a sales person and I make $50,000. I own a home which has a basement apartment I get $1300/month from my tenant.

    My ex owns his own insurance business and on his notice of assessment he reports $35000. His RRSP contribution from 2019 states that he can contribute $62000. His father bought him a home (an advance on his inheritance he claims) in 2018 and this has made it so he doesn't have to make a lot of money. His girlfriend moved in almost a year ago after selling her home contributes to his bills but doesn't work either.

    In our agreement we stated that we both get the child tax benefit for one child but we made a private agreement that he would give me his half considering the circumstances of our finances. Until this past month he was giving me $576/mth. This past month however the government gave him notice that they are taking back his 2019 payments and will only give him $250 for the next 9 months. He tells me that he won't come out of pocket to pay me so he will now only give me $250.

    I don't feel that this is fair but on paper I actually make more money than him. He is threatening if I take him to court he will stop paying me entirely (the $250 from the child tax benefit) and he tells me since I technically make more he will make me pay. Also he threatens that I will have to pay his court costs. I cannot afford a lawyer so I'll be representing myself.

    I am thinking of applying for a recalculation of child support but I fear I might have to pay my ex.

    Can anyone shed some light in regards to the legality of this scenario?

    Does it matter that his father gave him advance on his inheritance and created a scenario where my ex only has to work minimally to meet his financial obligations?

    Is this house considered excluded property?

    Thank you in advance.

  • #2
    There are a lot of things in here so I will try to break down my comments:

    To begin, if you feel he is purposely underemployed and can make more money then that is a completely different fight that you have to consider. But ask yourself if it is worth it for a few bucks each month. The legal cost to fight him would out weigh it.

    His RRSP contribution limit means nothing. You get a set amount to start when you begin filing taxes and it is added to each year. For instance, ten years ago my contribution limit was 90 grand. I then had a buy out and maxed out my contribution. Now my annual amount is $4000. I dont earn that low an income, its just what is allowed.

    As for the house, his parents, friends, gf can give him whatever they want. He can even win the lottery, nothing matters when it comes to support. Go back to my first comment, if he is purposely underemployed then that is relevant. What he owns and who he lives with is not.

    You two made an agreement on what to do with the tax benefits which technically he is entitled to keep. He is now having them scaled back and offered to give you that amount. He could tell you to get bent and would be allowed to do so.

    Hes right about the rest. You would owe him cs in an offset situation unless you could prove he is purposely underemployed which would be costly. If you take it to trial and lose then you would pay either all or a portion of his costs.

    My advice? Take the $250 and shut up. You make more money than him and would have to pay cs. If you go and recalculate then you would pay more and lose the tax benefits.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Comment


    • #3
      Ok thanks for your reply. One piece of information I left out...in our agreement he agreed to be imputed an income of $67000. Also we had a letter notarized at city hall that he would give me his portion of the child tax benefit. Seems absolutely ridiculous that I would pay him because I have to work like a regular person to pay my bills while his dad can buy him a house...he intentionally doesn’t work or takes just enough out of his business to survive and I would have to pay him.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by THatley View Post
        Ok thanks for your reply. One piece of information I left out...in our agreement he agreed to be imputed an income of $67000. Also we had a letter notarized at city hall that he would give me his portion of the child tax benefit. Seems absolutely ridiculous that I would pay him because I have to work like a regular person to pay my bills while his dad can buy him a house...he intentionally doesn’t work or takes just enough out of his business to survive and I would have to pay him.
        It all boils down to what is on his Line 150 and on your Line 150. At 50-50 access then it will be offset calculated and you will be paying him. That is just the reality of the situation.

        You are being penny wise and pound foolish. I would recommend you let this go and be happy with what you have.

        Family wealth is a real thing and nothing you can do about it. Just be happy that eventually, if there is any family wealth left it will probably pass along to the children.

        Comment


        • #5
          Ok so on my line 150 last year it was 34,000 he is imputed 67,000. According to what I found online (a support calculator) he still owes me $530 in support.

          Ok I get it in regards to the family wealth thx.

          Comment


          • #6
            You said you have rental income and that gets included with your line 150.

            If he was imputed at 67000 then you use that income and your full income (rental included).

            Despite what you agreed to, it could be overturned by a judge. Not to mention that just because the amount he received was a higher number, he is still giving you the full amount they have clawed back to.

            Like Tayken saidpenny wise, pound foolish. Let it go. Who cares who buys him a house or who co tributes to expenses. That is simply bitterness on your part. Find your own partner to support you to balance it out if you are that upset.


            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by rockscan View Post

              Like Tayken said�penny wise, pound foolish. Let it go. Who cares who buys him a house or who co tributes to expenses. That is simply bitterness on your part. Find your own partner to support you to balance it out if you are that upset.


              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
              No thanks I’m happy being single and not being told to “shut up” or being spoken to like this. Why? I’m trying to figure out the legalities of my situation...I guess putting myself out there on a public forum makes it easy for people to make judgements about your intentions or situation. Would you speak like this to my face or is it just behind a computer screen?

              I work hard and I am constantly struggling to stay on top of bills. I pay for all my kids extracurricular activities/school uniforms / bdays party’s etc and I’m left arguing with this spoiled brat for his half of the money afterwards. Meanwhile he has motorcycles and land rovers in his driveway lives in the most expensive neighborhoods in our city. He has the option to simply not work and heaven forbid I make too much money (more then $67000 I guess) or I could have to pay him?

              I didn’t have the renter until 2020 so that wouldn’t be included on my 2019 tax report.

              Comment


              • #8
                You can also claim expenses against your 1,300 a month in basement apartment income. A portion of the mortgage interest, a portion of the utilities (if they're included in the rent) any expenses you have maintaining the basement apartment etc. I would suggest going forward you both just pay each other what is owed in support and leave the child tax to whoever is eligible to claim it. You should both be able to claim one child. Way easier, I would think?


                And I totally get that he seems to live a much higher lifestyle than what his earning suggest, and if you feel it's significant, you could motion to have an even higher amount imputed. Set-off child support isn't just A-B, that's what it starts at and then takes into consideration all sorts of things.
                Last edited by velas; 11-30-2020, 02:52 PM. Reason: added more

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by velas View Post
                  You can also claim expenses against your 1,300 a month in basement apartment income. A portion of the mortgage interest, a portion of the utilities (if they're included in the rent) any expenses you have maintaining the basement apartment etc. I would suggest going forward you both just pay each other what is owed in support and leave the child tax to whoever is eligible to claim it. You should both be able to claim one child. Way easier, I would think?


                  And I totally get that he seems to live a much higher lifestyle than what his earning suggest, and if you feel it's significant, you could motion to have an even higher amount imputed. Set-off child support isn't just A-B, that's what it starts at and then takes into consideration all sorts of things.
                  Thank you this is very helpful!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes I would say it to your face. Better us than a judge who could order you to pay costs for a wasted motion.

                    As for the extra expenses, if they are legit section 7, submit them. Hell, see if you can go with an enforcement agency like FRO and have it put against him. There are things you can do.

                    As for the expenses that come off the rent income, they are not always acceptable for child support calculations. A judge may consider it gross income and apply it. Do a search on canlii.

                    You could also advise him that you will forgo the $250 a month but do expect the share of expenses he is required to pay. When he argues for recalculation you can also remind him agreed to an imputed income and would continue to demand the income be imputed.

                    The bottom line is that this a losing battle. Leaving out how he lives his life and where he lives etc, the argument stands against your two incomes. Even though the amount only started this year, the likelihood of having 2019 make a difference in the grand scheme of things is minute. He would argue for it to go forward from 2020 and his income being lowered and you would argue for imputation and section 7 expenses. The two of you would end up right where you began except with money and frustration spent.


                    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Owning his own business makes this much more complicated and expensive. Although his income is $35,000 he may be using retained earnings in the company to hide money from you. Or income splitting with the girlfriend where on paper the money is her salary but really he has all of it. I’m rather curious why CRA decided to claw back his CTB; did they discover something about his financial situation you are not aware of? Did he share CRA’s letter with you? Are you seeing his full tax returns including where his common-law spouse’s income is listed? You said she wasn’t working but if she was getting a salary from the business that would be one reason the CTB was adjusted. As far as I am aware, CRA does not claw back CTB for other tax liabilities - only when the declared household income has been audited and/or reassessed.

                      If you made a hardship claim the girlfriend’s income would have to be revealed, as would the financial information about his business as well as all the lifestyle indicators such as value of cars etc which can be used to estimate true income. I think it would be worth your time to talk to an experienced lawyer about options. As others have said, maybe it will turn out to not be worth pursuing, but I feel you need more information to make that decision.
                      Last edited by tilt; 12-01-2020, 12:19 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Also his imputed income is $67,000, which is more than your income plus rental income so you would not pay him any CS. Inputted income is considered the true income for CS purposes regardless of what is reported to CRA.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by tilt View Post
                          Owning his own business makes this much more complicated and expensive. Although his income is $35,000 he may be using retained earnings in the company to hide money from you.
                          She stated they imputed his income at over 60 grand in their agreement.

                          Did he share CRAs letter with you?
                          She could ask but technically he doesnt have to show her. His claim is his own just like hers is her own.

                          Are you seeing his full tax returns including where his common-law spouses income is listed.
                          GF doesnt have to provide this. He hasnt claimed hardship therefore her income is private.

                          If you made a hardship claim the girlfriends income would have to be revealed, as would the financial information about his business as well as all the lifestyle indicators such as value of cars etc which can be used to estimate true income.
                          The ex would have to make a hardship claim for this to be allowed. As long as he doesnt claim hardship, all of his other info and his partners info remains private.


                          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            This is why CRA should automatically release payors tax returns to recipients of CS to make everything transparent and payors accountable.

                            If the OP makes the undue hardship claim the other side has to disclose household income. Not showing the CRA letter is not an automatic right, but NOT disclosing it if it supports his claim is sus.
                            Last edited by tilt; 12-01-2020, 12:43 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by tilt View Post
                              This is why CRA should automatically release payors tax returns to recipients of CS to make everything transparent and payors accountable.

                              If the OP makes the undue hardship claim the other side has to disclose household income. Not showing the CRA letter is not an automatic right, but NOT disclosing it if it supports his claim is sus.

                              The only way she can see household income is if HE claims undue hardship. Trust me on this one. My husbands ex tried to get my income info and was refused and schooled by a judge on it for over 45 minutes because she kept arguing she was entitled. Judge kept repeating no hardship from him, no info for her.


                              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                              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