info re: Section 7 and Tax Time...

[hadenough]

I was wondering something based on the following;

Aware that if a court order has section seven at a fixed amount that at tax time it is required to compensate the paying parent his/her portion of the deduction. This amount has been calculated and set aside.

FRO is garnishing wages, however remains in significant arrears and garnishment will not get the payor parent out of arrears due to excessive amount.

Can one pay the tax deduction amount to FRO towards the arrears of the payor vs directly to that person?*

How would the court view this?

Or being arrears are as such does the payor parent even qualify for the tax deduction claim (as in all fairness, they have not really contributed to the section sevens at all)?

Should the receiving parent set this money aside until arrears are paid?
Thanks for any input.
--

[Mess]

Clarify. Is this what you mean....

Bob is the payor, he is in arrears. Betty is the support recipient. She is paying for child care out of pocket.

Betty owes Bob his share of the tax refund, so that he would end up paying the net cost. Betty is considering sending the tax refund to the FRO in Bob's name in order to clear up his arrears?

The arrears are legally settled with a specific repayment schedule. Bob is presumably fulfilling this so he is legally entitled to the tax refund amount. If Betty were to decide to forward Bob's money to the FRO, she would at the least be unethical, and at the most breaking the law. This would be like Bob dropping his wallet outside her house, she knows it is his, she decides to take all the cash out and give it to the FRO because he is in arrears.

"Bob is not really contributing to section 7..." Why is this? It sounds like he is, since you state it is a set amount spelled out in the court order. So what he is doing is paying support, section 7, and a small amount toward the arrears, in accordance with the court order. The arrears are a liability with a set repayment schedule.

[hadenough]

Thanks Mess.

"Clarify. Is this what you mean....

Bob is the payor, he is in arrears. Betty is the support recipient. She is paying for child care out of pocket. *Answer: Yes

Betty owes Bob his share of the tax refund, so that he would end up paying the net cost. Betty is considering sending the tax refund to the FRO in Bob's name in order to clear up his arrears? *Answer: Yes

The arrears are legally settled with a specific repayment schedule. No. *Arrears are not on a repayment schedule. *Basic cs and section seven for 2013 are 50%of net pay due to payors tax bracket and pension contributions.* Arrears*continue to accumulate and build interest. Payor has refused any communication with FRO. *Arrears from 2012 exceed payors portion of section sevens from 2012. Hence desire to make payment directly to FRO towards the arrears on payors behalf vs directly to payor.*Bob is presumably fulfilling this so he is legally entitled to the tax refund amount. If Betty were to decide to forward Bob's money to the FRO, she would at the least be unethical, and at the most breaking the law. This would be like Bob dropping his wallet outside her house, she knows it is his, she decides to take all the cash out and give it to the FRO because he is in arrears.

"Bob is not really contributing to section 7..." Why is this? It sounds like he is, since you state it is a set amount spelled out in the court order. Payor has defied court order on all counts. So what he is doing is paying support, section 7, and a small amount toward the arrears, in accordance with the court order. The arrears are a liability with a set repayment schedule."

[Mess]

OK, I see the poiint better now.

If the creditor sends the money to the FRO then it directly clears a portion of the liability that the refund is dedicated to. The accounting works, but I would double check with a civil lawyer (a half hour consult through the Law Society) just to be sure.