Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Imputing Income Advice

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Imputing Income Advice

    Background:

    Trying for a friendly split, even though I harbour a lot of anger over the circumstances of the breakup. I no longer have any respect for him as a human being and would prefer to never have to see him again. Seems I'm pretty good at concealing this to both him and our two small sons. I never badmouth him to them.

    I have reasonably good, secure income with benefits. He is self-employed and makes far less than minimum wage, on paper at least. Reality, who knows?

    He's the one who moved out, and got a cheap apartment that we both agree is no place for our sons to even visit. Also, he seems to consider it his love nest with the former mistress. Anyways, it means I have the boys living with me for all overnights, but he comes over regularly for breakfast and to get them to daycare, and a couple evenings a week to do their bedtimes, and all day Sunday where they do outings but get home for naptime. It's been very stable for the boys and we agree that this is best for them, at least at this point. Aside from it being incredibly stressful on me, this system helps me meet certain work obligations, and overall, he's not actually around much less than he was when he lived with us. The boys are adjusting beautifully.

    Maybe I should add that equalization consisted mainly of I get the house and mortgage, he gets the business, I get my pension, he gets the spousal RRSP.

    We are trying to do most of the separation agreement on our own, after having a mediator get us started. However, we are at the stage for independent legal advice, and my lawyer did a bunch of wording changes that we adapted, and now his lawyer is doing the same. We've agreed that I will not be paying him spousal support (mainly because I couldn't afford to do that and also keep the house for the boys, and also he's got some male pride going on there, I think) and his low official income means that by table amount, he owes $0 child support.

    The main thing his lawyer wants though, is to get a clause that I will not impute an income on him for child support later on, and I'm not sure I should do that. Right now, I'm content to not expect child support indefinitely, as we're doing okay and he does contribute a bit, unofficially and unexpectedly, such as bringing groceries, putting gas in my car, etc.

    But what happens if he decides to close his business and not seek new employment, living off his girlfriend's income? I feel okay with not imputing as long as he still maintains what was once the family business, but I'm not okay with him being voluntarily unemployed.

    But what happens if we work up to 50-50 once he lives in a nicer place? I would not be able to pay him much child support either unless I reduced the offset by imputing him an income. And what if the boys decide they want to live with him when they are teenagers? If I can't do offset easily, I have no idea how I would do full child support, although I suppose then I wouldn't have the expense of feeding teenage boys.

    We haven't hit court and all the problems I read about here, and hopefully won't. I am still hoping we can file jointly once we have this agreement all hashed out.

    Any suggestions for how I can approach rejecting the 'no imputing ever' clause without endangering all our other fragile agreements?

    In a lot of ways, I think I'm doing excellently as far as breakups go, considering some of the stories I read here, and I don't want to lose that, but I don't want to give something up to achieve the agreement that I could end up regretting either.

  • #2
    Have you asked your lawyer to explain how that clause can be used against you?

    I don't think it would be held up if circumstances change that much, but you are right to be careful.

    Comment


    • #3
      You have the right mindset. You are balancing the fragility of the amicability with the needs of the children.

      I agree that you should not sign away the right to impute an income because, as you say, the future is uncertain and you don't want to be bound to some unforeseen circumstance.

      But if that's going to be a dealbreaker, or worse, screw up the kids because of the parents fighting, you have to use your own judgement. Your internet friends are not much use there. I'm guessing your lawyer is advising not to sign off on not imputing income.

      All that said, you can't contract out of child support, so you probably will have some wiggle room if you do end up sign away imputing the income. If later on some circumstance arises where you feel his income needs to be imputed, the law requires that the children's best interest trumps what you separation agreement says. So if future events play out in a manner whereby the kids need his support, he may not be able to rely on that clause.

      Comment


      • #4
        I can't get in to talk to my lawyer till after the new year, unfortunately, and the ex and I are supposed to discuss it sooner than that.

        This is not the first weird idea his lawyer has had either. Earlier in the process, I was asked to acknowledge that the amount of the half of my pension he was giving up should be first subtracted from any future child support I might be entitled to before he had to actually start paying! I rebutted that one.

        I sometimes think lawyers have a secret forum of their own where they brainstorm outrageous things they can suggest.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think it's to cause some conflict to make more money from you. Im sure they know how to push the other side to "ruffle some feathers" to continue to dispute issues.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by tugofwar View Post
            I think it's to cause some conflict to make more money from you. Im sure they know how to push the other side to "ruffle some feathers" to continue to dispute issues.
            Nahhhh... They wouldn't do that, would they? Would they?

            heh heh

            Cheers!

            Gary

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Rioe View Post
              Any suggestions for how I can approach rejecting the 'no imputing ever' clause without endangering all our other fragile agreements?
              Put a lump sum price on how much you value this and ask him to pay you more.


              Originally posted by Rioe View Post
              But what happens if he decides to close his business and not seek new employment, living off his girlfriend's income? I feel okay with not imputing as long as he still maintains what was once the family business, but I'm not okay with him being voluntarily unemployed.
              What happens if the business goes under?




              If you want insurance, I think you should pay for it yourself. Personally, I do not think you are entitled to what you are asking but you can muscle your way to get it.

              Comment


              • #8
                Thanks for the support that my gut instinct is correct, and the reminder about the lawyers stirring up conflict! I think that's how I'll phrase it to the ex, that there are parts of it I don't like and it's going to prolong the process to the lawyers' benefit to argue over it.

                But I'm sorry, AnarX, I can't make much sense of your post. I'm not asking him to pay me anything, under current circumstances, but I don't want to lock myself into the future should his business close or fail. I didn't mention insurance at all, obviously I have some and pay for it myself already. And how can I be not entitled to ask that an income be imputed to him, when child support is the right of the child?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Im re-reading your post. So, currently no cs support is paid out. He's not taking spousal support, the two cancel each other out. He's asking you to add a clause that you will never have imputed income against him for cs support obligations?
                  That sounds pretty fishy to me...
                  I don't know how it works but can he later on go after you for spousal say he looses his business, has no job? What about coming after YOU for cs support if there is a 50/50 split? How about a clause stating that indefinitely no spousal support.
                  I know you are taking the higher road, and Im sorry but I feel like they are trying to stiff you.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                    But I'm sorry, AnarX, I can't make much sense of your post. I'm not asking him to pay me anything, under current circumstances, but I don't want to lock myself into the future should his business close or fail.
                    All I am saying is that I do not believe you automatically have a moral right to what you are expecting..... without knowing more about why your marriage failed, that is.

                    That is not to say the law can not support your demands.

                    Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                    I didn't mention insurance at all, obviously I have some and pay for it myself already. And how can I be not entitled to ask that an income be imputed to him, when child support is the right of the child?
                    If your husband lost everything and became unemployed, you would get no child support either. The rights of your child will mean nothing.

                    The bottom line is that you are demanding a more predictable income stream for the future. Nothing in the future is predictable. Therefore, that is why I say: decide how much you value this future income, impute a present value to it and demand it now.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      AnarX, although we occasional bat moral postitions back and forth, this is primarily a forum for discussion of legal issues. If you want to moralize these issues your in the wrong place. That said, you don't have a moral position anyway. As parents we have a moral obligation to support our children. If the fellow's business goes under he has a moral obligation to support himself and his children to the best of his ability.

                      In their current situation they are willing to grant that financial obligations on each side cancels the other. That doesn't hold true under any and all possible situations and trying to lock that in isn't in any way ethical.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I understand what you are saying, Mess.

                        Originally posted by Mess View Post
                        AnarX, although we occasional bat moral postitions back and forth, this is primarily a forum for discussion of legal issues. If you want to moralize these issues your in the wrong place.
                        Two things:
                        1) I know but that does not necessarily have to be the case here in this forum. The slant of this forum could have evolved simply because the legal-angle folks are more vocal. Regardless, legal systems only exist because of underlying assumptions of morality.
                        2) I believe some laws must change. One method of making change happen is by challenging underlying assumptions of the laws. After decades and decades, laws sometimes change. I know I am talking about a grain of sand in a whole desert but that is what I am doing. That is why I generally include a disclaimer of "If you want the law to help you get what you want, you can...." or words to that effect.


                        Originally posted by Mess View Post
                        That said, you don't have a moral position anyway. As parents we have a moral obligation to support our children. If the fellow's business goes under he has a moral obligation to support himself and his children to the best of his ability.
                        That is still a debatable assumption on your part. I generally agree with it but not because it is proven to be The Truth. There is no universally objective scientific proof that says such a moral obligation exists.
                        Furthermore, we have to be practical: many legal outcomes are a function of finances. If my ex is rich and vindictive, I had better learn what motivates her -- that involves understanding what HER OWN sense of justice says.


                        Originally posted by Mess View Post
                        In their current situation they are willing to grant that financial obligations on each side cancels the other. That doesn't hold true under any and all possible situations and trying to lock that in isn't in any way ethical.
                        Oh, so, who is being moral now?
                        If you extract morality from the equation, what the OP is demanding is the same as forcing her ex to take a risk that she does not want to take. I am not saying that is a bad thing to do -- I am just saying that is what is being demanded. As such, the same result can be achieved different ways.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          No, this forum exists for people to discuss legal issues. Divorce is a legal issue. You cannot morally divorce. There is no slant here that has evolved, it is a divorce forum. We discuss laws. Duh.

                          Frankly I got bored of teaching children the pointlessness of rampant deconstructionism years ago. You aren't proving anything by simply asserting that something is or is not moral. You are just showing your immaturity. Basic ethics are that we are all human so we have a starting place of equality. We have a responsibility to our children because they are dependent on us from birth. Ethics depend on social relationships because without other people there is nothing to be ethical about. There are human rights that derive from being human, and social and civil rights that derive from being members of society. If you pulled your nose out of your ass for 20 minutes and actually interacted with someone, like say a professor in college or university? you might actually figure this out.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mess View Post
                            If you pulled your nose out of your ass for 20 minutes and actually interacted with someone, like say a professor in college or university? you might actually figure this out.
                            Yes guy!!

                            But are clever enough to blah blah blah?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by AnarX View Post
                              All I am saying is that I do not believe you automatically have a moral right to what you are expecting..... without knowing more about why your marriage failed, that is.
                              So I'm guessing you don't agree with the no fault type of divorce proceedings we have now, then? That's the framework I have to work in, so what would knowing why the marriage failed change in your logic?

                              But my question wasn't even about my right to anything, it was basically asking for advice about potential consequences of giving up something that is my children's right.

                              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