Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

section 7...can they leave him with nothing?

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by pippidee View Post
    I have not decided it. I see that he has almost no money at the end of the month...and I also see her state that she cannot find full-time work as an RN and therefore does make little enough to qualify for subsidy. How do I know? Because I make more than her AND I qualify in the same town!!!!!
    So, if she can't find full-time work, maybe she isn't working enough hours to qualify for the subsidy.

    Comment


    • #17
      Read please. There is NO agreement. NO AGREEMENT HAS BEEN MADE! Im done here. Thanks for NOTHING!!!!

      Comment


      • #18
        pippidee - I think MSMom is trying to help you here.

        Many of the people on the forum, such as MSMom, have gone through the court/legal process and are personally experienced in the area which you are asking questions about.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by pippidee View Post
          Read please. There is NO agreement. NO AGREEMENT HAS BEEN MADE! Im done here. Thanks for NOTHING!!!!
          Well, if there is no agreement made yet, then the presumption would be he is responsible for his proportionate share of S7 expenses, which includes daycare.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by arabian View Post
            pippidee - I think MSMom is trying to help you here.

            Many of the people on the forum, such as MSMom, have gone through the court/legal process and are personally experienced in the area which you are asking questions about.
            I am trying to help. Sure, it's a frustrating situation to be in when you're broke and the expenses keep coming in. It sucks. But, when it comes to daycare costs, it's pretty much cut and dry for proportionate share.

            If the custodial parent qualifies for subsidized daycare, then they should be applying for it. But, having been on subsidized daycare myself, I am aware that there are many factors that go into the equation of qualifying - number of hours of work being one of them.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
              He's making about $40G a year and paying support for two children. That's how the math adds up.

              $40G a year isn't enough money to support yourself independently and two children through child support. It's only reasonable that he has nothing left at the end of the month. The fact that he contributes to RESPs is remarkable really.

              He doesn't make enough money, this where the problem lies. I make a little more than that and have trouble supporting myself and one child while receiving child support.
              Really? It doesn't sound reasonable to me...

              Are you saying that nearly double minimum wage isn't enough money to support yourself independently WHILE PAYING child support?
              If so, then you are suggesting that the real problem is table child support.

              If you are having trouble yourself while making even more and receiving child support then the problem more likely IMHO is that one is not living within their means.
              Either way, the problem is not his income. And no, it is not reasonable that someone who works hard has nothing left over at the end of the day.

              Cheers,
              Atlas

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Atlas View Post
                Really? It doesn't sound reasonable to me...

                Are you saying that nearly double minimum wage isn't enough money to support yourself independently WHILE PAYING child support?
                If so, then you are suggesting that the real problem is table child support.

                If you are having trouble yourself while making even more and receiving child support then the problem more likely IMHO is that one is not living within their means.
                Either way, the problem is not his income. And no, it is not reasonable that someone who works hard has nothing left over at the end of the day.

                Cheers,
                Atlas
                Yes, double minimum wage isn't enough to pay child support and independently support yourself when you have additional expenses like daycare to pay.

                I have a mountain of debt to overcome thanks to legal fees, and I own a home. My expenses monthly are drastically higher than the OP's.

                There are millions of people who work hard everyday and still have nothing at the end.

                You call the problem guideline CS....and that might be the case.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
                  Yes, double minimum wage isn't enough to pay child support and independently support yourself when you have additional expenses like daycare to pay.

                  I have a mountain of debt to overcome thanks to legal fees, and I own a home. My expenses monthly are drastically higher than the OP's.

                  There are millions of people who work hard everyday and still have nothing at the end.

                  You call the problem guideline CS....and that might be the case.
                  I agree

                  The tragedy here is that our justice system is the root of the problem. The system bankrupts people who are forced to buy as much justice as they can afford. Interestingly, in Quebec, mandatory mediation keeps the lawyers out initially....

                  Atlas

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    CS has little to no wiggle room. He pays based on his line 150 and the number of children. Is the $560 figure still up to date? Has his income decreased since that was initially calculated? It should be adjusted annually for changes in income.

                    Section 7 is a bit different. It is paid in proportion to the two parties' incomes. He should not be paying 50% unless his ex makes the exact same income as he does. If she makes more money, he should pay less than 50%, but if she makes less money, he would be paying more than 50%. This proportional figure should also be adjusted annually. Are they exchanging their tax line 150 amounts every year to keep up to date?

                    $1000 a month for daycare is entirely reasonable, especially as I deduce there are multiple children involved. However, he only needs to pay for the daycare fees which are necessary for the parents to work or attend school. For example, if he works evenings and could look after the children during his ex's shifts, then the daycare isn't necessary. If the ex only works two day shifts a week (you said she was part time) then full time daycare isn't necessary.

                    Another thing about section 7 expenses, of which daycare is the most common one, is that they should be agreed to in advance, and only paid if a receipt is provided. If his ex isn't giving him copies of her receipts with the amount on, he shouldn't pay. If she's chosen a super expensive daycare and refuses to apply for subsidy, he should only pay as much as would be his share of a more reasonable daycare after subsidy. He has not agreed in advance to decline to apply for subsidy.

                    Lastly, the expense for daycare is the after tax amount. His ex should be calculating how much of a difference claiming the daycare fees make to her income tax, and subtracting that amount from the total expense she divides with him.

                    That said, table CS is usually only about a quarter of a person's line 150 income, for four or more children. The correct share of daycare fees might bring that up to a third of one's income. If the rest of his expenses are too great, he might want to get better at budgeting and being frugal. Family law is set up in such a way that the children are automatically a parent's financial priority. It's the rest of his life that's going to have to give.
                    Last edited by Rioe; 04-07-2014, 10:12 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      For s7 expenses, like daycare or sports, where there are write-offs/tax-credits, it is the after tax amount that you pay.

                      If she is paying $1,000, you ask for copies of invoices from the daycare provider. You don't pay anything without receiving a copy of the invoice.

                      Daycare in order to allow the other parent to work is a legitimate S7 expense and a judge will order it 99 times out of 100 (there may be an instance here and there where they don't, but the reasons for that will be case specific). Each parent is obligated to pay their proportional share on actual amount paid. Meaning, the amount minus all tax credits.

                      Hypothetically:

                      daycare = $1000 a month = $12k annually
                      Parent A earns $50k annually
                      Parent B earns $50k annually
                      Parent A writes off daycare for a tax credit of $3k
                      12k-3k= 9k actual cost of daycare
                      9k/2 = $4500 being the out of pocket amount each parent is to pay, or $375 a month.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
                        In my opinion, going through your ex's NOA/Income tax looking for minimal credits received to share with you is "nickelling and diming" someone. Depending on the incomes involved, there may be little in credits to recoup....and if your income is high, you wouldn't benefit by claiming these deductions.

                        My ex's lawyer insisted on doing what you are going to court to do right now. The ex paid his lawyer nearly $400 an hour to find a total of $9 in tax credits.

                        Did she pay for daycare? Then you owe your share of that daycare. Paying it as she pays for it would be the respectable thing to do. Holding on to reimbursement for monthly expenses so that you can confirm you aren't overpaying by $20 it just making problems where there weren't problems.

                        There isn't a line number on the tax return to go find the information you are looking for. Its a combination of credits provincial, federal - some are non refundable tax credits, others are monthly amounts you receive as a result of the expenses. It's a confusing mess.....and if your ex works (which I assume she does since daycare is required), unless she's on minimum wage without another income earner in the home, the credits are minimal. The credits also don't have any direct bearing on her ongoing expenses.

                        Maybe the daycare she's paying isn't on "receipt", meaning maybe the daycare providers is doing the work "under the table". Forcing them to produce receipts will INCREASE monthly daycare costs, and you may be worse off with your share of that expense.
                        Obviously everyone's case is different MS MOM for their income taxes, babysitting expenses, calculations, etc.

                        But in the words of an auditor "If it isn't documented, it didn't happen"

                        The judge made it very clear to my ex that she needs to provide a CRA approved babysitting receipt and her income taxes before I should have ever paid anything. (I have actually overpaid in our situation)

                        And the fact that ex still has not came up with the CRA approved receipts or her taxes....shows she is trying to hide something.

                        There are A LOT of parents out there who run scams on the other parent with this stuff.

                        Children should not be used as profit!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Laughingstock View Post
                          Obviously everyone's case is different MS MOM for their income taxes, babysitting expenses, calculations, etc.

                          But in the words of an auditor "If it isn't documented, it didn't happen"

                          The judge made it very clear to my ex that she needs to provide a CRA approved babysitting receipt and her income taxes before I should have ever paid anything. (I have actually overpaid in our situation)

                          And the fact that ex still has not came up with the CRA approved receipts or her taxes....shows she is trying to hide something.

                          There are A LOT of parents out there who run scams on the other parent with this stuff.

                          Children should not be used as profit!

                          And an argument over a $9 tax credit shouldn't be the reason someone withholds thousands in past due expenses.

                          The point is on most incomes these credits are quite negligible really. And, yes, every situation is different. That's why there's no clear cut answer to the questions. I just caution people spending hundreds on legal/accounting fees for the sake of a few bucks in credits. Not only does it not make financial sense - it can really put a wrench in the works of what could be an otherwise cooperative parenting arrangement.

                          Daycare receipts do not have to be CRA approved to be daycare receipts. They need to submitted for deduction on taxes, per CRA guidelines. If you don't deduct the expense from your taxes, it's irrelevant if CRA accepts the receipt or not.

                          CRA does not approve daycare facilities. The bigger questions should be if the child is being cared for in an approved daycare facility if there is ongoing difficulty obtaining receipts.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
                            ...snip... If you don't deduct the expense from your taxes, it's irrelevant if CRA accepts the receipt or not.
                            Just know that, whether or not one claims daycare expenses, the law states they are entitled to. And as such, Party B only has to pay what the actual out-of-pocket expense would be had Party A claimed the expense. It is just like imputing income. They are capable/entitled to make the claim, just because Party A chooses not to, doesn't mean the other party B has to pay more then if Party A did what they were supposed to.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
                              Just know that, whether or not one claims daycare expenses, the law states they are entitled to. And as such, Party B only has to pay what the actual out-of-pocket expense would be had Party A claimed the expense. It is just like imputing income. They are capable/entitled to make the claim, just because Party A chooses not to, doesn't mean the other party B has to pay more then if Party A did what they were supposed to.
                              However, Party A may have chosen a daycare that does not provide receipts for significant cost-savings in the daycare rates.

                              Presumbably Party B would be involved in the daycare decision made, and they would be abreast of this. Perhaps they forgot? Perhaps they didn't care at the time, but because someone mentioned a tax credit Party A is "hiding", they now are all guns a blazing without checking their notes.

                              But, it's not good to assume that Party A has credits that are being "hidden" without some serious examination of the tax situations of the individuals.

                              A judge made the statement that the person has to pay their share of the net cost of daycare (ie after tax credits). This statement is correct - but did they even look at the incomes involved to determine what credits are there or not?

                              The judge whole-heartedly agreed with my ex's lawyer that he should be paying net of any credits received and ordered I disclose the entire tax return for them to check it over. Did the judge know it was $9 - probably not. I did though, and I sort of thout it irrelevant since the expenses are about 400 times that tax credit received.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
                                However, Party A may have chosen a daycare that does not provide receipts for significant cost-savings in the daycare rates.

                                Presumbably Party B would be involved in the daycare decision made, and they would be abreast of this. Perhaps they forgot? Perhaps they didn't care at the time, but because someone mentioned a tax credit Party A is "hiding", they now are all guns a blazing without checking their notes.

                                But, it's not good to assume that Party A has credits that are being "hidden" without some serious examination of the tax situations of the individuals.

                                A judge made the statement that the person has to pay their share of the net cost of daycare (ie after tax credits). This statement is correct - but did they even look at the incomes involved to determine what credits are there or not?

                                The judge whole-heartedly agreed with my ex's lawyer that he should be paying net of any credits received and ordered I disclose the entire tax return for them to check it over. Did the judge know it was $9 - probably not. I did though, and I sort of thout it irrelevant since the expenses are about 400 times that tax credit received.
                                Maybe in your situation the above may be the case. But in the OP's case, which is what this thread is about, the costs are significant and the tax credit would be equally significant. Thus, the advice to determine the actual cost amount, and see receipts, prior to paying anything.

                                It sounds like you are suggesting the daycare is working under-the-table, and thus won't provide daycare receipts as they don't want to have to claim the income. While it is common to work under-the-table, it doesn't make it right in the eyes of the law. It is essentially a form of tax evasion.

                                I don't pay amounts from my ex without receipts. Simple as that. A judge would still expect that the parent who is receiving the daycare services be provided with a receipt to prove they incurred the cost. No receipt, no pay....

                                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