Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Taxes on settlements

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Kinso View Post
    Theoretically a man seeking support also gets the deduction.
    I was about to adjust my post to just say that it was unfair to the payor .

    Still sexist though, unless you believe that family law is actually gender neutral.

    Comment


    • #17
      In theory it is.
      In practice, absolutely not.

      Comment


      • #18
        I like that saying:

        In theory, practice is just like theory. In practice though, it is not.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Janus View Post
          I was about to adjust my post to just say that it was unfair to the payor .

          Still sexist though, unless you believe that family law is actually gender neutral.

          Maybe not sexist but what about a spouse that has to defend against a SS claim when the other isn’t entitled to support? Or is requested more support than they should be getting? Those fees aren’t deductible?


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

          Comment


          • #20
            They're not.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
              Maybe not sexist but what about a spouse that has to defend against a SS claim when the other isn’t entitled to support? Or is requested more support than they should be getting? Those fees aren’t deductible?
              The concept is that if you spend money to make income, then the money you spent to earn that income is tax deductible.

              So, if you hire a lawyer to get support, then you got income. Therefore, tax deductible.

              However, if you hired a lawyer to reduce (or eliminate) your support payments, you didn't earn income, so not tax deductible.

              Anybody with even a passing understanding of mathematics would understand that reducing a recurring financial obligation is equivalent to gaining an income. I have to believe that the people who made up the rule are smart enough to appreciate the lack of distinction, which means that the rule is deliberately designed to hurt support payors.

              Comment


              • #22
                Grenon v. HMTQ 2014 TCC 265

                Reviews the issue.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Kinso View Post
                  Wow, that case was quite the read. Was it ever appealed? The judge seemed to be certain that it would be. He was almost encouraging it.

                  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