Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Adjusting Child Support - Help in determining income

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

  • #16
    Id talk to a lawyer. Firefighters, cops and other unions get retro decisions all the time and they would include divorced people with support obligations. A lawyer might know more about how its considered. Although, if its not a huge amount, why not just adjust accordingly and then next year it goes down when you reassess?

    Comment


    • #17
      Interesting case, but I have a feeling many judges would rule it as income and force you to pay support based on it.

      The agreement you made to pay below table amount of CS for X years for ANY reasons can be thrown out or ignored by a judge at their whim because it is not the law.

      Judges generally err on the side of the children. More money for the kids rather than less money for the kids is what they usually rule.

      This case falls into an interesting grey area. On a side note, I have a feeling that additional support for 1 year would cost far less than going to court to fight over it.

      Personally I don't think it's fair since your agreement covered your income in those years... but I don't think a judge would agree with me.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by FightingForFamily View Post
        Interesting case, but I have a feeling many judges would rule it as income and force you to pay support based on it.

        The agreement you made to pay below table amount of CS for X years for ANY reasons can be thrown out or ignored by a judge at their whim because it is not the law.

        Judges generally err on the side of the children. More money for the kids rather than less money for the kids is what they usually rule.

        This case falls into an interesting grey area. On a side note, I have a feeling that additional support for 1 year would cost far less than going to court to fight over it.

        Personally I don't think it's fair since your agreement covered your income in those years... but I don't think a judge would agree with me.
        I actually agree, you might be right but judges don't really care at the end more money for the person with custody is the goal but if you want to experience the lies of the justice system you can take a swing at it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Links17 View Post
          I don't agree with other poster, that income was for work done in previous years and paid to you retroactively.

          You had an agreement that covered those years, it would be unfair due to some unrelated t work issues that the pay of years 2011,2012,2010 be considered part of 2013. I would argue your case is unique because you had a special agreement for those years but you need to prove imo beyond a reasonable doubt that the source of that income is retro pay for 2010,11,12

          That's my 2c
          That is a very good point, my employer is the Government of Canada, but I have a supplemental cheque which clearly outlines retroactive years. I am not sure that they would re-issue T4s, since it would be administratively difficult for them to do so, and I would not anticipate that they would treat me as an isolated case.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
            Which would be easy if his employer issued him new T4 slips with the adjusted income. If it really was for the years before his employer would have no issue doing this.

            His case is unique but was CS determined and fixed on a certain income level at that time? If so, was this increase included in the initial calculations? That could play a part in this as well, as if it was not taken into consideration then it shouldn't be excluded.
            I would have to go back to the original wording of the agreement, however it was worded that the amount of child support would be fixed at $400 / month in recognition of unequal division of assets regardless of any income increases. In essence, I didn't get the better end of the deal, I got to fix CS for 5 years, but took about $18K in debt load. The difference was about $40 / month. However, because we have 50/50 access and she was going on maternity leave for another child (not mine), it made sense to fix the CS instead of imputing income for her.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Links17 View Post
              I actually agree, you might be right but judges don't really care at the end more money for the person with custody is the goal but if you want to experience the lies of the justice system you can take a swing at it.
              My ex already took me to court with an attempt at retro-active child support and lost that case. The judge ruled that the agreement held, since we both had independent legal advice.

              The other point to note is that we share custody 50/50, so I pay offset. The child benefits in both our homes, so it isn't exactly fair for me to forgo my income so my child has a better quality of life at ex's home but has less in my home when he spends half his time with me?

              My ex is remarried, has another child is doing quite well.

              Comment


              • #22
                It sounds like the idea of retroactive adjustments to past years' CS is off the table, with good reason, so the question is whether the extra $$ you got this year should count as part of your current income for determining offset for the year going forward. My feeling (again, not a tax expert here) is that if it shows up on your T4 and goes into your line 150, it's part of your income for CS calculation purposes. So your CS for the coming year may be higher than you anticipated. But this will even out next year, when you don't have the retro pay in your line 150.

                If you're paying offset (not full table) and your ex is doing well financially (in other words, your income gap isn't huge), I suspect that the one-year difference of this retro pay will be less than the cost of fighting it in court. If it goes to court, none of that money will be used for the benefit of your kid.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Gilligan View Post
                  My ex already took me to court with an attempt at retro-active child support and lost that case. The judge ruled that the agreement held, since we both had independent legal advice.

                  The other point to note is that we share custody 50/50, so I pay offset. The child benefits in both our homes, so it isn't exactly fair for me to forgo my income so my child has a better quality of life at ex's home but has less in my home when he spends half his time with me?

                  My ex is remarried, has another child is doing quite well.
                  The fact that the ex has remarried is totally irrelevent. The only thing is relevent is your income and his.

                  Have you done the math to see what the adjustment would be if that retro income was claimed as taxable income this year? Then have you done the math on how much it would cost to go to court?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    The difference it about 10% more child support when a decision on retro child support was already made.

                    To put things another way, if it is OK to pay increase child support because my income was differed to 2013, would it also be OK to differ my income until my CS obligations were over to reduce CS obligations?

                    That comment was meant to be inflammatory, because we all know the answer that it would be unethical and most controls and rules around child support are to ensure that income is attributed to the years they were earned.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Gilligan View Post
                      This is my first year where I have to adjust child support based on a final court order that was issued in 2013. Both my ex and I have exchanged the appropriate information and we are to adjust CS based on this information.

                      I have a bit of an issue however and would like some thoughts on the matter.

                      In 2013, I received a substantial amount of retroactive pay for 2010, 2011, and 2012. While I would normally include this increase if child support was payable in those years, but my agreement fixed child support amounts until March 2013, therefore I feel that this retro-active pay for previous years income should not be used in calculating child support.

                      I am proposing that my annual income for 2013 be used in determining child support (excluding pay from 2010, 2011, and 2012). As a side note, my ex and I share access 50/50, so I pay off-set child support.

                      Of course my ex is arguing that I should pay based on past years, but I don't imagine that this would be the likely outcome.

                      Any advice would be appreciated.

                      Thanks,
                      Going by line 150 works for situations where it's just an annual adjustment and it all works out in the wash with income fluctuations.

                      This is not your situation. This has been proven twice in court now, once by your initial agreement that CS be frozen for a time due to your taking on this marital debt, and again by your ex's failed attempt to get retro CS. Now that this freeze period is over, you are calculating CS from scratch, like a newly separated couple would. Your annual income is steady, so going by the income listed on your most recent pay stub is appropriate (unless you have two jobs, etc). Offering to use your accurate current annual salary instead of going by the 2013 line 150 amount minus retro-pay (which is presumably lower) might be enough incentive for her to agree.

                      That said, sit down and make a spreadsheet of that extra $9000 in debt, and how your frozen CS helped you pay it off in relation to what accurate CS would have been (including your retro-pay) (and including imputing her an income while on mat leave). Make a column for each scenario (what actually happened, accurate CS, accurate CS with imputing income to her, etc) and if she keeps arguing, you can show her the different results. Showing her how little she might gain if she takes you to court over this could be what it takes.

                      Or tell her you'd be happy to do the math and adjust CS retroactively to have been completely accurate based on line 150 all along, if she pays you $9000 cash plus interest.

                      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