Does anyone have experience with this: My ex has his own small business (Ontario) and child support/spousal support is based on his net or after all expenses and write offs he's allowed. Everything is based on my gross income. After his business expenses he makes 140 k and after everything else he makes about 68. I just feels like I'm being totally screwed. He is such a liar. My lawyer said it's not worth going to court because there's no proof. I'm inclined to believe her. Wondering if anyone here has experiences or similarities?. thanks
21 year marriage and business
- Thread starter momiss
- Start date
- Status
winterwolf7
New member
Well, the simplest form of proof is his income taxes for the last 3 years. If line 150 on his personal income tax is accepted as 68k then he pays support based on that. Child support is generally based on gross personal income unless parties agree to their own amounts.
I am pretty much expecting the posters in this forum to jump all over on this. It comes across as greedy and unfair to go for more money than children really require. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone rational that children cost thousands of dollars per month in additional expenses that your ex should cover.
Even if your ex's taxes do say 140k, if in reality he is living on 68k (before personal income taxes) you will destroy the children's father's ability to offer a good home for them by taking all of his money. Kids should come first, and for that to be a consideration, BOTH parents need to involved as much as possible, and be able to have a good home for the kids during their time.
Just my opinion
Get a financial statement and his income tax returns if you can, if he refuses you could use court to file a motion for support.
I am pretty much expecting the posters in this forum to jump all over on this. It comes across as greedy and unfair to go for more money than children really require. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone rational that children cost thousands of dollars per month in additional expenses that your ex should cover.
Even if your ex's taxes do say 140k, if in reality he is living on 68k (before personal income taxes) you will destroy the children's father's ability to offer a good home for them by taking all of his money. Kids should come first, and for that to be a consideration, BOTH parents need to involved as much as possible, and be able to have a good home for the kids during their time.
Just my opinion
Get a financial statement and his income tax returns if you can, if he refuses you could use court to file a motion for support.
billm
New member
Well, the simplest form of proof is his income taxes for the last 3 years. If line 150 on his personal income tax is accepted as 68k then he pays support based on that. Child support is generally based on gross personal income unless parties agree to their own amounts.
I am pretty much expecting the posters in this forum to jump all over on this. It comes across as greedy and unfair to go for more money than children really require. You'll have a hard time convincing anyone rational that children cost thousands of dollars per month in additional expenses that your ex should cover.
Even if your ex's taxes do say 140k, if in reality he is living on 68k (before personal income taxes) you will destroy the children's father's ability to offer a good home for them by taking all of his money. Kids should come first, and for that to be a consideration, BOTH parents need to involved as much as possible, and be able to have a good home for the kids during their time.
Just my opinion
Get a financial statement and his income tax returns if you can, if he refuses you could use court to file a motion for support.
You should support children in proportion to your income. That is the basis of the child support guidelines. winterwolf7 is trying to say that this should not be the case, his opinion, but from the courts point of view, he is not correct.
For most people line 150 represents their income, but not for all. I do not use my line 150, I use my companies income after expenses, as I am a one man company. Sometimes I'll build up money in my company etc and pay myself less, or other things that make my 150 not a true representation of my available income. So using my companies profit makes more sense.
My point is that people can not just say 'well that's my line 150 and the CRA accepted it so that's what I use for CS' - line 150 has to represent their true income relative to someone who simply has a simple T-4 job.
I'm not saying his line 150 should not be used simply because he has his own business, but that may be the case.
I am not clear where your 140 and 68 numbers represent - his company makes 140k after expenses, but he pays himself 68k??
winterwolf7
New member
You may find that your ex paying child support means he is paying more for them now then when you were married in that case, which is a good thing. Congrats on signing the agreement, it's usually the best way to go if the outcome is survivable even if it's not ideal.
Yes actually I agree with that one. Always felt I got the crap end of the deal when married, so will likely do better now than before. Part of the deal is he can file and pay for divorce within 6 months of the separation agreement. I can thank him for always being able to take care of myself and my children. Or should I say our children. lol. Nice to be able to laugh at this after almost 2 years.
- Status