4 over 5 year plan

Status
Not open for further replies.
=Nadia;108878

The court is well aware of this 4 over 5 year plan and recently took it into consideration when deciding upon whether section 7 expenses were reasonable given the parents financial income. But the enforcement of the support order related to section 7 expenses along with child support itself is through FRO who can only garnish 50% after his employer has substracted the $2000.
Click to expand...

This is where you said the court was well aware of this "4 over 5 year plan and recently took this into consideration when deciding upon whether section 7 expenses were reasonable given the parents financial income"

How come now you are saying this...

all this information was not available to the Judge when the decision was made on special section seven expenses
Click to expand...
 
There is a distinction.

The court was aware of the fact that he was contributing towards a 4 over 5 year plan.

The court was not aware that he had elected to receive a reduced salary in order to do this.

I should have been more specific.
 
Last edited:
Nadia said:
There is a distinction.

I said the court was aware of the fact that he was contributing towards a 4 over 5 year plan.

The court was not aware that he had elected to receive a reduced salary in order to do this.
Click to expand...

And how else is supposed to be contributing towards a 5 year plan without reducing his salary to do so? Reducing his salary is the smartest way to do it.
 
Lainar said:
And how else is supposed to be contributing towards a 5 year plan without reducing his salary to do so? Reducing his salary is the smartest way to do it.
Click to expand...

I thought he was paying out the $2000 after all the CS deductions.

In any case, I did not have any "evidence" in hand to indicate he was receiving a reduced salary. So, even if it was a safe assumption to make. Family Court need real evidence.
 
Last edited:
I think the key thing here is this 4/5 yr plan is OPTIONAL is it not? It would be no different than someone squirreling away 20% of their income every year so that they could lie in the sun somewhere for a year. Nice.

I would have a big problem with this. It appears to me to be a slick sort of income deferral plan and your monthly CS or SS entitlement shouldn't have to suffer because of it.
 
I think you people are overly strict towards the guy.

Consider this, if he was still married, none of you could have said anything against him. Left and right people take year or several years off for no reason other than being lazy, or just wanting certain types of jobs. Or they want to travel, or they want to work on their house, or spend time with family. Or explore some business opportunity. And no one would be able to or even consider to impute their income, requiring miraculously produce money that were not in fact earned.

And here you are, not knowing the guy's story or his motives, go all steamy, with all these "wtf year off, he must provide".

The law is fucked up, but you don't have to be. Say you work in a high stress job that pays well (suppose, air traffic controller, and 100K for the sake of the argument). Now you want some peace of mind and an easier job, you go into another career and your new job only pays 50K. Valid career choice that NO ONE could question if the person is married or single, but divorced? No freaking way could he do that, he is being 'intentionally underemployed', let's impute his income to 100K. To me that is wrong.
 
I don't think getting divorced automatically gives you leave to kick back and do nothing for a year or two unless you are extremely wealthy and your decision to not work has no effect on those you support.

Divorce is an unforeseen end to a lifetime contract between two people. In any contract, if one person wants out they have to minimize the damage to the other party. Some people do not break the contract because they simply do not want to change their lifestyle.

I think people should take out divorce insurance.

No you cannot quit your job and go hiking in the alps for a year if you have financial responsibilities.
 
randomjohndoe said:
I think you people are overly strict towards the guy.

Consider this, if he was still married, none of you could have said anything against him. Left and right people take year or several years off for no reason other than being lazy, or just wanting certain types of jobs. Or they want to travel, or they want to work on their house, or spend time with family. Or explore some business opportunity. And no one would be able to or even consider to impute their income, requiring miraculously produce money that were not in fact earned.

And here you are, not knowing the guy's story or his motives, go all steamy, with all these "wtf year off, he must provide".

The law is fucked up, but you don't have to be. Say you work in a high stress job that pays well (suppose, air traffic controller, and 100K for the sake of the argument). Now you want some peace of mind and an easier job, you go into another career and your new job only pays 50K. Valid career choice that NO ONE could question if the person is married or single, but divorced? No freaking way could he do that, he is being 'intentionally underemployed', let's impute his income to 100K. To me that is wrong.
Click to expand...

No one is saying he can't take vacation... the discussion is about what income he should be paying support off of, as obviously in that 5th year he is not living off $0 income... the discussion remains as to whether it should be the $124K he could be making if he didn't take a year off or the $100K he would be living off of because he took a year off.

Even in marriage, one would assume there would be a mass discussion on whether it is a good move for the family for one party to take the time off work... I don't think the OP is stating that in no way should he take a year off, the concern is regarding his support obligations to her and the children.
 
Whether he is earning 80% of his income per year or 100% for four years (and 0% in year five) is a question of fact, pursuant to his income tax statements. When he actually receives the payment is immaterial.

The question being discussed is whether the courts would (or should) impute an income to him (whether the 20% per year or 100% in year five, depending on above fact).

Taking a course of action that reduces one's income can be sanctioned by the courts in certain circumstances. OP has not provided sufficient information as to what he is doing on the sabbatical; volunteer work? Career development? An extensive course in sunbathing? How he spends that time - and it is a question of fact - is likely to be the determining factor as to whether his income reduction is reasonable or not.

The OP's question is what she should do. At present, he is already having 50% of his wage garnished; what she expects to take beyond that, unless she resorts to compelling the sale of his property, is something she should contemplate.

If she is receiving (on paper) CS for his income at 100%, and thus has no need to impute an income to him, it would seem prudent to let the matter lie while arrears accumulate since she will receive the benefit of them when they are garnished. Imputed income or not, if the money is not there for her to take then going to court to fight over it will not provide her with any tangible relief. You cannot make a rock bleed.
 
Berner_Faith said:
Even in marriage, one would assume there would be a mass discussion
Click to expand...

Exactly. There would be a DISCUSSION. But after marriage it seems there is no place for such discussion, "you have financial responsibility, period". You can't just leave your corp lawyer job even if you got disenchanted in it and can't take it anymore. I mean, you can, you just have to continue paying support as if you still have got the 200K salary when in fact you don't. So how can you, really?
 
randomjohndoe said:
Exactly. There would be a DISCUSSION. But after marriage it seems there is no place for such discussion, "you have financial responsibility, period". You can't just leave your corp lawyer job even if you got disenchanted in it and can't take it anymore. I mean, you can, you just have to continue paying support as if you still have got the 200K salary when in fact you don't. So how can you, really?
Click to expand...

There can be discussions even when one is divorced, but if someone is looking to reduce SS/CS payments and is taking a pay cut to do so, then no they should not be allowed to do that. However, if someone can show that taking a reduced salary is in the best interest of the children and other party's involved they may have a case.
 
To be honest, we may not know what he does with this year off until after the fact.

But yes, how that time is spent will be an important factor in determining whether it is reasonable or not for him to pay child support in line with what he would be paying if he was not registered on the plan.

All I can say is this: He has been employed in this position since 2006 when we were still married. At which time he did not choose to register on the plan. It was neither mentioned or discussed.

He did not register on to the plan until at least year after the Child Support deductions were ordered and four years after when he was first employed.

Maybe he did not know it existed and only found out about the plan after we had divorced and after CS came into play?

My understanding of the plan is that it is not a one off option, but is something that is offered to employees throughout their career, potentially to be taken advantage of multiple times.

So, the question is this: Does the timing of "when" he chose to register on to the plan play a part (if any) in whether it is reasonable or not he pay child support based on what he would be earning had he not registered on to the plan?
 
Last edited:
Nadia said:
My understanding of the plan is that it is not a one off option, but is something that is offered to employees throughout their career, potentially to be taken advantage of multiple times.
Click to expand...

This plan is so confusing, so essentially it is not something that just everyone can register in? It is a plan that is offered to employees as they advance in their careers? If that is the case, it seems to be sort of a reward program for employees, where after a certain amount of time they are eligible for this plan and in essences after 4 years, they are rewarded with a year off, with pay?
 
Berner_Faith said:
This plan is so confusing, so essentially it is not something that just everyone can register in? It is a plan that is offered to employees as they advance in their careers? If that is the case, it seems to be sort of a reward program for employees, where after a certain amount of time they are eligible for this plan and in essences after 4 years, they are rewarded with a year off, with pay?
Click to expand...

I didn't say it was only offered to only some employees. Can you show me where I stated that? It is open to all employees should they wish to take advantage of it at any point. Whether it is from year one of employment or whether it is something that is never used. It is not mandatory and no, it is not something that is offered as a reward after four years of service. I'm not sure how you could have deduced that from what I wrote above.

The question asked was - does the timing of "when" he decided to register on the plan have any impact/bearing on whether it is reasonable or not for him to be paying child support in line with what he would be paying had he not registered on the plan?
 
Last edited:
Nadia said:
My understanding of the plan is that it is not a one off option, but is something that is offered to employees throughout their career, potentially to be taken advantage of multiple times.
Click to expand...

To me that says they have to get to a certain point in their career before it is offered, when they get to a certain point in their career (maybe so many years of service), this plan is then offered.
 
No as I stated it is offered at point of employment...in year one.

It is offered throughout their career - as in it is not a one off "offer"

For example, if an employee takes advantage of it and takes sabbatical in the fifth year they can return and register back on the 4 over 5 year plan as soon as they return back to work starting off another term of 5 years.

Otherwise, I would have stated it is only offered after someone advances at a certain point in their career.

By the way, I appreciate the time you are spending on this thread.
 
Last edited:
Makes sense... it is an interesting concept... one I have never heard of... I have search Canlii and have not found anything similar...I would really like to know the outcome of this, because this may be happening to many people, who don't even realize. I wonder if the company itself would offer more information regarding the plan? Not necessarily exactly what his plan is, but maybe just the details of the plan in a whole?
 
Will keep you posted.

Thank you for the questions - It has helped me figure out where I need to be more clearer and accurate with the information. Thanks Bernerfaith.
 
Thanks...will appreciate the updated information.
Maybe down the road someone will find further information on this type of plan, which will help you in your quest!
 
da " plan" as far as I'm concerned sounds like hording. You can bundle it up with lots of fancy wording but it's simply a way to avoid paying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top