Equalization of Costs

Status
Not open for further replies.
As a tax accountant I see those review letters from the CRA all the time. I have never seen the letter take the tone of disproving or proving the either side's position. They simply seek to establish the proper living arrangements for the children to allow the CRA to apply the law correctly. It is my experience that the tenor of these letters is one of neutrality.
 
Letters from independant, objective persons of authority in the children's lives e.g. lawyer, doctor, principal, clergy.

Court orders and/or separation agreements.

In cases of joint custody and shared parenting a joint submission by each parent will suffice.
 
I submitted a copy of the endorsement from the judge that proves that we have joint custody with 50/50 access. Apparently, the form previously submitted needed to be accompanied by a RC66. I had not submitted that until August when I learned about the new shared eligibility programs. I guess I am lucky that my ex agreed to shared last years CCTB.
 
dadtotheend said:
As a tax accountant I see those review letters from the CRA all the time. I have never seen the letter take the tone of disproving or proving the either side's position. They simply seek to establish the proper living arrangements for the children to allow the CRA to apply the law correctly. It is my experience that the tenor of these letters is one of neutrality.
Click to expand...


I used disprove to simply explain how the letter from the CRA came across. I had already filed my taxes months before this happened so I was audited along with the request for documentation in regards to the children's living arrangements
 
And I responded to say that the CRA letter doesn't come across that way, which is why I used the word "tenor". You got the letter because your ex filed for the same benefits and the CRA needed to clear the matter up in order to apply the law correctly. They are not in the position of taking positions. Asking you, or even suggesting, to disprove your ex's position would have been inappropriate and not neutral.
 
Last edited:
dadtotheend said:
And I responded to say that the CRA letter doesn't come across that way, which is why I used the word "tenor". You got the letter because your ex filed for the same benefits and the CRA needed to clear the matter up in order to apply the law correctly. They are not in the position of taking positions. Asking you, or even suggesting, to disprove your ex's position would have been inappropriate and not neutral.
Click to expand...


I get that, thank you; it's really not necessary to argue semantics here when what I have posted is based off my experience and viewpoint when I received the letter. People do tend to post their view and/or opinion from time to time; it doesn't make them wrong as a person.
 
I'm not trying to nitpick you. I just don't think people should be given the impression that government agencies are into taking sides. It encourages the gender bias stereotype.
 
Last edited:
I was told by my accountant as well as a few others that my ex is not entitled to the CCTB if there is a support order in place...?? Am I mistaken??? I was told that the Payor is not eligible to claim it?? Please let me know
 
You can still be paying support and getting the CCTB.

The accountant may have referring to the eligible dependant claim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top