AlmostThere_Hopefully
New member
The average of their last 3 years is a tad bit less than what they make now. Thanks for the info. This really helps me in terms of getting my paperwork together. To understand both sides.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Evidence to impute income
- Thread starter AlmostThere_Hopefully
- Start date
The average of their last 3 years is a tad bit less than what they make now. Thanks for the info. This really helps me in terms of getting my paperwork together. To understand both sides.
Evidence to impute income
Just because there are jobs out there that pay more doesn’t mean they would be able to do it or be hired. This would be a poor argument to make. Don’t go in with an argument that they could be making more or should be making more. The only way you can prove under employment is if they are purposely underemployed. That works for people who quit their jobs to go to school in a different field, retire early to avoid support, quit to sit at home, quit to look after their new spouses kids, go on mat leave with a new partner etc.
The key is “purposely” underemployed. Not accomplishing anything in their field is not underemployed. Its simply not motivated to achieve more.
As the judge in my partners case said—you will not find a judge who expects someone to work more than 40 hours or find a new job that pays more just to suit you.
Just because there are jobs out there that pay more doesn’t mean they would be able to do it or be hired. This would be a poor argument to make. Don’t go in with an argument that they could be making more or should be making more. The only way you can prove under employment is if they are purposely underemployed. That works for people who quit their jobs to go to school in a different field, retire early to avoid support, quit to sit at home, quit to look after their new spouses kids, go on mat leave with a new partner etc.
The key is “purposely” underemployed. Not accomplishing anything in their field is not underemployed. Its simply not motivated to achieve more.
As the judge in my partners case said—you will not find a judge who expects someone to work more than 40 hours or find a new job that pays more just to suit you.
AlmostThere_Hopefully
New member
Just because there are jobs out there that pay more doesn’t mean they would be able to do it or be hired. This would be a poor argument to make. Don’t go in with an argument that they could be making more or should be making more. The only way you can prove under employment is if they are purposely underemployed. That works for people who quit their jobs to go to school in a different field, retire early to avoid support, quit to sit at home, quit to look after their new spouses kids, go on mat leave with a new partner etc.
The key is “purposely” underemployed. Not accomplishing anything in their field is not underemployed. Its simply not motivated to achieve more.
As the judge in my partners case said—you will not find a judge who expects someone to work more than 40 hours or find a new job that pays more just to suit you.
Makes perfect sense. Thanks for your input and a real life example.