Imputation--thoughts on rulings?

[annapurna66]

I am wondering if anyone on this forum can share their experiences with respect to imputation of income...namely is it difficult to impute income or relatively easy? If you tried to impute your ex and a judge ruled on it..how did the judge rule? If your ex tried to impute your income...was your ex successful in doing so? Im trying to get a sense of how easy or not easy it is to impute (although I do realize that it will be case by case basis). Thanks to those who are willing to share,

 

[Links17]

Give some context, it happens all the time if the right factors are there.

 

[Janibel]

Really does depend on your particular situation. In my case the SA was reached without any mediation because of ex's criminal charges and restraining order. Judge noticed the 'ridiculous gap' between his pre and post separation income so calculated 5 year average and imputed from those numbers. Ex and I agreed and signed it for the interim.

Our case will go to court, my lawyer thinks the judge will impute going back three years average.

It should be relatively easy if you have full disclosure from your ex. Also if his salary drops significantly for no valid reason other than 'he don't wanna pay CS or SS' the judge will impute a salary to him.

 

[annapurna66]

Thanks for sharing.

 

[marivana]

what if ex is self-employeed

what if ex is self-employeed

It is eas-ier to impute income when the individual is full-time employed. However, when the individual is self-employed, there are huge gaps in what what they truly make and what they show to CRA? the question then is what point to bring forth in front of the judge to say, your honour these numbers are ridiculous, they have been deposit of 90,000 in the business account (with unaccountable cash payments) where the person is claiming more than half as expense. then the rest in taxes and only 25,000 as gross income. And of course lets not forget his personal expenses are 75,000 and so no way can he make CS and SS payments.

 

[Mess]

You have that backwards. It is much harder to impute an income when someone is employed full-time. In such a case you cannot claim that they are not working enough, and you cannot call into question whether they are reporting all of their income.

The only thing you could call into question is whether they could find a better paying job, which is extremenly difficult to PROVE. Judges also accept that people have a right to change jobs.

For self-employed or family businesses at least there grounds to make the accusation, and possible facts to support.

 

[Rioe]

Parents are expected to support their children to the best of their ability. This means earning to their full potential. There are really two situations where imputation can come into play.

Your ex lies about their income.
They could be self-employed and fudge their financials, they could make cash under the table, they could make significant tips or benefits, things like that. Often this comes with misrepresenting their income to CRA as well, though there are some deducations CRA allows that aren't necessarily appropriate. Here, you need to get full financial disclosure and do some forensic accounting to determine a more realistic income, or do some research to find out what a typical person in that profession makes. The imputed money would come from their actual, hidden, income.

Your ex chooses to be unemployed or underemployed.
They could be working part-time hours when full time is available, they could be attending school when they already have a perfectly good education, they could do seasonal work instead of finding normal employment, they could be doing the homemaker thing because a new spouse has a high income, they could be staying home with a child when daycare is more appropriate, they could be doing menial work instead of what their education and experience could earn them, anything of that sort. In this case it's not as clear where the imputed money would come from, though most likely they receive support from somewhere (parents, new partner, inheritance, equalization) unless they are obviously living in complete poverty.

In cases of offset child support imputation is sometimes easier. For greater earner, they simply reduce their offset payment to the imputed earner, so the money doesn't have to actually come from somewhere. For a lesser earner, the imputed person only has to come up with the offset amount, not the full amount.

Be wary though; if you are not earning to your own full potential, you may also be imputed an income.

I would also suggest that it would be wise to investigate Canlii for examples rather than ask for anecdotes here. Then you could have precedents you could use in your court case.