Tax time, and more follies from the ex

S

stripes

New member
My ex is at it again. I would appreciate any advice from tax-savvy people. This is kind of long, but I think the issue is simple.

The issue: since he remarried in 2012, he is not eligible to claim the AED on behalf of Kid. I have not remarried and am eligible. He believes I should give him half of the value of the AED and the child-under-18 deduction.

However, we have a paragraph in our agreement which says that in any year if one party is ineligible for the AED, the other party may claim it. The child-under-18 deduction is claimed by whoever makes the AED claim.

He believes that somewhere in the bowels of CRA tax law is something that supports his position. Here is his logic, followed by my response. Would appreciate any thoughts:

Ex: "I have found the relevant information in the current tax guide as well as a supporting publication. The provisions are discussed in three different places - in the second column of p 36 of the 2014 tax guide, relating to Line 305 (with the key section at the top of p. 37 in the first column); in the middle of page 37 of the same guide, concerning Line 367; and on page 11 of Pamphlet P 102 - Support Payments - in the section discussing the amount for eligible dependents.

What these make clear is that in a situation where parents pay each other child support, the deductions on Line 305 and Line 367 of the Federal return and Line 5816 of the Alberta return may be claimed by a parent only if there is an agreement between the parties to do so. This is the basis for the provisions in the Minutes of Settlement, where we agreed to pay each other support and to alternate claiming the amount for KI'd as a dependent, so that I received these deductions for 2010 and 2012, and you claimed them for 2011 (and 2013).

The agreement in the Minutes of Settlement no longer applies, as I have not been allowed to make these deductions since I married New Wife. We have no agreement that would allow you to claim these amounts either, as we disagreed about what rules applied and how to interpret the clauses of the divorce agreement. However, the sections I identified above do clarify the situation, so that we need to enter into a new agreement if you want to claim Kid as a dependent.

Put simply, if you want to claim Kid as a dependent, you will have to agree to share the value of the deductions with me. If the CRA queries these deductions - as they did for me in 2010 - you will have to repay the amount you claimed for her for 2013 as the provisions of the minutes of settlement no longer applied. As I claimed her for 2 years and you legitimately claimed her for one year, I am willing to agree to you having made the claim in 2013 - and kept the entire value of the deductions for that year - if you agree to split the value for 2014 and in future years as long as you are allowed to claim her and I am not able to do so.

Now here's me:

Concerning the AED and the amount for a child under 18, the examples you have pulled from the tax information aren't relevant because they presume that both parties are eligible for the AED and/or do not have an agreement which covers who will claim deductions. By contrast, in our situation one party is not eligible for the AED and we already have an agreement in the form of the divorce order.

CRA is quite clear about who is eligible to claim the AED:

Can you claim the amount for an eligible dependant?
You may be able to claim this amount if, at any time in the year, you met all of the following conditions at once:
• You did not have a spouse or common-law partner or, if you did, you were not living with, supporting, or being supported by that person.
• You supported a dependant in 2014.
• You lived with the dependant (in most cases in Canada) in a home that you maintained. You cannot claim this amount for a person who was only visiting you. (Can you claim the amount for an eligible dependant?)
Paragraph 18 of the divorce order, which concerns tax deductions, reads:

The plaintiff shall claim the Amount for Eligible Dependent ... in 2012 and every even numbered year thereafter. The defendant shall claim the AED in 2013 and every odd-numbered year thereafter. The parties shall claim the deduction for a child born after 1995 in the same year as they claim the AED. If one party is ineligible to claim this deduction, it shall be claimed by the other party.

You were not eligible to claim the AED this year because you did not meet all of the conditions. I met all the conditions. According to our agreement, I will claim the AED this year. This paragraph describes the current situation exactly; we both agreed to it with legal advice; and it was turned into an order by a judge. Until it is superseded by a court order or mutual agreement, it stands. You chose to give up your eligibility for the AED when you got married, and there is nothing in the divorce order, or in law, or anywhere else, which obliges me to subsidize the cost of that choice.

(Our agreement to pay each other child support is also covered in the divorce order in para 16).

If you seek a change to paragraph 18 or any other paragraph, you can propose a change. If I don't agree to the change, your next step is mediation. As it stands, however, we have agreed that when one person is ineligible for the AED, the other may claim it and the child-under-18 deduction.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The plaintiff shall claim the Amount for Eligible Dependent ... in 2012 and every even numbered year thereafter. The defendant shall claim the AED in 2013 and every odd-numbered year thereafter. The parties shall claim the deduction for a child born after 1995 in the same year as they claim the AED. If one party is ineligible to claim this deduction, it shall be claimed by the other party.
how can he say that you need his agreement? To me this sentence is his agreement. It didn't say that anything about splitting the money or anything. He cannot claim it anymore so now you get to.
 
Thanks, that's pretty much how I see it, but I don't entirely trust my own ability to discern when the ex is being unreasonable.

This is also part of a cycle: he gets into financial straits; he comes up with some unfounded reason why I should give him more money (if it's not taxes it's illegitimate S7 expenses, or "nightly charges" for looking after Kid, or whatever); I refuse; he gets indignant; I get several weeks of very long, pompous and usually insulting emails which I ignore, then things quiet down again until the next round.
 
I commented in the other thread before seeing this. Im with SOTS that your agreement is clear. Hes trying to have his cake and eat it too so to speak. His financial problems are just that--HIS PROBLEMS.

Ignore his emails and live your life. If he wants to come after you for something you didnt do wrong, tell him to do it. If it gets really bad you could suggest agreeing to use the money immediately for kid on something like putting the whole amount into an RESP the years hes ineligible.

I have this argument with my partner over his ex's blustering all the time. Theres only a fight if you let it. And yes I know its easier to say ignore him when Im not the one in your situation. However, the agreement lays it out. He chose to remarry making himself ineligible.
 
I'm tempted to tell him that if he believes he should be receiving the AED despite our order and CRA rules about eligibility, there's nothing to stop him from trying to claim it on his 2014 return and seeing what CRA thinks about it. But I will probably just stick to some version of my answer above, and then ignore future communication.

I could go for the idea of putting the entire deduction into an RESP as a compromise - but he wouldn't go for that because what he wants is cash. And if he wants the divorce order changed, it's up to him to seek the change. It works fine for me as it is.
 
Tax time, and more follies from the ex

I wouldnt even go so far to say that! He knows hes not eligible. Tell him your agreement is crystal clear and if he believes you are out of line, feel free to let the court decide. What will happen? He'll bluster and complain and bitch about how unreasonable you are then what? Hes not eligible, therefore you can claim it. Just like the agreement HE SIGNED says.

ETA: he knows what hes doing is wrong but hes desperate hence all the bs and ugliness in his tirades. Let him blow, hes not going to get anything. You seem more inclined to use any financial benefit for your child. He'll just use it to cover his own financial issues.
 
Last edited:
rockscan said:
I wouldnt even go so far to say that! He knows hes not eligible. Tell him your agreement is crystal clear and if he believes you are out of line, feel free to let the court decide. What will happen? He'll bluster and complain and bitch about how unreasonable you are then what? Hes not eligible, therefore you can claim it. Just like the agreement HE SIGNED says.

ETA: he knows what hes doing is wrong but hes desperate hence all the bs and ugliness in his tirades. Let him blow, hes not going to get anything. You seem more inclined to use any financial benefit for your child. He'll just use it to cover his own financial issues.
Click to expand...

I said pretty much exactly that: the divorce order is unambiguous and we follow it until either we both agree to deviate or it is superseded by another court order. He thinks that if he uses lots of pseudo-legal references and calculation it will make his argument seem more logical, when it's just wrong from the get-go.

This message was also time-stamped at 3.00 am, which is also part of the pattern - stay up all night drinking and fire off nastygrams from the safety of the computer.
 
You should remove identifying names from your original post. Ask a mod if necessary.

He's not eligible. You are. End of story.
If CRA gets confused, you may have extra CRA BS to deal with (especially if you were both still eligible), but they should recognize he's not eligible now.
 
In retrospect, I shouldn't have Ctrl-V'ed such great chunks of the correspondence (and thus made it searchable). A synopsis would have been just as useful.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top