If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Whiteside wrote: I'm not a CPA, but I think I understand this stuff fairly well. There are advantages to how you plan to file your taxes. First, the child's parent with the highest income can prove they provide more than half the child's support to meet the support test. This allows your partner to pay lower taxes by claiming head of household status and the child exemption. Second, she can claim the standard deduction (or her itemized deductions) and you can claim the single standard deduction (or your itemized deductions). The combination of two single standard deductions is greater than a married couple claiming a married standard deduction. This causes your combined deductions to increase and reduce your taxes. Third, there is no marriage penalty. Your combined incomes can exceed the point where a married couple will move up into a higher tax bracket. By separating your incomes you pay less tax overall at lower tax bracket rates. Yah, although that isn't the REASON we're choosing to do things this way -- it is just a happy coincidence. BTW - I just don't understand how gays and lesbians are pressing so hard to get the right to marriage. They will end up complaining about the higher taxes they pay based on the right to marry because they will lose the three advantages listed above instead of just living together. Oh, THAT. That's easy -- the people spearheading that movement aren't even gay. They're divorce lawyers. ;^) - Ron ^*^ |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
It's a *Paternity* acknowledgement - why would you expect it to deal with a
maternity acknowledgement? "Werebat" wrote in message news:1q7oe.8864$rb6.262@lakeread07... snip One part of the affidavit spells out that I, as the father, agree to "assume the financial responsibility of the child". There is nothing on the form that mentions the mother's financial responsibilities. Both myself and my partner disagreed with this and were not comfortable signing the document. We told the clerk at the hospital that we would sign the document if the section about the father assuming financial responsibility were either removed or altered to include the mother's equal assumption of financial responsibility. We were told that this was impossible. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her name on the birth certificate -- a document that specifically required ber to agree to be financially responsible for the child. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. - Ron ^*^ Moon Shyne wrote: It's a *Paternity* acknowledgement - why would you expect it to deal with a maternity acknowledgement? "Werebat" wrote in message news:1q7oe.8864$rb6.262@lakeread07... snip One part of the affidavit spells out that I, as the father, agree to "assume the financial responsibility of the child". There is nothing on the form that mentions the mother's financial responsibilities. Both myself and my partner disagreed with this and were not comfortable signing the document. We told the clerk at the hospital that we would sign the document if the section about the father assuming financial responsibility were either removed or altered to include the mother's equal assumption of financial responsibility. We were told that this was impossible. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 21:49:31 GMT, "Bob Whiteside"
wrote: "Beverly" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 03:06:28 GMT, "Bob Whiteside" wrote: p.s. If you want to claim the child as your dependent for tax purposes you will have to get married. The recent federal tax court decision limiting child exemptions to non-married CP's, and not the child's majority financial support provider, works against your situation. See a qualified tax professional on how to use the child exemption under the recent decision. As far as I can tell, the IRS has not adopted any new rules regarding the exemptions for unmarried parents. Where might you have learned of this change? In King 121 TC 245 that came down in December 2003 the federal tax court overruled the IRS' previous position (and the congressional record's reflection of legislative intent) that the "special support test" only applies to divorced or spearated parents. In King, the court changed the rules to extend the "special support test" that previously applied to divorced or separated parents to also include never married parents. The net result was to allow never married CP's to control the child exemption by keeping it, signing it away to the NCP when there is a formal divorce or separation custody agreement, or assigning the exemption under a Multiple Support Agreement to any party contributing 10% or more of a child's support. This is the circumstance and case we discussed here about a month ago. Okay, yes, I remember this discussion, but I will tell you downstream why it would not apply in this case. In any case, if the non-married couple lives together and the child lives with them, the "member of household" test can be used to claim the exemption rather than the "relationship" test. That's not my understanding of what the tax court ruled in King. My interpretation is the only way for someone in the OP's position to get the child exemption is if he and the child's mother have a court ordered custody agreement or enter into a Multiple Support Agreement. But the catch is a Multiple Support Agreement only works when two or more people support a person (in this case a child) and no one provides more than half of the child's support. Since the mother makes more than the child's unmarried father she cannot qualify for a Multiple Support Agreement. And I don't think a court would order a child custody agreement designating the CP and NCP when the parents are living together. Alas, what you say about the King case is true; HOWEVER, by disallowing the father to be on the birth certificate without signing it as is effectively causes the father to be of no LEGAL relation. Hence, the child would be said to live with the mother and a man versus the mother and the father. THIS makes King irrelevant and a "member of household test" rules. Of course, it doesn't matter in this case because Mom will most likely contribute more than 50%. The "member of household" test is different than a multiple support agreement, by the way. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Werebat" wrote in message news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05... I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her name on the birth certificate -- a document that specifically required ber to agree to be financially responsible for the child. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You are overlooking one significant fact. The mother signed the child's birth certificate at the hospital and her doctor signed it too as a witness to the birth. And by operation of state law as the documented parent of the child she has financial responsibility for the child, so no additional declaration by her is necessary. The question for you to answer for yourself is simple - Do you want your name on the child's birth certificate as the father? If the answer is "no" don't sign the Declaration of Paternity. If the answer is "yes" you can sign the declaration now or later. Birth certificates can be changed at later dates. In fact, the mother can ask that the child's father's name be removed from a birth certificate. Since you were not married to the child's mother it is most likely state law prohibits the mother from placing your name on the birth certificate. Usually, a married mother can only place her husband's name on the child's birth certificate as the father. The only other option you have is to get a court order directing the state to add your name to the child's birth certificate. That option will cost you time and money to accomplish the same results as just signing the declaration of paternity. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Bob Whiteside wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05... I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her name on the birth certificate -- a document that specifically required ber to agree to be financially responsible for the child. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You are overlooking one significant fact. The mother signed the child's birth certificate at the hospital and her doctor signed it too as a witness to the birth. And by operation of state law as the documented parent of the child she has financial responsibility for the child, so no additional declaration by her is necessary. Then have the declaration of paternity reflect that, and not imply that the father and the father alone is responsible for the child's financial well-being. Come on -- this isn't rocket science, people. It's not like the mother doesn't need to be present to sign the thing anyway -- she does! The question for you to answer for yourself is simple - Do you want your name on the child's birth certificate as the father? If the answer is "no" don't sign the Declaration of Paternity. If the answer is "yes" you can sign the declaration now or later. Birth certificates can be changed at later dates. In fact, the mother can ask that the child's father's name be removed from a birth certificate. You are using one injustice to "justify" another. Did a Master's ability to rape his female slaves somehow justify his ability to beat his other slaves? No, it did not -- although no doubt lawyers of the time may have sought to use legalese to "prove" this. Since you were not married to the child's mother it is most likely state law prohibits the mother from placing your name on the birth certificate. Usually, a married mother can only place her husband's name on the child's birth certificate as the father. The only other option you have is to get a court order directing the state to add your name to the child's birth certificate. That option will cost you time and money to accomplish the same results as just signing the declaration of paternity. No document can be rightfully called "voluntary" if choosing not to sign it means signing away legal rights to your child. Period. End. Of. Story. - Ron ^*^ |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Beverly wrote: On Sun, 05 Jun 2005 21:49:31 GMT, "Bob Whiteside" wrote: "Beverly" wrote in message . .. On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 03:06:28 GMT, "Bob Whiteside" wrote: p.s. If you want to claim the child as your dependent for tax purposes you will have to get married. The recent federal tax court decision limiting child exemptions to non-married CP's, and not the child's majority financial support provider, works against your situation. See a qualified tax professional on how to use the child exemption under the recent decision. As far as I can tell, the IRS has not adopted any new rules regarding the exemptions for unmarried parents. Where might you have learned of this change? In King 121 TC 245 that came down in December 2003 the federal tax court overruled the IRS' previous position (and the congressional record's reflection of legislative intent) that the "special support test" only applies to divorced or spearated parents. In King, the court changed the rules to extend the "special support test" that previously applied to divorced or separated parents to also include never married parents. The net result was to allow never married CP's to control the child exemption by keeping it, signing it away to the NCP when there is a formal divorce or separation custody agreement, or assigning the exemption under a Multiple Support Agreement to any party contributing 10% or more of a child's support. This is the circumstance and case we discussed here about a month ago. Okay, yes, I remember this discussion, but I will tell you downstream why it would not apply in this case. In any case, if the non-married couple lives together and the child lives with them, the "member of household" test can be used to claim the exemption rather than the "relationship" test. That's not my understanding of what the tax court ruled in King. My interpretation is the only way for someone in the OP's position to get the child exemption is if he and the child's mother have a court ordered custody agreement or enter into a Multiple Support Agreement. But the catch is a Multiple Support Agreement only works when two or more people support a person (in this case a child) and no one provides more than half of the child's support. Since the mother makes more than the child's unmarried father she cannot qualify for a Multiple Support Agreement. And I don't think a court would order a child custody agreement designating the CP and NCP when the parents are living together. Alas, what you say about the King case is true; HOWEVER, by disallowing the father to be on the birth certificate without signing it as is effectively causes the father to be of no LEGAL relation. Hence, the child would be said to live with the mother and a man versus the mother and the father. THIS makes King irrelevant and a "member of household test" rules. Of course, it doesn't matter in this case because Mom will most likely contribute more than 50%. The "member of household" test is different than a multiple support agreement, by the way. Personally, I don't care about any of this legal mumbo-jumbo. She's going to claim him as an exemption, and that what will profit us best anyway since she makes more than I do. I have no problem with that. I'd just like to have my name on my child's birth certificate without being required to sign my name to (thereby tacitly approving of) a blatantly sexist legal document. - Ron ^*^ |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Werebat" wrote in message news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05... I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her name on the birth certificate Think about this one - there's no question who the mother is, because the child came out of her body, in front of all those witnesses. Therefore, there is no necessity for her to acknowledge maternity - it's quite obvious she is the mother. It's the came concept as in Judaism - if the mother is Jewish the child is considered to be Jewish - because you always know who the mother is. -- a document that specifically required ber to agree to be financially responsible for the child. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So what's your problem with acknowledging the child as yours? My guess is the mother would have no problem signing such an acknowledgement? - Ron ^*^ Moon Shyne wrote: It's a *Paternity* acknowledgement - why would you expect it to deal with a maternity acknowledgement? "Werebat" wrote in message news:1q7oe.8864$rb6.262@lakeread07... snip One part of the affidavit spells out that I, as the father, agree to "assume the financial responsibility of the child". There is nothing on the form that mentions the mother's financial responsibilities. Both myself and my partner disagreed with this and were not comfortable signing the document. We told the clerk at the hospital that we would sign the document if the section about the father assuming financial responsibility were either removed or altered to include the mother's equal assumption of financial responsibility. We were told that this was impossible. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Shyne wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05... I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her name on the birth certificate Think about this one - there's no question who the mother is, because the child came out of her body, in front of all those witnesses. Therefore, there is no necessity for her to acknowledge maternity - it's quite obvious she is the mother. It's the came concept as in Judaism - if the mother is Jewish the child is considered to be Jewish - because you always know who the mother is. Oh, I just recognized the handle. That explains a lot. Moon, you aren't paying attention. I'm not upset that Mom doesn't have to claim maternity. Obviously that would be silly. Go back and read again. It's the implications on the "voluntary" affidavit of paternity that upset me -- the implications that Dad is the ONLY one financially responsible for the child. I suppose that might seem paranoid to you -- and I would have thought so, too, before I had my dealings with CSE and the Family Court System. Their manner of dealing with fathers breeds paranoia. That's a consequence of their attitudes and actions that we will ALL have to deal with until some changes are made. - Ron ^*^ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Werebat" wrote in message news:8xVpe.28726$iU.11828@lakeread05... Moon Shyne wrote: "Werebat" wrote in message news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05... I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her name on the birth certificate Think about this one - there's no question who the mother is, because the child came out of her body, in front of all those witnesses. Therefore, there is no necessity for her to acknowledge maternity - it's quite obvious she is the mother. It's the came concept as in Judaism - if the mother is Jewish the child is considered to be Jewish - because you always know who the mother is. Oh, I just recognized the handle. That explains a lot. Moon, you aren't paying attention. I'm not upset that Mom doesn't have to claim maternity. Obviously that would be silly. Go back and read again. It's the implications on the "voluntary" affidavit of paternity that upset me -- the implications that Dad is the ONLY one financially responsible for the child. As Bob pointed out, the mother is ALREADY financially responsible for the child. The flaw here seems to be your insistant perception. I suppose that might seem paranoid to you -- and I would have thought so, too, before I had my dealings with CSE and the Family Court System. Their manner of dealing with fathers breeds paranoia. That's a consequence of their attitudes and actions that we will ALL have to deal with until some changes are made. Then again, perhaps the paranoia is all yours. I've had dealings with CSE and the Family court system as well - and watched while my ex ignored court orders on any number of topics, without so much as a slap on the wrist - he's stopped paying child support and never put in jail, nor even threatened with it. So........... all of this Chicken Little "the sky is falling" ain't necessarily so. - Ron ^*^ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
CA Court Overturns Paternity Fraud- Finally | Andre Lieven | Child Support | 3 | July 21st 04 01:54 PM |
Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 12 | June 4th 04 02:19 AM |
Mother's Paternity Fraud - US Supreme Court Case | TrashBBRT | Child Support | 8 | May 21st 04 05:52 PM |
Sample US Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 28 | January 21st 04 06:23 PM |
Sample Supreme Court Petition | Wizardlaw | Child Support | 0 | January 16th 04 03:47 AM |