Advance Child Tax Credit check question

Tracy wrote in message
news:4zlWa.36168$Ho3.6098@sccrnsc03...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
arthlink.net...

"Tracy" wrote in message
news:wWjWa.23389$cF.10169@rwcrnsc53...
My boyfriend, who has custody of his children & is not receiving any
child
support, is about to receive an check from the IRS for the advance
child
tax
credit. Here's the issue... They filed with the status of married
filing
jointly - since at the time my boy friend was clueless to his ex's
cheating
ways and what was about to hit him. She did some baby sitting last
year,
but nothing really grand - and it really hurt in terms of taxes than
helped.
So the majority of their income came from him. The advance payment
check
is
on its way, but in both his & hers names. So he needs her to sign the
check.

Question: What if she refuses to sign unless she receives part of the
money? What can he do? If you were in his situation, would you share
in
the check? If so, how much?

He plans on using the check to purchase school clothing & supplies for
the
kids. He strongly feels that since she is not paying any child
support,
nor
does she take the kids like she is suppose to, she should not receive
anything.

He can use a trick my ex pulled on me once that cost me a lot of money.
Get
her to endorse the check in exchange for him giving her a personal check
to
cover her half. Then put a stop payment on the check he writes to her.
That way he gets 100% of the check amount and it only costs him the stop
payment fee.

Another option is to have you, or another person with female
handwriting,
endorse the check as if you are the co-payee. The ex will never know
what
happened and the fact they had joint checking accounts previously will
make
this okay.

The Oregon courts will back up either fraudulent act. Just cite my
case.


I choose not to break the law, nor would my boy friend ever expect me to.
I
wanted to know what others would do if they found themselves in that
situation. If you are a NCP, and you didn't pay *any* child support -
would
you feel it was okay if the CP kept 100% of the money?

Again, the law doesn't give a rat's ass how someone feels. Simply put, The
$400 check is due to a retroactive change in tax laws for tax year 2002.
They filed a joint return for tax year 2002. Therefore, she is entitled to
half of the $400, unless a court ordered that he is entitled to claim the
child on his 2002 tax return. What happens in tax year 2003, is irrelevent.



Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

"Tracy" wrote
The sentiment is nice, but it's his money. Kids have no money other
than
what they earn and what others (parents, etc.) choose to give them.

You are being too technical. ;-)

Yes, I am being technical. I think I'm just "in a mood" today.

Perhaps I should have stated it that he believes the check should be spent
on the kids - since the credit is a "child credit". In other words, the
only reason you are receiving it is due to the fact that you are
supporting
at least one child. That money will cover school clothing, supplies, and
a
little bit more. He has no plans on using it on himself or his toys.

Seriously, I have no problem with him spending it on the kids. That's
totally cool. Actually, with school starting next month, I'm going to be
doing pretty much the same thing with mine. My reasoning is a bit less
altruistic, though. To me, the money is mine, but as it happens that the
most immediate need is school clothing and supplies, that is where it will
end up going. The truth is, if I never got the check, I would still buy
these same things.

Now, being the mood that I am, I do have to say that while the stated
purpose may be 'child credit', the real purpose is **vote buying**. The
children are merely being used as the emotional heartstring to make us feel
good about it. Then maybe, just maybe, we won't notice all the other ****
they (government) does to us on a daily basis. Ain't they special?

If we have a deficit, where's the money coming from? Hmmmmmmm.

Ok, off my soapbox.

Boy, what a curmudgeon I am today! I must be aging well.

"Tiffany" wrote in message
...

frazil wrote in message
...

Virginia wrote in message
...
If it comes in both names he can return it to the IRS and wait till he
fills taxes in the spring to get it without her name on the check.

Difficult at best, because the IRS records will show that the check was
issued.


This highlights a flaw I had not thought of in regards to advancing
these tax credits, How is the IRS to know how (under what status) one
will file their taxes before they have done so?

It is not an advance on next year's taxes. The $400 credit is a result of
retroactively advancing the increase in the dependent tax credit from $600
to $1000 for tax year 2002, as opposed to the originally scheduled
increase
in tax year 2003. It has nothing to do with how he files his taxes next
year.


So please excuse my lack of knowledge of this but does that mean everyone
who has a dependent is going to get a check or just folks in certain tax
brackets? I have honestly heard nothing of this (beside brief tid-bits on
the news that I didn't pay attention to) so was just curious.

For the most part, if you're below a certain income threshold, you won't get the
full amount.

For more information, you can go to
http://www.irs.gov/individuals/artic...111546,00.html




Tracy wrote:
My boyfriend, who has custody of his children & is not receiving any
child
support, is about to receive an check from the IRS for the advance
child
tax
credit. Here's the issue... They filed with the status of married
filing
jointly - since at the time my boy friend was clueless to his ex's
cheating
ways and what was about to hit him. She did some baby sitting last
year,
but nothing really grand - and it really hurt in terms of taxes than
helped.
So the majority of their income came from him. The advance payment
check is
on its way, but in both his & hers names. So he needs her to sign the
check.

Question: What if she refuses to sign unless she receives part of the
money? What can he do? If you were in his situation, would you share
in
the check? If so, how much?

He plans on using the check to purchase school clothing & supplies for
the
kids. He strongly feels that since she is not paying any child
support,
nor
does she take the kids like she is suppose to, she should not receive
anything.


Thanks in advance.
Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

"The Dave©" wrote in message
s.com...
"Tracy" wrote
The sentiment is nice, but it's his money. Kids have no money other
than
what they earn and what others (parents, etc.) choose to give them.

You are being too technical. ;-)

Yes, I am being technical. I think I'm just "in a mood" today.

[snip]

Boy, what a curmudgeon I am today! I must be aging well.

Care to share why you are in this "mood". Sounds serious...

Oh - you can keep the soapbox as long as I can keep my cloud. I don't want
to give up my cloud. LOL



Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

"frazil" wrote in message
...
SNIP

Again, the law doesn't give a rat's ass how someone feels. Simply put,
The
$400 check is due to a retroactive change in tax laws for tax year 2002.
They filed a joint return for tax year 2002. Therefore, she is entitled
to
half of the $400, unless a court ordered that he is entitled to claim the
child on his 2002 tax return. What happens in tax year 2003, is
irrelevent.
------------------------------------------------------------------
This is simply not true. It is not a retroactive change. They simply use
the data/information from your 2002 return of how many qualified children
you have in order to apply it to the advance payment.
See
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...109812,00.html

The credit of $1000 per child is effective for 2003 and 2004.

~AZ~


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

"Virginia" wrote in message
...
this is an advance on next years taxes in which they will not file
jointly therfore half is not hers.
-------------------------------------------------------
Exactly right!!!!! And it is strange that the government didn't put in
something for just this situation. I'll bet this is going to be a problem
for a whole lot of people.
Hopefully he can explain this to her and she won't be so disagreable.
Hopefully.

~AZ~


frazil wrote:

Tracy wrote in message
news:wWjWa.23389$cF.10169@rwcrnsc53...

My boyfriend, who has custody of his children & is not receiving any
child
support, is about to receive an check from the IRS for the advance child

tax

credit. Here's the issue... They filed with the status of married

filing

jointly - since at the time my boy friend was clueless to his ex's

cheating

ways and what was about to hit him. She did some baby sitting last
year,
but nothing really grand - and it really hurt in terms of taxes than

helped.

So the majority of their income came from him. The advance payment
check

is

on its way, but in both his & hers names. So he needs her to sign the
check.

Question: What if she refuses to sign unless she receives part of the
money? What can he do? If you were in his situation, would you share
in
the check? If so, how much?


If she refuses then no one will get the money. If she refuses he
petitions
the court to make her sign. Since they filed jointly, she is legally
entitled to half the money.


He plans on using the check to purchase school clothing & supplies for
the
kids. He strongly feels that since she is not paying any child support,

nor

does she take the kids like she is suppose to, she should not receive
anything.


The court doesn't care how he feels. Unless he has a court order
stating
that he is entitled to claim the dependent child on his taxes and/or
receive
the tax benefits associated with the dependent child, she is legally
entitled to half the money. IOW, since the tax return was jointly
filed,
she gets half, unless he has a court order stating otherwise.



Thanks in advance.
Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

What the ???

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...
Why is he not receiving CS? If by mutual agreement, he could tell her
that
continuance of the agreement is contingent on her signing that check.

He was being nice. She wasn't working at the time of their divorce. So it
read in the paperwork child support is waived based on her unemployed
status, but should be established once employment begins. Since then she
has started working, but he is trying to be nice to her. (more)


My boyfriend, who has custody of his children & is not receiving any
child
support, is about to receive an check from the IRS for the advance child
tax
credit. Here's the issue... They filed with the status of married
filing
jointly - since at the time my boy friend was clueless to his ex's
cheating
ways and what was about to hit him. She did some baby sitting last year,
but nothing really grand - and it really hurt in terms of taxes than
helped.
So the majority of their income came from him. The advance payment check
is
on its way, but in both his & hers names. So he needs her to sign the
check.

Question: What if she refuses to sign unless she receives part of the
money? What can he do? If you were in his situation, would you share in
the check? If so, how much?

NO WAY. That check is supposedly for costs associated with raising the
kid(s)
THIS year. If he's already had them the majority of the time and will
continue
to do so for the rest of the year, those are HIS costs. Since she is
paying
nothing to offset HIS costs for the kids, she'd have to have them nearly
half
the time to justify no CS AND getting part of that check...

That is how he views it too.

On top of that, she has many times in the past few months thrown it in his
face that she could be receiving child support if she had custody of the
kids. In other words she uses the kids as a threat against him.

Last night him and I spoke on the phone for about an hour. He was talking
to her uncle tonight concerning the kids' mother, and her lack of being
involved (etc). Once again - she is suppose to have them next weekend (not
this weekend), but she has not contacted him about the weekend. Her aunt
feels my boyfriend should contact her and inquire about the plans. I happen
to agree with the aunt. Anyways - he's had at least one of the kids 100% of
the time since she left. It isn't that he doesn't want his kids around, but
he is finding that being a single parent is not easy. He's a heavy
equipment operator.

************************************************** ************************
**************
Commutes to work 5-7 days per week. Right now he has
worked 12 days in a row, and will work every day until next week. He puts
in 12-14 hour days. He comes home to a mess. He spends time picking it up.
He cooks. He cleans. Etc... It has been really hard on him.
************************************************** ************************
**************

"hard on *H*I*M*"????? It's the middle of summer and the custodial parent is
going to be home for less than half-time for 2 to 3 weeks at a time - WHO is
raising these kids?

Seriously, Tracy - if he's got financial obligations that make such a schedule
necessary, he should SERIOUSLY consider dumping as much of that debt as
possible...he's supporting a lifestyle that his kids can't afford.

Working that kind of time might have worked while he was married (although
apparently not too well), but it doesn't fit with trying to be the only parent
the kids can depend on. I can't believe those kids need ANYTHING all that
overtime is paying for any more than they need the time with DAD.

You need to spend some time helping him re-define himself as a parent from
BREADWINNER and homemaker to HOMEMAKER and breadwinner, with emphasis in the
change in emphasis.

So he is
really upset with his ex-wife for not helping out at all. Not being there
for those kids. It isn't the money, but the time.

I'm sure you're referring to the mother above, but do you see how those last
two sentences might be applied to him as well?

How does this relate to
the check? It goes back to your paragraph above. "If he's already had them
the majority of the time..." This is the type of man who would share that
check (50/50) if she was being a mother to those kids... period.

He plans on using the check to purchase school clothing & supplies for
the
kids. He strongly feels that since she is not paying any child support,
nor
does she take the kids like she is suppose to, she should not receive
anything.

He is correct.

I'm glad you agree.

Well, I certainly DON'T agree with that work schedule if there's any way he can
get out of it and still provide what's needed...

Mel Gamble

Tracy

"Mel Gamble" wrote in message
...

************************************************** ************************
**************
Commutes to work 5-7 days per week. Right now he has
worked 12 days in a row, and will work every day until next week. He
puts
in 12-14 hour days. He comes home to a mess. He spends time picking it
up.
He cooks. He cleans. Etc... It has been really hard on him.
************************************************** ************************
**************

"hard on *H*I*M*"????? It's the middle of summer and the custodial parent
is
going to be home for less than half-time for 2 to 3 weeks at a time - WHO
is
raising these kids?

Seriously, Tracy - if he's got financial obligations that make such a
schedule
necessary, he should SERIOUSLY consider dumping as much of that debt as
possible...he's supporting a lifestyle that his kids can't afford.

Mel - he is *not* living above his means. He is doing just fine. His
mortgage is about 50% of the value on his home. He is refinancing and his
whole bills added into his mortgage (under 4% interest rate) will be less
than 60% of the value of his home. Most of us can only dream of having a
debt like that. The life style is not the issue. Please read - and *you*
should understand - he's a heavy equiptment operator. Was once a logger.
Had his own logging company, etc. He doesn't have a choice in the hours he
is required to work. His ex dumped the kids on him. The kids are fine,
because he starts work at 5 o'clock in the morning when they are still
sleeping. He typically leaves around 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Due to
over-time he isn't.

So we talked about the above tonight... ok - more like "dreaming". We've
agreed - he isn't quitting his job, and I'm not quitting mine. We talked
about our debts and our incomes. We are clear on where we stand
financially - separate and together.

You need to understand - if he doesn't put in the hours he'll be fired. You
should understand that. It is a simple fact. He didn't ask for this to
happen. It was dumped on him. Now he has to deal with it, and for the most
part - he is doing a fine job.


Working that kind of time might have worked while he was married (although
apparently not too well),

Mel - that isn't fair! She's wrong for cheating on him and his hours should
have nothing to do with it! She wasn't willing to go and get a job to
support her ASS in the life style she wanted, she has no room to complain.
That is how I view it!

You need to spend some time helping him re-define himself as a parent from
BREADWINNER and homemaker to HOMEMAKER and breadwinner, with emphasis in
the
change in emphasis.

No... instead I should be supportive of him. Allow him to enjoy whatever
work he decides is best for him. If he wants to go back into logging - so
be it. I'll be there ready to give that man a fully body message - with a
smile on my face - because I know within my heart that he loves me. No one
will ever question if he loves me or not. No one will ever have to question
if I'll be married to *him* till death due us part. Does this make sense?
Do you understand what I'm talking about?



So he is
really upset with his ex-wife for not helping out at all. Not being
there
for those kids. It isn't the money, but the time.

I'm sure you're referring to the mother above, but do you see how those
last
two sentences might be applied to him as well?

He is there for those kids. He is the *only* parent there for those kids.
That is part of the problem. It is pushing him to the limit. All I can do
is be there for *him*.

This last weekend his mother *told* him that his daughter is acting out just
like her mother. She had 9 years of exposure to a woman throwing one fit
after another - and she is acting just like her mother. She told her son
(my bf) to put his foot down and put an end to it now.

BTW - the ex and I met this last weekend. She thanked me for bring her
daughter by to see her (she was at work). I also met many people from his
step-father's family who remembers distant relatives of mine (Grandfather's
cousin, etc).


He is correct.

I'm glad you agree.

Well, I certainly DON'T agree with that work schedule if there's any way
he can
get out of it and still provide what's needed...

He can't get out of it, period. Otherwise he'd be unemployed. We talked
about this. He is *not* looking for someone to support him. I've already
notice he is not use to having a woman in his life who works. Being a
laborer has its up's and down's.


Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

I retract my statement! But that does present an interesting problem. My
ex and I alternate years for claiming the exemption and tax credit (I get
even tax years, she gets odd tax years). Since the $400 is an advance
refund for 2003 taxes, the refund check I receive is really hers. Guess I
better not spend the money, as my tax liability just increased $400. Damn
republicans, it figures they'd screw-up. No Bin Laden, no Saddam, no WMD,
and no tax reduction. Makes me wonder why I voted for Bush. This should
make for a very interesting tax season. :-)

gini52 wrote in message
...

"frazil" wrote in message
...

Tracy wrote in message
news:ixlWa.36145$Ho3.6636@sccrnsc03...
"Virginia" wrote in message
...
If it comes in both names he can return it to the IRS and wait till
he
fills taxes in the spring to get it without her name on the check.

Can someone do this? But he needs the money now - as school is
approaching
and he needs money to purchase school clothes, etc.


This highlights a flaw I had not thought of in regards to advancing
these tax credits, How is the IRS to know how (under what status)
one
will file their taxes before they have done so?


They are basing the amount on last years tax return. They've done
this
before.

It is based on last years tax return because that is what was changed,
namely the dependent tax credit was retroactively increased for tax year
2002 from $600 to $1000. For tax year 2003 the credit will be $1000,
unless
they make another change.
==
Not according to the IRS. The change is in year 2003 and when 2003 taxes
are
filed,
the advance must be deducted from the 1000. allowance.
==
==



Tracy
~~~~~~~
http://www.hornschuch.net/tracy/
"You can't solve problems with the same
type of thinking that created them."
Albert Einstein

*** spamguard in place! to email me: tracy at hornschuch dot net ***

frazil wrote in message
...
I retract my statement! But that does present an interesting problem. My
ex and I alternate years for claiming the exemption and tax credit (I get
even tax years, she gets odd tax years). Since the $400 is an advance
refund for 2003 taxes, the refund check I receive is really hers. Guess I
better not spend the money, as my tax liability just increased $400. Damn
republicans, it figures they'd screw-up. No Bin Laden, no Saddam, no WMD,
and no tax reduction. Makes me wonder why I voted for Bush. This should
make for a very interesting tax season. :-)



You admit to voting for Bush? Boy you got guts!

T