Child Support, Dependants and Taxes

I pay child support for 3 daughters and in the beginning it was never stated
who claims who as dependants on the divorce papers. Last time she took me
to court to raise CS, I mentioned to the judge that I would like to be able
to claim one or two of them as dependants on my taxes. She threw a fit and
said she'd let me claim one of them, and she did for a couple of years.
Last year she changed her mind. The bottom line is that I pay 32% of my
income for child support and I don't get to claime that I pay a single
penny. She claims that she supports a 3 daughters and doesn't have to claim
that she gets a single penny in CS.

Why don't they just have it where the NCP deducts the CS, the CP claims CS
as income, and the CP claims the children as dependants? They should call
it the DUH bill! NCP deducts child support from his income because the CS
is deducted from his income, DUH. CP claims the CS as income because she
recieves it as income, DUH. CP Claims the children because she/he is the
CP, DUH. What is right seems so obvious but for some reason they don't do
it that way.

Roger_N wrote:
I pay child support for 3 daughters and in the beginning it was never stated
who claims who as dependants on the divorce papers. Last time she took me
to court to raise CS, I mentioned to the judge that I would like to be able
to claim one or two of them as dependants on my taxes. She threw a fit and
said she'd let me claim one of them, and she did for a couple of years.
Last year she changed her mind. The bottom line is that I pay 32% of my
income for child support and I don't get to claime that I pay a single
penny. She claims that she supports a 3 daughters and doesn't have to claim
that she gets a single penny in CS.

You need to go to court and get something in writing. If you can find a
sympathetic judge (they do exist, by the way. Rare, but they do), the
courts do have the power to force her to sign the papers signing over
that deduction.



Why don't they just have it where the NCP deducts the CS, the CP claims CS
as income, and the CP claims the children as dependants? They should call
it the DUH bill! NCP deducts child support from his income because the CS
is deducted from his income, DUH. CP claims the CS as income because she
recieves it as income, DUH. CP Claims the children because she/he is the
CP, DUH. What is right seems so obvious but for some reason they don't do
it that way.


I've heard of some attempts at this type of bill, and every once in a
while you will hear about somebody floating a trial baloon of extending
the earned income tax credit to non custodial parents. Nothing comes of
it usually, but we can keep trying.
It always boggled me how the state can keep lying to itself and insist
that this is still one family unit (therefore, no taxable event
occurred). I am living in Pueblo, my ex is living in Denver, I haven't
gotten any in two years, we are separate. We give tax cuts to encourage
behavior we want, why not give tax cuts for paying child support that
the government demands rather than going on the lamb?
And as to your ex, what is she living on? Even if we were to assume
that the money was being spent on the kids, there is still her to take
care of. I doubt the ex was cheap to maintain, before OR after. If she
has a job, fine. But if she is like the many Stay. . .ERR Work at home
Mothers, unless she inherited something has to give.
And let's turn that around. Suppose she was working. Would the state
let her say, "I know I earned $10,000 last year, but $5,000 of it went
to the kids so that doesn't count". That wouldn't fly if you were
married. Of course, the reason why is that you have the standard
deductions, something that non custodial parents are denied. Stop
playing make believe and deal with the real world, you have two families
here, don't punish one for doing what the law demands.

"Roger_N" wrote in message
...
I pay child support for 3 daughters and in the beginning it was never
stated who claims who as dependants on the divorce papers. Last time she
took me to court to raise CS, I mentioned to the judge that I would like to
be able to claim one or two of them as dependants on my taxes. She threw a
fit and said she'd let me claim one of them, and she did for a couple of
years. Last year she changed her mind. The bottom line is that I pay 32%
of my income for child support and I don't get to claime that I pay a
single penny. She claims that she supports a 3 daughters and doesn't have
to claim that she gets a single penny in CS.

Why don't they just have it where the NCP deducts the CS, the CP claims CS
as income, and the CP claims the children as dependants? They should call
it the DUH bill! NCP deducts child support from his income because the CS
is deducted from his income, DUH. CP claims the CS as income because she
recieves it as income, DUH. CP Claims the children because she/he is the
CP, DUH. What is right seems so obvious but for some reason they don't do
it that way.

But there IS a reason why custodial parents win out on both sides of the
tax equation (getting the "child support" tax-free and ALSO getting the tax
deductions for the children, unless specific arrangements have been made to
the contrary).

That reason is the same one that explains so many other features of
domestic relations law in the U.S.--overwhelmingly, custodial parents are
mothers, and belong to the politically correct sex, whereas fathers are
scapegoated. Until fathers have some effective political clout, that
situation will continue. Currently, fathers are like blacks in the old Jim
Crow days.

On May 24, 12:44?am, "Kenneth S." wrote:
"Roger_N" wrote in message

...



I pay child support for 3 daughters and in the beginning it was never
stated who claims who as dependants on the divorce papers. Last time she
took me to court to raise CS, I mentioned to the judge that I would like to
be able to claim one or two of them as dependants on my taxes. She threw a
fit and said she'd let me claim one of them, and she did for a couple of
years. Last year she changed her mind. The bottom line is that I pay 32%
of my income for child support and I don't get to claime that I pay a
single penny. She claims that she supports a 3 daughters and doesn't have
to claim that she gets a single penny in CS.

Why don't they just have it where the NCP deducts the CS, the CP claims CS
as income, and the CP claims the children as dependants? They should call
it the DUH bill! NCP deducts child support from his income because the CS
is deducted from his income, DUH. CP claims the CS as income because she
recieves it as income, DUH. CP Claims the children because she/he is the
CP, DUH. What is right seems so obvious but for some reason they don't do
it that way.

But there IS a reason why custodial parents win out on both sides of the
tax equation (getting the "child support" tax-free and ALSO getting the tax
deductions for the children, unless specific arrangements have been made to
the contrary).

That reason is the same one that explains so many other features of
domestic relations law in the U.S.--overwhelmingly, custodial parents are
mothers, and belong to the politically correct sex, whereas fathers are
scapegoated. Until fathers have some effective political clout, that
situation will continue. Currently, fathers are like blacks in the old Jim
Crow days.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Some can also get the EIC if their OWN income is low enough..

On May 24, 9:19 am, wrote:
On May 24, 12:44?am, "Kenneth S." wrote:





"Roger_N" wrote in message

...

I pay child support for 3 daughters and in the beginning it was never
stated who claims who as dependants on the divorce papers. Last time she
took me to court to raise CS, I mentioned to the judge that I would like to
be able to claim one or two of them as dependants on my taxes. She threw a
fit and said she'd let me claim one of them, and she did for a couple of
years. Last year she changed her mind. The bottom line is that I pay 32%
of my income for child support and I don't get to claime that I pay a
single penny. She claims that she supports a 3 daughters and doesn't have
to claim that she gets a single penny in CS.

Why don't they just have it where the NCP deducts the CS, the CP claims CS
as income, and the CP claims the children as dependants? They should call
it the DUH bill! NCP deducts child support from his income because the CS
is deducted from his income, DUH. CP claims the CS as income because she
recieves it as income, DUH. CP Claims the children because she/he is the
CP, DUH. What is right seems so obvious but for some reason they don't do
it that way.

But there IS a reason why custodial parents win out on both sides of the
tax equation (getting the "child support" tax-free and ALSO getting the tax
deductions for the children, unless specific arrangements have been made to
the contrary).

That reason is the same one that explains so many other features of
domestic relations law in the U.S.--overwhelmingly, custodial parents are
mothers, and belong to the politically correct sex, whereas fathers are
scapegoated. Until fathers have some effective political clout, that
situation will continue. Currently, fathers are like blacks in the old Jim
Crow days.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Some can also get the EIC if their OWN income is low enough..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OUTRAGEOUS LAWS...on CS and Taxes...Earned Income Credit...from the
IRS website...So for one family where the ex/children receive 12K a
year or more in CS, they can still qualify for the EIC...but in the
NCPs family, where they earn 12K less because the money goes to the
CP, the NCPs family cannot claim the credit if their income is not
within the guidelines including the amount of CS they pay?
Outrageous...

If the noncustodial parent receives permission from the custodial
parent to claim a child on his or her tax return, is the noncustodial
parent eligible for the earned income credit?

No. The noncustodial parent cannot claim the earned income credit for
a child did not live with him or her, and therefore, does not meet the
residency test. The custodial parent may be able to claim the earned
income credit.

Is child support considered income when calculating the earned income
credit?

No, for purposes of calculating the earned income credit, child
support is not considered earned income. Earned income generally means
wages salaries, tips, other taxable employee pay, and net earnings
from self-employment. Employee pay is earned income only if it is
taxable. Nontaxable employee pay, such as certain dependent care
benefits and adoption benefits, is not earned income. But there is an
exception for nontaxable combat pay, which you can choose to include
in earned income. Earned income is explained in detail in Rule 7 in
chapter 1 of Publication 596, Earned Income Credit.

"Roger_N" wrote in message
...
I pay child support for 3 daughters and in the beginning it was never
stated who claims who as dependants on the divorce papers. Last time she
took me to court to raise CS, I mentioned to the judge that I would like to
be able to claim one or two of them as dependants on my taxes. She threw a
fit and said she'd let me claim one of them, and she did for a couple of
years. Last year she changed her mind. The bottom line is that I pay 32%
of my income for child support and I don't get to claime that I pay a
single penny. She claims that she supports a 3 daughters and doesn't have
to claim that she gets a single penny in CS.

Why don't they just have it where the NCP deducts the CS, the CP claims CS
as income, and the CP claims the children as dependants? They should call
it the DUH bill! NCP deducts child support from his income because the CS
is deducted from his income, DUH. CP claims the CS as income because she
recieves it as income, DUH. CP Claims the children because she/he is the
CP, DUH. What is right seems so obvious but for some reason they don't do
it that way.


The IRS ruling is how much time is spent with the parent, not how much money
is spent to support the child(ren). There are three children in my case.
Originally, my court order was that I would claim 2 children, she would
claim 1. 8 years later, the IRS sent me a notice about duplicate dependent
claims showing up. It turns out she was claiming all three for the past 8
years also. I sent a copy of the court order and the IRS sent me a letter
ruling in my favor because of the valid court order. Just a guess, but she
had to pay back taxes and penalties because of this. She then hired an
attorney and I got a letter stating I have to sign a form giving her the
right to the dependent deductions. If I did not, we would go to court to
have it reversed, and I would have to pay the attorney fees. Court date
comes. We all meet outside in an attempt to "negotiate" (more like extort,
imho) on the federal deductions. Her attorney comes right out and says "How
much is it worth to you to keep the deductions? $4,000? $6,000?", as if I
had the cash readily available. I stood my ground and did not agree to pay
anything in order to keep the deductions. Went back in the court room and
stated our cases. Even the judge suggested to let me keep the deductions
because it gave me more available money to pay more support. She declined
and insisted she get to claim the children. The judge had a perplexed look
on his face, noting that her gross wages was less than $24,000 a year, had
mortgage interest and property tax deductions, etc., and stated again that
the additional deductions did not benefit her (financially) at all. She
still claims to only make that much today. 8 years ago I was making $53,000
a year. I worked very hard to climb the ladder and now make $80,000 a year.
Well, the judge ruled in her favor, and assigned me $1,000.00 in her
attorney fees, payable at $100 per month. He also lowered my support from
$2,080 a month to $1,775, but added on another $100 for arrears, for a total
of $1,875 per month.

I can't figure out why the IRS is concerned with "time", when all they are
usually concerned about is how much money is made and spent. This is yet
another law or rule that needs to be corrected.

"TNK" wrote in message
. ..

I can't figure out why the IRS is concerned with "time", when all they are
usually concerned about is how much money is made and spent. This is yet
another law or rule that needs to be corrected.

The IRS has special rules for divorced or separated individuals. See
Publication 504. The rule you are referring to covers child dependency
exemptions.

The IRS dependency test is based on what a divorce decree says about who is
the custodial parent, the terms in a separation agreement, or if neither
exist the amount of time a child spends with each parent.

Here are the IRS rules on claiming dependents as tax exemptions:
http://tinyurl.com/2tst37

Jimmy Verner

"jverner" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here are the IRS rules on claiming dependents as tax exemptions:
http://tinyurl.com/2tst37

The "Tie Breaker" Rule does not apply for children receiving CS who are no
longer "minors." The "Tie Breaker" test does not apply to never married
parents. Once an adult child gets child support after attaining the age of
18 the IRS rules for percentage of the total support provided take over.
The same is true for never married parents. Child age and parental
relationships change the exemption and deduction tests back to the same
tests for never married parents.

I'm am surprised an attorney like Verner doesn't know that.

I've told some people about fathers paying child support don't get to deduct
that money from their income, and mothers receiving the money don't have to
claim the income. The universal response is that they can't hardly believe
it because they know the IRS wants to know about almost any kind of income.

Is there a way we could press toward having CS deducted from NCP's taxable
income and added to CP's income? The fact is, Child Support is deducted
from my income and is added to my EX's income. Why shouldn't these facts be
the way it is claimed on taxes? The best I can determine, the general
public thinks that is the way it already is. When you find out all the
unfair treatment of NCP's, you understand why there are so many deadbeat
dads, because of the deadbeats that make the rules.