Did anyone know about this..?

OK, been doing a bit of research into what can and cannot be included when
CS is calculated. What I found is quite surprising... OK, it was to me,
maybe not so much to someone else..

I was looking at 5 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 581, subsections 103; 104; and 105.

103 describes which monies are subject to garnishment.
104 describes which monies are NOT subject to garnishment.
105 describes EXCLUSIONS to garnishments.

Basically it goes something like this..

If your hard earned cash comes from X source, then it can be subject to
garnishment (section 581.103). But if some or all of it comes from one of
these other sources, then it can't be included in CS calculations (section
581.104). And then it gets really interesting, because then you have to
exclude (deduct/subtract) certain items from the total amount and use the
new amount to get the amount of CS one can be hit up for (section 581.105).

It was interesting to note that FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT TAXES and monies owed to
GovCo are part of those exclusions. As is MEDICARE and SOCIAL SECURITY.
Same for RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS. LIFE and HEALTH INSURANCE also apply.

As for those monies NOT subject to garnishment.. Refunds and/or overpayments
of INCOME TAXES; GRANTS; FELLOWSHIPS; EDUCATION / VOCATIONAL REHAB benefits
for vets and certain other folks; Reimbursement for expenses connected with
employment - the list goes on for quite a way...

Funny thing is, under 581.103, it doesn't mention anything about a persons
hourly wage or salary (until it gets to military pay) that can be hit for
garnishment. 581.103 does discuss many, many other types of "pay" that may
be included in a garnishment, but nothing (OK, maybe I missed it, there is a
fair amount of "legalize" floating around in 581..) that states that X marks
the spot.

Hold on now, I do know that 42 USC, section 666 does mention ((F) Income
withholding-To order income withholding in accordance with subsections
(a)(1)(A) and (b) of this section.) from where such things can come from.
So don't think I didn't look it up first.. But listen to this: 42 USC, 666
does NOT override anything in 5 CFR, Ch. 1, section 581!!

Thoughts?

One other thing.. State law cannot override Federal law. Meaning that X
state cannot raise the Federal Income tax to 50% of your pay if the the Feds
say it's only 25%.

So, that being said, how can the states (supported and used by local courts
with near impunity) claim that your total PRE-TAX (and PRE-EXCLUSION) income
can be used to compute CS???

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it strikes me that they can't do that. It'd be
illegal to do so and thus open up the states to a very big FEDERAL legal
challenge for doing so. Yes, I know full well that they do it anyway, but
still... Seems to me like this would be something to look into.

"Dusty" wrote in message ...
OK, been doing a bit of research into what can and cannot be included when
CS is calculated. What I found is quite surprising... OK, it was to me,
maybe not so much to someone else..

I was looking at 5 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 581, subsections 103; 104; and
105.

103 describes which monies are subject to garnishment.
104 describes which monies are NOT subject to garnishment.
105 describes EXCLUSIONS to garnishments.

Basically it goes something like this..

If your hard earned cash comes from X source, then it can be subject to
garnishment (section 581.103). But if some or all of it comes from one of
these other sources, then it can't be included in CS calculations (section
581.104). And then it gets really interesting, because then you have to
exclude (deduct/subtract) certain items from the total amount and use the
new amount to get the amount of CS one can be hit up for (section
581.105).

It was interesting to note that FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT TAXES and monies owed
to GovCo are part of those exclusions. As is MEDICARE and SOCIAL
SECURITY. Same for RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS. LIFE and HEALTH INSURANCE
also apply.

As for those monies NOT subject to garnishment.. Refunds and/or
overpayments of INCOME TAXES; GRANTS; FELLOWSHIPS; EDUCATION / VOCATIONAL
REHAB benefits for vets and certain other folks; Reimbursement for
expenses connected with employment - the list goes on for quite a way...

Funny thing is, under 581.103, it doesn't mention anything about a persons
hourly wage or salary (until it gets to military pay) that can be hit for
garnishment. 581.103 does discuss many, many other types of "pay" that
may be included in a garnishment, but nothing (OK, maybe I missed it,
there is a fair amount of "legalize" floating around in 581..) that states
that X marks the spot.

Hold on now, I do know that 42 USC, section 666 does mention ((F) Income
withholding-To order income withholding in accordance with subsections
(a)(1)(A) and (b) of this section.) from where such things can come from.
So don't think I didn't look it up first.. But listen to this: 42 USC,
666 does NOT override anything in 5 CFR, Ch. 1, section 581!!

Thoughts?

You are mixing several legal things together and assuming they are all
related to how CS awards are set.

CS awards are based on "income from all sources" and the states will
typically have a list of what that means. In addition to personal income
sources, the states will detail how they establish business income from sole
proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations. Some income sources, as
you noted, are protected from inclusion into the CS setting process.

Garnishments are allowed on sources of assets that can be attached to
collect the CS award. They have nothing to do with how CS awards are set.
They are asset sources where CS can be collected and the limits are set by
law. A quirk is if the protected income sources are deposited into a
garnishable account (like a checking account) they can be seized from the
checking account. Another quirk (and this happened to me) is if a parent
co-signs for a teenager to have a checking account, that account can be
garnished too.

Using federal and state income tax refunds to collect CS is not a
garnishment. Seizing tax refunds for collecting CS are referred to as tax
intercepts. The intercept list is updated annually to add/remove cases.

One other resource CSE can use is property levies. They can file levies on
real property that are paid in the event the property is sold.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...
OK, been doing a bit of research into what can and cannot be included
when CS is calculated. What I found is quite surprising... OK, it was
to me, maybe not so much to someone else..

I was looking at 5 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 581, subsections 103; 104; and
105.

103 describes which monies are subject to garnishment.
104 describes which monies are NOT subject to garnishment.
105 describes EXCLUSIONS to garnishments.

Basically it goes something like this..

If your hard earned cash comes from X source, then it can be subject to
garnishment (section 581.103). But if some or all of it comes from one
of these other sources, then it can't be included in CS calculations
(section 581.104). And then it gets really interesting, because then you
have to exclude (deduct/subtract) certain items from the total amount and
use the new amount to get the amount of CS one can be hit up for (section
581.105).

It was interesting to note that FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT TAXES and monies owed
to GovCo are part of those exclusions. As is MEDICARE and SOCIAL
SECURITY. Same for RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS. LIFE and HEALTH INSURANCE
also apply.

As for those monies NOT subject to garnishment.. Refunds and/or
overpayments of INCOME TAXES; GRANTS; FELLOWSHIPS; EDUCATION / VOCATIONAL
REHAB benefits for vets and certain other folks; Reimbursement for
expenses connected with employment - the list goes on for quite a way...

Funny thing is, under 581.103, it doesn't mention anything about a
persons hourly wage or salary (until it gets to military pay) that can be
hit for garnishment. 581.103 does discuss many, many other types of
"pay" that may be included in a garnishment, but nothing (OK, maybe I
missed it, there is a fair amount of "legalize" floating around in 581..)
that states that X marks the spot.

Hold on now, I do know that 42 USC, section 666 does mention ((F) Income
withholding-To order income withholding in accordance with subsections
(a)(1)(A) and (b) of this section.) from where such things can come from.
So don't think I didn't look it up first.. But listen to this: 42 USC,
666 does NOT override anything in 5 CFR, Ch. 1, section 581!!

Thoughts?

You are mixing several legal things together and assuming they are all
related to how CS awards are set.

CS awards are based on "income from all sources" and the states will
typically have a list of what that means. In addition to personal income
sources, the states will detail how they establish business income from
sole proprietorships, partnerships, and corporations. Some income
sources, as you noted, are protected from inclusion into the CS setting
process.

Garnishments are allowed on sources of assets that can be attached to
collect the CS award. They have nothing to do with how CS awards are set.
They are asset sources where CS can be collected and the limits are set by
law. A quirk is if the protected income sources are deposited into a
garnishable account (like a checking account) they can be seized from the
checking account. Another quirk (and this happened to me) is if a parent
co-signs for a teenager to have a checking account, that account can be
garnished too.

Using federal and state income tax refunds to collect CS is not a
garnishment. Seizing tax refunds for collecting CS are referred to as tax
intercepts. The intercept list is updated annually to add/remove cases.

One other resource CSE can use is property levies. They can file levies
on real property that are paid in the event the property is sold.

I knew (and fully expected) to hear something like that, Bob. The thing is,
this is Federal law, not state law. If the Feds say to the states, "You
can't do X", then they can't do it. Believe me, I know full well that the
states have a very lengthy laundry list of places which they can take money
from for CS. All I'm saying is that this places a limit upon them, keeps
them from certain areas and from touching certain monies.

I guess you'll just have to read it for yourself to see what I mean.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...661a;cc=ecf r

"Dusty" wrote in message ...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...
OK, been doing a bit of research into what can and cannot be included
when CS is calculated. What I found is quite surprising... OK, it was
to me, maybe not so much to someone else..

I was reacting to your premise which stated certain amounts "cannot be
included when CS is calculated."


I knew (and fully expected) to hear something like that, Bob. The thing
is, this is Federal law, not state law. If the Feds say to the states,
"You can't do X", then they can't do it. Believe me, I know full well
that the states have a very lengthy laundry list of places which they can
take money from for CS. All I'm saying is that this places a limit upon
them, keeps them from certain areas and from touching certain monies.

I guess you'll just have to read it for yourself to see what I mean.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...661a;cc=ecf r

My point is there are different rules for treating income when setting CS
than when collecting CS. And the government breaks the rules all the time
in the name of the children.

Here is another example from my own case where the rules were broken and
totally disregarded. Business expense reimbursements are not used for
setting CS and are protected under federal law from garnishment. (The
federal law you cited noted this fact.) But when I had my checking account
garnished, where I deposited (and kept separate) business reimbursement
dollars, the money was seized anyway.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
...

"Dusty" wrote in message ...
OK, been doing a bit of research into what can and cannot be included
when CS is calculated. What I found is quite surprising... OK, it was
to me, maybe not so much to someone else..

I was reacting to your premise which stated certain amounts "cannot be
included when CS is calculated."


I knew (and fully expected) to hear something like that, Bob. The thing
is, this is Federal law, not state law. If the Feds say to the states,
"You can't do X", then they can't do it. Believe me, I know full well
that the states have a very lengthy laundry list of places which they can
take money from for CS. All I'm saying is that this places a limit upon
them, keeps them from certain areas and from touching certain monies.

I guess you'll just have to read it for yourself to see what I mean.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...661a;cc=ecf r

My point is there are different rules for treating income when setting CS
than when collecting CS. And the government breaks the rules all the time
in the name of the children.

Here is another example from my own case where the rules were broken and
totally disregarded. Business expense reimbursements are not used for
setting CS and are protected under federal law from garnishment. (The
federal law you cited noted this fact.) But when I had my checking
account garnished, where I deposited (and kept separate) business
reimbursement dollars, the money was seized anyway.

I agree with you Bob, the courts don't really care what the law actually
states, they make it up as they go along. I do believe that, when the
courts do this sort of thing, that there would be grounds to take the
"judgment" and those involved, to Federal court and sue for redress.

"Dusty" wrote

I agree with you Bob, the courts don't really care what the law actually
states, they make it up as they go along. I do believe that, when the
courts do this sort of thing, that there would be grounds to take the
"judgment" and those involved, to Federal court and sue for redress.
===
Problem is, federal appeals are too expensive for deadbroke dads and...the
hate to take family law cases. Then...when they do hear a case, they come up
with all kinds of ways to not over rule the state.

"Gini" wrote in message
news:VCgBj.2251$Qy3.221@trnddc03...
"Dusty" wrote

I agree with you Bob, the courts don't really care what the law actually
states, they make it up as they go along. I do believe that, when the
courts do this sort of thing, that there would be grounds to take the
"judgment" and those involved, to Federal court and sue for redress.
===
Problem is, federal appeals are too expensive for deadbroke dads and...the
hate to take family law cases. Then...when they do hear a case, they come
up with all kinds of ways to not over rule the state.

You'd think that at some time or other, someone would have brought suit to
the Feds about this. I mean, are they that complacent in this? Are they
blind to fact that "Family" courts are destroying the very fabric of the
nation??

Rhetorical questions, I know.

"Dusty" wrote in message ...
"Gini" wrote in message
news:VCgBj.2251$Qy3.221@trnddc03...
"Dusty" wrote

I agree with you Bob, the courts don't really care what the law actually
states, they make it up as they go along. I do believe that, when the
courts do this sort of thing, that there would be grounds to take the
"judgment" and those involved, to Federal court and sue for redress.
===
Problem is, federal appeals are too expensive for deadbroke dads
and...the hate to take family law cases. Then...when they do hear a case,
they come up with all kinds of ways to not over rule the state.

You'd think that at some time or other, someone would have brought suit to
the Feds about this. I mean, are they that complacent in this? Are they
blind to fact that "Family" courts are destroying the very fabric of the
nation??

Rhetorical questions, I know.

Here is how my attorney explained the appeals process to me. At the time it
cost a minimum of $5,000 to retain an attorney to mount an appeal. The
judges know they can screw you up to just under $5,000 each time they pull
this crap because they know it will cost you more to attempt the appeal than
you can recover if you are successful. And the judges know the majority of
successful appeals are decisions where the appeals court sends the case back
to the trial court to re-do the decision. That means the original judge
gets a second shot at screwing you over but within the confines of the
appeals court decision.

"Dusty" wrote
"Gini" wrote
"Dusty" wrote

I agree with you Bob, the courts don't really care what the law actually
states, they make it up as they go along. I do believe that, when the
courts do this sort of thing, that there would be grounds to take the
"judgment" and those involved, to Federal court and sue for redress.
===
Problem is, federal appeals are too expensive for deadbroke dads
and...the hate to take family law cases. Then...when they do hear a case,
they come up with all kinds of ways to not over rule the state.

You'd think that at some time or other, someone would have brought suit to
the Feds about this.
====
In all my years of research of family case law, I have not found one federal
case that addressed
any constitutional issues that would interfere with state family law
statutes/procedure. Doesn't mean they aren't there, just means I haven't
found any. I think Bob said the federal courts have used the "compelling
interest" justification for defending states' actions against NCPs. Not
sure, though--My memory is failing these days. Here's a page you might be
interested in checking out: http://www.nvo.com/beaulier/fathersrightscenter/
====
I mean, are they that complacent in this?
====
Yes.
====
Are they
blind to fact that "Family" courts are destroying the very fabric of the
nation??
====
I don't think they see it that way.
====
====