 
|
|
|
|
|
|
sonnylax
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 30 Sep 2003
Posts: 2942
Location: Living in a lollipop and unicorn world
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 02/09/05 - 09:50 Post subject:
| marathonrnr262 wrote: | | The law sucks, the rules suck, but they are designed for the KIDS. The law will always side on the child, no matter what the case. |
Maybe so Sheldon, but don't you think that tax laws should actually deal with people that pay taxes?
|
|
|
|
|
keltic63
the kilted one
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 8574
Location: under the weather
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/09/05 - 10:04 Post subject:
| marathonrnr262 wrote: | I have no children, but Lucy has 3. The "Animal" as she calls her X had the kids and she had to pay child sup. 12 years with NO tax relief.
Although she could have had the stip in the books to claim some of the kids, the law says that you have to be paying more than (Don't quote me here) 50% of the childs care for the year to claim them. The way we figured it, we didn't even come close.
The law sucks, the rules suck, but they are designed for the KIDS. The law will always side on the child, no matter what the case.
Sheldon |
yes the exemption goes to the parent who provides more than 50% of the support, BUT the IRS automatically assumes that whichever parent the kids live with is providing more than 50%.
If we had remained married, both of us would benefit from the exemptions. Why is the IRS punishing me, because I could not remain in that marriage? I still support my kids, why shouldn't I receive some benefit for that? And I'm not sure how this benefits my kids. the way I see it, I can now only provide the dollar amount that is specified in my support decree. EVERY spare dollar that I have now will have to go to paying off this incredible tax debt. Really. it's much worse than I thought. I checked the numbers when I got home last night.
|
|
|
|
|
runaroundsue
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 18 Sep 2002
Posts: 6629
Location: supporting GREENer pastures
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/09/05 - 12:26 Post subject:
maybe you can convince the ex to put the refund in a college fund for kids and then it will be much easier to see that the tax break is actually "for" the kids.
I'd have a hard time trying to support my kids on that amount of money, so be lucky that you aren't divorcing me  .
When me and SO fight, he sometimes walks away muttering "cheaper to keep her, cheaper to keep her"......I now answer "you bet your a..." 
|
|
|
|
|
Sahara
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 3345
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/05 - 00:00 Post subject:
Your attorney didn't do his/her job if you're just now finding out about this aspect. Go back and tell him/her to make it right for future years (youngest child as deduction every other year can be typical, I've heard) AS WELL AS to list options for 04 returns (what can you fight for now). Ask your attorney how long it would typically take to reverse/change this and the approiximate cost. YOU are THEIR EMPLOYER... you have every right to ask for their best possible, and thorough, work on your case. Ask him/her to list all the options because THEY are the expert and YOU want their legal expertise!
If you're not satisfied with your current attorney, ask around for a referral of another.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/05 - 02:33 Post subject:
Most times in divorce law the judges favor the one whom has the children. Also the one whom left the shared house usually gets the worse end because they are viewed as the one who intiated things.
I know some judges and this is pretty common on how they rule. It is not always fair.
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/11/05 - 02:33 Post subject:
Most times in divorce law the judges favor the one whom has the children. Also the one whom left the shared house usually gets the worse end because they are viewed as the one who intiated things.
I know some judges and this is pretty common on how they rule. It is not always fair.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
| Page 2 of 2 |
Related topics: | |
|
|
