azchickie
recently joined
Reged: 02/25/07
Posts: 5
|
|
My daughter turned 18 in july of 2005...we did have on our divorce that he would claim her in odd year and I in even....Since she turned 18 in 2005 and is emancipated per Arizona law, I claimed her....she lived with me 100% of the year and i supported her..he did pay support until that month however he did not do any thing more than that...ie, take her on weekends and holidays...he took her out for a meal about once a month....now he is saying that he still gets the right to claim her...he has not done his 2005 taxes yet..am I in the right????? [/list] [/list]
|
Miranda
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 20822
Loc: North of Mexico
|
|
No, you went against your court order. You can't do that!
--------------------
13.1...because I am only half crazy!
|
AnneB
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/21/05
Posts: 3645
|
|
If the child support stopped on her 18th birthday per your court order, then the court order should become null at that point, IMO. I don't see how its provisions would continue beyond the time it is in effect. Therefore the court order would not prevail over who claims her on taxes for that year--it would go by the IRS test. You can check their website at irs.gov and check the dependency test. If he still provided more than 50% of her support for that year, then by their guidelines he may be able to claim her. Otherwise, if by the court order, CS stops on her 18th birthday and she is emancipated, then it would be wherever she lives or whoever provides most of her support--or whoever she agrees to allow to claim her until she can claim herself!
I don't know for certain, obviously, but if you just look at it logically, once the order to pay expires, why would any of the other provisions continue as the purpose of the order no longer exists. Not only that, a few posters on the board are so fond of saying an 18 year old is an adult and should be self-sufficient. So why would a court order decide who claims her rather than she herself? If she obtained a full time job on her 18th birthday, then more than likely she would have made too much for either parent to claim her.
Out of curiosity, I just checked with my daughter who is a tax examiner for the IRS. She said that unless the CS paid for the 7 month period was provably over 50% of the total support for the child for the year, then he had no basis to claim her. Also, she confirmed that according to the IRS, once the CS order expires, then the IRS test for dependency exemption applies. She also said that since the daughter lived with you, it would be very difficult to prove he provided more than half her support unless he continued sending checks for substantial amounts of money that were clearly marked as support or something and could not be construed as gifts. She said divorced situations and self-employment generate the most tax examinations--wonder why!
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
The order was for the TAX YEAR and even though she became emanicpated DURING the year...he still gets to claim the child.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
AnneB
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/21/05
Posts: 3645
|
|
Are you sure? How do the provisions of the order continue beyond the expiration of the order? Maybe there is a lot of confusion between the states because my daughter said her training at the IRS says that when the order has expired during the year, then the IRS provisions apply. This would probably be a good question for the OP to ask a CPA since there is so much gray area on this. She said that according to their training, the state court does not have the power to control anything concerning taxes beyond the expiration of the court order--which is when the last CS payment is made.
I think I would check with a CPA if it was my tax return on the line...it would not be the first time the IRS has been wrong, but since they are the ones who will make the filer's life miserable, I would want to have some source to quote them as to where I got my information.
|
azchickie
recently joined
Reged: 02/25/07
Posts: 5
|
|
I feel embarrassed to say this but he got away with 150.00 a month in child support because he said he would take her for 50% of the time, which as I wrote above he didn't.. My daughter was not working at all, I supported her 100%...which was daily living expenses, Dr's bills, which incidentally he refused to pay for half a dental bill..her car insurance etc. He is stubborn and says that the way he reads the divorce is that the child support stops but the tax exemption ability goes on. I have been trying to gather information from all sources I can because I know in a year one of us will have to ammend this.
|
Patrice
addict
Reged: 07/21/06
Posts: 401
|
|
I don't think your daughter turning 18 means you are released from your divorce agreement. She may still be someone's dependent even though she is 18.
Although, I have read that if support stops (at 18), then the custodial parent would claim the child.
In my case ex and I will be splitting college tuition so we will continue to follow the agreement until they are no longer students. At that point they hopefully will not be dependents anymore.
My tax man said that they can actually still be claimed (if students) until age 24--seems kind of old, but ok . . .
Do you have a tax accountant you could consult on this?
--------------------
To the world you may be one person, but to one person you may be the world.
|
AnneB
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 09/21/05
Posts: 3645
|
|
They can be claimed as a dependent until about 24 if full time students. But that is a whole different issue than what the poster is asking--if the divorce decree can control the tax dependency exemption after the child support order expires.
|
azchickie
recently joined
Reged: 02/25/07
Posts: 5
|
|
Let me provide a little more information. He stopped paying child support in July 2005. She was only in school from January to April and barely worked and I supported her for that year. But I also remarried in 2005. Could having a new spouses extra income hurt me?
|
Miranda
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 20822
Loc: North of Mexico
|
|
What can hurt you is that you totally disregarded your court order. He paid 7 months of CS that year. Why should he not be able to claim the child as per your court order? Does your court order say, "once the child turns 18 the mother gets to claim the child if she feels like it"? Your court order states he gets to claim the child in odd years, 2005 was an odd year, and she was a minor for more than half of it. It is his deduction.
Regardless of the "IRS test" you are bound by your court order. You are bound to the jurisdiction of your court order which is your county in which the order was made.
--------------------
13.1...because I am only half crazy!
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
