Tax question--can BM do that??
Forums:
My DH and BM are coming up with an agreement that my DH's attorney is drafting and filing with the court. SD will primarily live with us, and will stay with BM every other weekend. We aren't asking for her to pay any child support. She wants to claim SD on her taxes every other year. I told my DH I don't think that's fair since she will be getting most of her care with us (health insurance, meals, food etc.) Can she do that, or is it a given that legally she cannot claim her? I'm so heated about this!!
Per IRS rules she cannot
Per IRS rules she cannot claim the child. This is not a family court issue.
You have to make it clear on
You have to make it clear on the CO exactly who will be the head of the primary household.
If BM lives with her mother, then you have to know this on the CO. I've seen so many people screwed on this. Because the BM's mother can be the one to claim the kids.
BE VERY Careful because BM's mother or aunt or whoever she lives with is the "head of the household" if BM gives mortgage or rent money to her mother, etc.
How could a maternal
How could a maternal grandmother claim a child if the child lives with her father? That is not legal.
Yes, I just re-read that DH
Yes, I just re-read that DH has the kids.
Here is the IRS link.
Here is the IRS link.
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p929.pdf
Wait just saw, you're
Wait just saw, you're primary. She can't claim you nor her mother or anyone else. If she does, then it becomes a suit & IRS will get involved.
From the IRS standpoint, it
From the IRS standpoint, it doesn't matter what the CO says. The IRS criteria for claiming a child include where the child lives for the majority of they year, who provides support, etc. Someone above posted a link.
Your DH will legally be allowed to claim her. However, if he agrees to the CO saying that BM can claim her, she could potentially have a civil claim against him in court for violating the order. I think that depends on your state though.
Correct. However, if BM lives
Correct. However, if BM lives with her mother or aunt or grandmother. Even if she states that on the CO, if she hands over her livelihood/ bills/ etc to her mother, GIL can claim as the head of the household. BM did that & we had to get a lawyer for discovery & found out it was legal for her to do.
I would think that if BM
I would think that if BM can't meet the criteria to claim the kid, than neither can GIL. While GIL may be able to claim head of household, and possibly claim BM as a dependant, I don't see how that would pass on to include the skid too.
Dependents, by definition, only meet the criteria to be claimed by one household. If DH has skid most of the year, he meets the criteria, regardless of BM or GIL's filing status.
This has been my understanding, anyway. I'm not very familiar with these more complex scenarios.
It does as the head of the
It does as the head of the household. We didn't think it was legal either as so many people told us it wouldnt. Then we spoke to a really smart corporate accountant. He suggested wee spend money for a lawyer for discovery. In BMs case, it most certainly held. That was money out the window but NOW that skid is in our custody legally, only DH can claim.
Dupe post
Dupe post
No, that is BS. She can do
No, that is BS. She can do it if you allow it, but NO, courts normally give the CP the tax deduction EVEN when they are getting paid CS...which is ridiculous, but if she's not paying CS, demand that you claim the kid.
Yes NOW that happens because
Yes NOW that happens because we have custody of the kid. Trust me we took it to a lawyer.
She can claim the child if
She can claim the child if the father fills out form 8332 giving her permission to do so http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8332.pdf
But it makes ZERO sense that she incurs a lower cost for caring of the child AND gets a tax break.
"But it makes ZERO sense that
"But it makes ZERO sense that she incurs a lower cost for caring of the child AND gets a tax break"
Yeah no kidding. And as a check collector, she also get free benefits, free meals & free legal counsel.
It's the way the law works. But if you all want to question, then you all better take a good look what the CO says as head of the household especially if its a recent custody turnover + how many of our BMs find every loophole to get deductions as "Poor poverty stricken single mothers".
In order to use the Head of
In order to use the Head of Household filing status, the taxpayer must do the following:
-Be unmarried or considered unmarried as of the last day of the tax year;
-Have paid more than half the cost of keeping up a home for the tax year (either one's own home or the home of a qualifying parent);
Eligibility:
-Qualifying relative other than a father or mother
father or mother that person lived with the taxpayer for more than half the year and is related in one of the ways listed below, and the taxpayer can claim an exemption for that person: ELIGIBLE
Qualifying Relative as Head of Household:
....Grandparent or direct ancestor but not foster parent.
Where is the of this "head of
Where is the of this "head of household" stuff coming from?
Dad gets to claim the kid. That's it.
YES, I corrected because her
YES, I corrected because her DH has full custody. LOOK UP THERE ^
However, that does apply to some.
Is that okay with you??
BM claims every other year
BM claims every other year which I think is bs because DH pays child support and we have ss 1/2 the time. The system is biased against men.
Yes. This is why we hired an
Yes. This is why we hired an attorney for discovery...in our naive mind, we thought we had a chance. We didn't because we found out way more about tax laws regarding steps/divorces/ child support than we wanted to. Whatever we'd find, we'd lose anyway as lawyers don't work for free.
Screwed up system & BM covered all her bases.
Yes. This is why we hired an
Yes. This is why we hired an attorney for discovery...in our naive mind, we thought we had a chance. We didn't because we found out way more about tax laws regarding steps/divorces/ child support than we wanted to. Whatever we'd find, we'd lose anyway as lawyers don't work for free.
Screwed up system & BM covered all her bases.