• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

divorce/ftp child support/arrears/tax deduction

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

mistoffolees

Senior Member
I'm not sure whats going on here but I think mistoffolees was referring to the fact that conditional orders for these exemptions are not technically acceptable by the IRS in lieu of a properly signed form 8332, and may cause unneccessary problems simply because the residential custodian could refuse to sign form 8332 for ANY reason...and often do. I don't think he was making any moral judgements. Wouldn't this put all non custodials in a perpetually inferior position? Aren't there better ways of ensuring child support than creating tax nightmares over exemptions? I defer to you all on this one...
Of course, I wasn't making a moral judgment. I was stating how IRS rules work.

Personally, I would think an understanding of how IRS rules is more important than my moral views on the issue, but I guess the OP thinks my moral view are more important. To each his own.
 


mistoffolees

Senior Member
actually, there are not a SMALL NUMBER of agreements that are conditional.

in fact MOST agreements are conditional upon the obligor being current on child support. In fact, many states require that a payor being completely current, not just for the current calendar year, but over all.

Those agreements that are NOT conditional are the work of poor planning and/or incompetence.
In your opinion. Unfortunately none of the lawyers or tax experts I've talked with agree with you.

Conditional agreements are essentially unenforceable with the IRS. In fact, the IRS rules specifically state that conditional agreements are invalid as far as the Tax Code is concerned. If you can stop calling me retarded for a few minutes, you might find it educational to actually READ the IRS rules before calling names.
 

tuffbrk

Senior Member
Actually, GinnyJ posted the tax rules earlier in this chain - it doesn't match what you wrote and oh - BTW - I think Fair's remark was based on your comment that there are a small number of conditional agreements. I'm not certain where you - or anyone for that matter - got their hands on any statistics related to conditional agreements - or in other words - post your legal advice, keep your commentary and subjective opinions to yourself...
 
Last edited:

mistoffolees

Senior Member
Actually, GinnyJ posted the tax rules earlier in this chain - it doesn't match what you wrote
Actually, it does.

And you might want to try practicing what you preach. You attack me for personal statements and use a bunch of your own to support your attacks.
 

fairisfair

Senior Member
Read the IRS rules.

The IRS rules are roughly as follows:

1. Who has primary physical custody? The person who has the child >50% of the time will get the deduction unless there is a court order or other agreement otherwise (such as a signed 8332 form).

2. If the two parents have EXACTLY 50:50, then the IRS has tie breaker rules (the first one is who has the greater adjusted gross income).

You can sign an agreement or the court can order that the deduction be distributed otherwise.

So, in your eyes, knowing the IRS rules makes me retarded? Amazing.
no, you make you retarded. I am merely responsible for noticing.:rolleyes:

you can try to change what you said, but unfortunately it is in black and white. You stated that conditional court orders were "bad agreements" you said nothing about their acceptance or lack thereof by the irs. you also stated that they are unusual, another BS statement.
 
Last edited:

fairisfair

Senior Member
In your opinion. Unfortunately none of the lawyers or tax experts I've talked with agree with you.

Conditional agreements are essentially unenforceable with the IRS. In fact, the IRS rules specifically state that conditional agreements are invalid as far as the Tax Code is concerned. If you can stop calling me retarded for a few minutes, you might find it educational to actually READ the IRS rules before calling names.
Please list those lawyers and tax experts, I am quite sure that they would love to share those statistics with the world. Or, are you just pulling those statistics out of your . . . . . . . ????

conditional agreements may not be enforceable with the IRS, unless properly written in accordance with IRS regulations; and guess what???? NOBODY CARES!!!!! Court orders take precedence over IRS rules and regulations. The court can and will force a parent to sign the 8332 when the conditions have been met.

and guess what else? you are still retarded. You may know taxes, but I would suggest that you not leave your calculator because there is a whole big wide scary world out there that you know NOTHING about.
 

fairisfair

Senior Member
Now, I am off to have my court order, with it's conditional agreement, framed in deference to it's highly unusual nature.

So what that template it from is posted on the state self service court forms website and that the state CSEA uses it in every case they work.

That doesn't make it common . . . . .. does it?????:rolleyes:
 

Silverplum

Senior Member
And I'm wondering if "people like YOU" will ever learn how to MAKE an argument on a LEGAL site.

Because you -- and some *others* -- clearly miss it every time I post it, here it is again:

Here's what would actually HELP:

Instead of popping off with what you know in one case in one state, try researching answers in other states. Post links to LAW.

THEN your answers are GOLDEN and you will earn some respect.

And DON'T discuss a case in a DIFFERENT state. Geez, how many times do we have to keep saying that? It just confuses the issue.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
Please list those lawyers and tax experts, I am quite sure that they would love to share those statistics with the world. Or, are you just pulling those statistics out of your . . . . . . . ????

conditional agreements may not be enforceable with the IRS, unless properly written in accordance with IRS regulations; and guess what???? NOBODY CARES!!!!! Court orders take precedence over IRS rules and regulations. The court can and will force a parent to sign the 8332 when the conditions have been met.

and guess what else? you are still retarded. You may know taxes, but I would suggest that you not leave your calculator because there is a whole big wide scary world out there that you know NOTHING about.
Whoa Fair....court orders absolutely DO NOT take precedence over IRS rules and regulations. If a judge orders something that is illegal under the tax code, then its an illegal order that cannot be enforced. A judge can order that a non-custodial parent get the childcare credit, for example, but that cannot be enforced with the IRS. The IRS won't allow it no matter what the judge orders.

Sure, the court can force a parent to sign form 8332 or be penalized...but that is about the only thing that a judge can order in regards to taxes, that a judge can enforce in any way, shape or form.

Personally, I think that you and Misto have been talking at cross purposes. Both of you are right. I think that you are just looking at it from completely different angles.

From a tax standpoint, a conditional order is bad. From a family law standpoint, a non-conditional order is bad.
 

fairisfair

Senior Member
Whoa Fair....court orders absolutely DO NOT take precedence over IRS rules and regulations. If a judge orders something that is illegal under the tax code, then its an illegal order that cannot be enforced. A judge can order that a non-custodial parent get the childcare credit, for example, but that cannot be enforced with the IRS. The IRS won't allow it no matter what the judge orders.

Sure, the court can force a parent to sign form 8332 or be penalized...but that is about the only thing that a judge can order in regards to taxes, that a judge can enforce in any way, shape or form.

Personally, I think that you and Misto have been talking at cross purposes. Both of you are right. I think that you are just looking at it from completely different angles.

From a tax standpoint, a conditional order is bad. From a family law standpoint, a non-conditional order is bad.
I didn't say anything about doing anything illegal for crying out loud.

If tax regulations say that the custodial parent has the right to claim the child and the court order gives that right to the non custodial parent, for example in your obviously beloved NONCONDITIONAL ORDER. who claims them??

I rest my case. on that point

From a tax standpoint, a conditional order is bad. From a family law standpoint, a non-conditional order is bad.
Oh, I am sorry, what forum are we in again???

I rest my case on that point as well.
 
Last edited:

fairisfair

Senior Member
I wonder if people like you and Bali will ever learn that when you have to resort to silly ad-hominem attacks that you've lost the argument.
the day Bali or I ever learn something from you will be the day that pigs fly.

and just because I adore Bali really doesn't mean we have anything at all in common.
 

LdiJ

Senior Member
I didn't say anything about doing anything illegal for crying out loud.
But lots of judges make orders that they don't know are illegal and lots of attorneys broker agreements with illegal clauses, (regarding taxes) so its really important that you don't make a statement like "the judges orders take precedence over the IRS rules and regulations", because they do not. Other people are going to read this thread and could misunderstand that statement entirely.

If tax regulations say that the custodial parent has the right to claim the child and the court order gives that right to the non custodial parent. who claims them??

I rest my case. on that point
If both of them claim the child, and there is no signed form 8332 or equivalent, the IRS will give it to the custodial parent...period...end of story. The state court judge can punish the cp for doing that, but the state court judge can't make the IRS do or accept squat.

[Oh, I am sorry, what forum are we in again???

I rest my case on that point as well.
It doesn't matter what forum we are in. This is a thread that needed answers from both a family law, AND tax aspect.
 

fairisfair

Senior Member
But lots of judges make orders that they don't know are illegal and lots of attorneys broker agreements with illegal clauses, (regarding taxes) so its really important that you don't make a statement like "the judges orders take precedence over the IRS rules and regulations", because they do not. Other people are going to read this thread and could misunderstand that statement entirely.



If both of them claim the child, and there is no signed form 8332 or equivalent, the IRS will give it to the custodial parent...period...end of story. The state court judge can punish the cp for doing that, but the state court judge can't make the IRS do or accept squat.
we are not the irs, you might be the irs but WE here on the FAMILY LAW forum are not the IRS. and the court judge can MOST CERTAINLY make us do whatever he decides, unless you are somehow above a court order


It doesn't matter what forum we are in. This is a thread that needed answers from both a family law, AND tax aspect.
and it most certainly matters which forum we are in if you are going to make statements like the one that Mist of fleas made; that conditional agreements are bad agreements; when anyone knows that you would be an lidjit NOT to have a conditional agreement regarding the right to claim the child. FROM A FAMILY LAW STANDPOINT.

Take a left and you will find the tax forum. and take you friend Mistermisty with you.
 

mistoffolees

Senior Member
Whoa Fair....court orders absolutely DO NOT take precedence over IRS rules and regulations. If a judge orders something that is illegal under the tax code, then its an illegal order that cannot be enforced. A judge can order that a non-custodial parent get the childcare credit, for example, but that cannot be enforced with the IRS. The IRS won't allow it no matter what the judge orders.
Watch out - fairisfair will be calling you retarded next.
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top