Divorcing

[medic179]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

I am the stepdad to 3 kids, sophomore in college, senior in high school(who will be attending college) and a 6th grader. we receive NO financial support from the father. we have been married for 6 years, together for 8. we were wondering if anyone would have an answer for this question. If we divorce but stay together, pretty much all would remain the same except that my wife would claim all 3 kids with no child support, would it benefit her for applying for college assistance for the kids? would it put more money in our pockets? thanksWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

 

[Proserpina]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

I am the stepdad to 3 kids, sophomore in college, senior in high school(who will be attending college) and a 6th grader. we receive NO financial support from the father. we have been married for 6 years, together for 8. we were wondering if anyone would have an answer for this question. If we divorce but stay together, pretty much all would remain the same except that my wife would claim all 3 kids with no child support, would it benefit her for applying for college assistance for the kids? would it put more money in our pockets? thanksWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Why hasn't your wife pursued child support?

 

[Ohiogal]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

I am the stepdad to 3 kids, sophomore in college, senior in high school(who will be attending college) and a 6th grader. we receive NO financial support from the father. we have been married for 6 years, together for 8. we were wondering if anyone would have an answer for this question. If we divorce but stay together, pretty much all would remain the same except that my wife would claim all 3 kids with no child support, would it benefit her for applying for college assistance for the kids? would it put more money in our pockets? thanksWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

So you want to know if you can commit fraud?

 

[Antigone*]

So you want to know if you can commit fraud?

pretty much

 

[LdiJ]

So you want to know if you can commit fraud?

I am not sure that we could call it fraud if they actually GOT divorced. Its not fraud for anyone else that is merely "shacked up".

However, I would certain call it tacky.

 

[mistoffolees]

I am not sure that we could call it fraud if they actually GOT divorced. Its not fraud for anyone else that is merely "shacked up".

However, I would certain call it tacky.

If they got divorced and then continued to live together as if nothing had happened, it would be fraud.

If they continued to file taxes jointly, it would be a felony, as well.

 

[LdiJ]

If they got divorced and then continued to live together as if nothing had happened, it would be fraud.

If they continued to file taxes jointly, it would be a felony, as well.

Seriously, how could it be fraud? They would no longer be married and no longer entitled to the legal protections of marriage. Marital debts and assets would no longer accrue etc, etc. Its a legal loophole perhaps that maybe should be stopped up somehow, but it wouldn't be fraud.

Its also not a felony to file a joint return if unmarried. It could be tax fraud and subject to the penalties for tax fraud, but only if it produced a better result than their own single filing statuses would provide...and there is almost NO chance that would happen.

That is why so many married couples DO commit tax fraud by pretending to be single on their tax returns...and why the IRS is targeting them now.

 

[mistoffolees]

Seriously, how could it be fraud? They would no longer be married and no longer entitled to the legal protections of marriage. Marital debts and assets would no longer accrue etc, etc. Its a legal loophole perhaps that maybe should be stopped up somehow, but it wouldn't be fraud.

It is fraud because they would still be married in every sense except the sheet of paper. In short, they are stealing money that could be going to someone who really deserves it.

Its also not a felony to file a joint return if unmarried. It could be tax fraud and subject to the penalties for tax fraud, but only if it produced a better result than their own single filing statuses would provide...and there is almost NO chance that would happen.

Really?

There are two scenarios: either the wife is working or she isn't.

If the wife is not working, then if they're divorced, the husband files singly. If they're married, he files jointly. Married filing jointly tax rates are lower than single, sometimes markedly so. So if they file as 'married filing jointly' when they're actually divorced, they would definitely be paying too little in tax.

Now, if the wife is working, it's impossible to say without knowing their specifics - they could be paying too much or too little, but there are lots of scenarios where married filing jointly reduces taxes even if they're both working.

In any event, if one partner isn't working it is clearly defrauding the US government if they file as married -joint after filing for divorce. So your "no chance that would happen" is wrong.

Oh, and it IS a felony:
Related Statutes and Penalties - General Tax Fraud
(" (1) Declaration under penalties of perjury - Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter; shall be guilty of a felony"

Seems pretty clear. It's a felony whether they benefit or not.

 

[LdiJ]

It is fraud because they would still be married in every sense except the sheet of paper. In short, they are stealing money that could be going to someone who really deserves it.

Its still not fraud if they are actually divorced. Divorce is a legal status. The government cannot declare someone "married" when they are divorced and living together unless they happen to be in one of the few states that recognizes common law marriage, and even then the rules for the recognition of a common law marriage would virtually preclude the government from declaring a common law marriage against the will of BOTH parties.

And as far as the tax aspects are concerned, you are honestly misinformed. There are little to no circumstances, these days, where the total benefit to a family would be signficantly greater if the parents claimed to be married when they were not.

Run some numbers if you don't believe me.

Your link also doesn't back up your statements. Under the tax code it cannot be a felony unless its fraud, and it cannot be fraud without a tax benefit.

 

[Hisbabygirl77]

Its still not fraud if they are actually divorced. Divorce is a legal status. The government cannot declare someone "married" when they are divorced and living together unless they happen to be in one of the few states that recognizes common law marriage, and even then the rules for the recognition of a common law marriage would virtually preclude the government from declaring a common law marriage against the will of BOTH parties.

And as far as the tax aspects are concerned, you are honestly misinformed. There are little to no circumstances, these days, where the total benefit to a family would be signficantly greater if the parents claimed to be married when they were not.

Run some numbers if you don't believe me.

Your link also doesn't back up your statements. Under the tax code it cannot be a felony unless its fraud, and it cannot be fraud without a tax benefit.

I am no tax expert so if I am completely off base I am sorry thats why I am asking. I think it could benefit if say with both salaries combined they do not qualify for the EIC credit but if single the wife qualifes for it thus getting back a return. Or if dad owes lets say for student loans and his money will get taken so wife files so that the return is not taken then again it benefits them... Is that correct? SO because they could benefit would it now be fraud?

 

[LdiJ]

I am no tax expert so if I am completely off base I am sorry thats why I am asking. I think it could benefit if say with both salaries combined they do not qualify for the EIC credit but if single the wife qualifes for it thus getting back a return. Or if dad owes lets say for student loans and his money will get taken so wife files so that the return is not taken then again it benefits them... Is that correct? SO because they could benefit would it now be fraud?

It would be fraud if they were married and claimed that they were not for tax purposes (which is a common form of tax fraud).

It absolutely would NOT be tax fraud if they were never married or divorced.

 

[Zigner]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Michigan

I am the stepdad to 3 kids, sophomore in college, senior in high school(who will be attending college) and a 6th grader. we receive NO financial support from the father. we have been married for 6 years, together for 8. we were wondering if anyone would have an answer for this question. If we divorce but stay together, pretty much all would remain the same except that my wife would claim all 3 kids with no child support, would it benefit her for applying for college assistance for the kids? would it put more money in our pockets? thanksWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

WE would NEVER have received support for the kids in the first place. There is no WE. Too bad your wife hasn't seen fit to be a strong advocate for her children.

 

[mistoffolees]

And as far as the tax aspects are concerned, you are honestly misinformed. There are little to no circumstances, these days, where the total benefit to a family would be signficantly greater if the parents claimed to be married when they were not.

Run some numbers if you don't believe me.

I have. When my ex and I were going to divorce, I ran it both ways to see if there was any benefit to having the divorce finalized before year end. The total tax rate for married, filing jointly was FAR less than if we had both filed singly.

Not to mention the fact that the tax tables are out there for anyone to see. Married filing jointly is far less than two singles at most income levels.

Here's the quote AGAIN:
"" (1) Declaration under penalties of perjury - Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter; shall be guilty of a felony""

If they state that they are married when they are not, it's a felony - according to the IRS. There's nothing in there that says they have to benefit.

Which tax code are you thinking of? It's obviously not the U.S. tax code.

 

[LdiJ]

I have. When my ex and I were going to divorce, I ran it both ways to see if there was any benefit to having the divorce finalized before year end. The total tax rate for married, filing jointly was FAR less than if we had both filed singly.

Not to mention the fact that the tax tables are out there for anyone to see. Married filing jointly is far less than two singles at most income levels.

It wouldn't be two single returns if they had children. One return would be head of household. That is what you are leaving out of the equation. The combo of one return at a single rate and the other return at a head of household rate would rarely produce an overall tax burden that was higher than a married rate.

I will concede however, that there could be a few circumstances, with the right combo of incomes, where there could be somewhat of an advantage to file jointly if you are not married, but you would be hard pressed to find one when children are involved.

The vast majority of tax fraud comes from parents filing as single or head of household, when they are really married.

Here's the quote AGAIN:
"" (1) Declaration under penalties of perjury - Willfully makes and subscribes any return, statement, or other document, which contains or is verified by a written declaration that is made under the penalties of perjury, and which he does not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter; shall be guilty of a felony""

If they state that they are married when they are not, it's a felony - according to the IRS. There's nothing in there that says they have to benefit.

Which tax code are you thinking of? It's obviously not the U.S. tax code.

Ok, lets put it differently. The IRS pursues felony convictions in very very few cases. The IRS is certainly not going to pursue a felony with someone who lied and ended up paying more tax as a result. Its the reverse. They will happily accept the extra tax and chuckle at the stupidity of some people.

 

[mistoffolees]

It wouldn't be two single returns if they had children. One return would be head of household. That is what you are leaving out of the equation. The combo of one return at a single rate and the other return at a head of household rate would rarely produce an overall tax burden that was higher than a married rate.

I will concede however, that there could be a few circumstances, with the right combo of incomes, where there could be somewhat of an advantage to file jointly if you are not married, but you would be hard pressed to find one when children are involved.

The vast majority of tax fraud comes from parents filing as single or head of household, when they are really married.

And, yet, in my case, with one daughter involved for my wife and I and she had a daughter from a previous marriage who was still a dependent, AND we calculated head of household and it was STILL cheaper to file as married, filing jointly.

IOW, you were wrong - again.

Ok, lets put it differently. The IRS pursues felony convictions in very very few cases. The IRS is certainly not going to pursue a felony with someone who lied and ended up paying more tax as a result. Its the reverse. They will happily accept the extra tax and chuckle at the stupidity of some people.

There's a big difference between "it's not a felony" and "you won't likely get caught". You were wrong when you said it wasn't a felony. Period.