Dependency with Custody Change

[Karl J]

I disagree that the ex could never take the exemption. But, because we're delving in to hypotheticals, I'm going to stop. The OP has seen that your information is, for her, (at best) misleading. That is what counts.

I gave you the court case that says he can't. If you want to ignore the law, fine that's your choice. Seems like bad legal advice to intentionally ignore the law

 

[Karl J]

Wait wait wait...the divorce decree IS conditional on child support. So why is it when I sent in the decree they accepted it? It does state that it cannot be conditional on support and it is.

The IRS probably never read it.

 

[CTU]

I gave you the court case that says he can't. If you want to ignore the law, fine that's your choice. Seems like bad legal advice to intentionally ignore the law

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

 

[Zigner]

Wait wait wait...the divorce decree IS conditional on child support. So why is it when I sent in the decree they accepted it? It does state that it cannot be conditional on support and it is.

Because Karl just doesn't get it.

 

[Karl J]

Not anymore! Because now that im aware that the divorce decree is not supposed to hold up with the IRS because of their law changes on conditional decrees, doesnt that federal law trump state law? its getting a little bit confusing at this point. The fact that the decree is conditional and not allowed with the IRS anymore changes everything. Is it still contempt of court with the federal rule changes?

Read Armstrong vs Comissioner. Once you understand the tax courts position, you should see a lawyer in your state.

You won't be contempt because legally you can't give him the exemption.

 

[Karl J]

Because Karl just doesn't get it.

Again, the IRS doesn't audit every single tax return.

 

[Zigner]

Read Armstrong vs Comissioner. Once you understand the tax courts position, you should see a lawyer in your state.

You won't be contempt because legally you can't give him the exemption.

Ya got it wrong, Karl. Either that, or CTU's implication above is correct.

 

[Karl J]

Ya got it wrong, Karl. Either that, or CTU's implication above is correct.

nope I'm correct

 

[Ohiogal]

Again, read Armstrong vs comissioner. OPs husband has no federal tax adavantage. He couldn't take the exemption even if both the OP and her ex agree to per Armstrong vs Comissioner.

The law is very clear here

You are not a lawyer. You are wrong.

 

[Zigner]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

As can be seen by his further responses, the answer is a deafening "YES"!

 

[Karl J]

You are not a lawyer. You are wrong.

I am indeed a lawyer.

 

[Karl J]

A lot of name calling towards me, but not much substance. Everything I have said is backed by the actual law, not my opinion.

 

[Ohiogal]

A lot of name calling towards me, but not much substance. Everything I have said is backed by the actual law, not my opinion.

You state you are a lawyer, you need to be vetted by this site. You haven't been. That is going to change. And you don't know family law or what state courts can do as you don't appear to practice within them. So quit posting that a state court cannot hold a parent in contempt. They can.

 

[Zigner]

A lot of name calling towards me, but not much substance. Everything I have said is backed by the actual law, not my opinion.

Funny how the family law attorney disagrees with you.

 

[Zigner]

You state you are a lawyer, you need to be vetted by this site. You haven't been. That is going to change. And you don't know family law or what state courts can do as you don't appear to practice within them. So quit posting that a state court cannot hold a parent in contempt. They can.

To be fair, the OP claims to be a tax accountant, not a lawyer.