Tax Deferred Income and Child Support Modification

[timlynnbo]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state?Nevada
I currently pay child support to my ex who lives in Colorado with my two children. My oldest is 19 almost 20 and in college, and I am no longer obligated to child support for him, but I have another child who is still in high school that I pay child support for. I want to do a child support modification because we've never done one since my oldest turned 19. My question is this:My ex has part of his income in a tax deferred plan and wants to exchange income tax returns for 2004 instead of W-2's to base the modification on. The reason I know that part of his income is tax deferred is because we were going to do the modification last year and we had exchanged W-2's from the prior year and it showed gross pay and the amount that was reported W-2 wages but we never got around to doing the modification. I am trying to find out if the court will base the modification on his gross income and not the reported W-2 wages. I know the reason that he wants to use income tax returns is so that the child support amount will be based on a lower income for him. Does anyone know which income we base the new child support on?

 

[Snipes5]

Not a tax question.

Please post this in the Child Support Forum.

 

[timlynnbo]

I did ask this question on the Child Support forum and was told to ask it under tax law forum.

 

[Snipes5]

Then ask them on what basis they think an EA or Tax Attorney should know the basis for a child support modification.

Snipes

 

[rayc1]

Well well well.

Thank you for asking the question. I asked the same thing for the same reason but on the other side of the fence.

The amount that I can put away, defer for retirement is limited by law.

I think that this amount should be allowed for the betterment of society. When the child is in the in tact home, the parents are not forced by law to not have a retirement in order to increase the lifestyle of the child, and after the break up of the home, the parents should not be prevented from supporting him or herself in the future retirement at the income levels that the law has established with can be deferred to 401K and IRA plans.

I think that the income for child support calculation should be current income after deferred income, which is not accessible without substantial penalty to the saver. The small amount that will be required for the meds and the many years after age 65 are what society will not have to pay to this person in welfare cost.

In short, dad must save for his retirement, and the amount that he can defer to this purpose is already limited by law as a small percentage of his current gross income. Anything past that 401K and IRA amount is taxed, and should be considered as current income towards the support of the child.

I am not a lawyer, but there was a very smart person in another section that suggested that I run for president if I do not want to agree with his general reference that says all gross income is considered. I guess if I had a business that had a loss, I would be forced to count the income and not balance it against loss, thereby giving the business a much greater loss.

Some of the folks that lurk here seem to work for a women's group when they answer. It sure would be nice to discuss things, and offer opinions like the one that I just offered, and get other opinions that support or don't support the answers, but in a friendly way. Even lawyers don't have all of the answers and have to get many years of practice before they get really good at the law. And then the laws are changed and they have to relearn.

I hope that you can understand my position, even if you don't agree. I am a diabetic with high blood pressure. I will retire one day, I hope. I was saving for my retirement when I was married, and I need to continue to do so. The current Federal Guidelines are very cruel to many fathers. If I can not provide a similar lifestyle to my children as my ex, then the charts are wrong. If my little girls spend one night a week over my house, then I have the same monthly housing obligation as my ex. My rent is not charged by the day.

The same is true of the car, the phone, and many other monthly expenses that I am required to maintain to live and hold a good job. I am charged by the month. These necessities should not be considered part of child support. Parents should be required to maintain themselves, and not charge the children. If Alimony or spousal support is needed, it should be awarded separately, not as a tax free benefit for being the female parent.

My children are better off mentally if they see two parents reasonably successful and helping them out, never one parent living above the what it cost to have two separate households supported to proportionally equal lifestyles by the combined net incomes, and the other parent mad, broke, and living as close to poverty as the system will allow.

If I have to get a part time job to provide the basics for my children in a shared custody agreement while my ex buys 60' HDTV sets and goes on cruises, the system is broken (completely unmonitored).

By the way, I hear custodial parents complain about bonuses of NCP's but I never hear about the efforts made of CP's to report bonuses and pay increases. I wonder why this should be a one sided compliance system. If a person is to complain, they should have to have also equally complied with reporting.

The 14th Amendment to the US Constitution talks about equal protection of the laws, lacking in Family Courts. The governments that regulate have begun to buy mom's vote with dad's money.

It is time for a review of what we as a society have done to mothers, fathers and children and marriage in our Family Court systems.

Just my opinion.

 

[Snipes5]

And your tax question is what exactly?

This has NOTHING to do with taxes.

You will get better results if you send your speech to your Representative or Senator.