Broken divorce decree?

[LdiJ]

Wow, now I'm REALLY confused. :

LdiJ~ Under her exemptions we filed TWO of the children, as agreed upon and per the decree. All of the children are school-age, and therefore don't go to daycare, so we didn't claim anything there. The ONLY time we claimed more than her two, was for the EIC, which stated a maximum of three children. Thanks for all your advice!

Then dad should have nothing to complain about. He wasn't entitled to EIC and that is the only thing that would have been denied him or would have caused a reject. However, that won't stop him from taking it to court if he is convinced that he is allowed to claim EIC.

Punchcard~ She is sending me a copy of her decree, since we live out of state, so I'm not sure of the exact wording. I went with what she was telling me. This is the link I have from the IRS website : Qualifying Child Rules

I also called and spoke with someone at the IRS to verify.

As for them previously claiming more than allowed under EIC; no. I went back and reviewed the return, and it's only three. So no tax problems there!
No, my name isn't listed on her taxes as a preparer, but rather as a third party designee, so that I may talk to the IRS if need be. I just used H&R Block software. Sorry, I don't typically go around saying I prepare her taxes, I was just trying to get some help here. I guess I didn't realize the implications of stating I was preparing her taxes. Thanks!

Thank you all, again! As soon as I get her decree, I will be sure to read through it thoroughly and come back here. Thanks for all the great info!

It actually doesn't matter what her decree said. Most of what Punchcard said was completely irrelevant.

 

[stealth2]

OP - please disregard punchcard's post. S/he has been posting a lot of incorrect information - it simply isn't worth going through his/her posts to figure out what is possibly correct in the midst of all the incorrect info.

 

[punchcard]

Then dad should have nothing to complain about. He wasn't entitled to EIC and that is the only thing that would have been denied him or would have caused a reject. However, that won't stop him from taking it to court if he is convinced that he is allowed to claim EIC.

It actually doesn't matter what her decree said. Most of what Punchcard said was completely irrelevant.

How can you conclude that "He wasn't entitled to EIC" without seeing the legal agreement, the court orders, or knowing all the facts surrouding the case?

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

How can you conclude that "He wasn't entitled to EIC" without seeing the legal agreement, the court orders, or knowing all the facts surrouding the case?

According to the poster, the FATHER is the NON-CUSTODIAL parent. As such, he would NEVER EVER EVER be entitled to EIC. Only a custodial parent can make that claim; the same for the child and dependent care credit. Both of those run with the custodial parent.

A court can place an order that the non-custodial parent can take dependencies; they CANNOT order that a person break a federal law.

 

[Proserpina]

How can you conclude that "He wasn't entitled to EIC" without seeing the legal agreement, the court orders, or knowing all the facts surrouding the case?

Look. We know that this isn't your first screen-name/time here.

Would you please - if you have any sense of kindness, compassion and/or decency - quit trolling?

Truly, I beg of thee. It's old, it's boring and it's really...well, sad.

 

[LdiJ]

How can you conclude that "He wasn't entitled to EIC" without seeing the legal ag10reement, the court orders, or knowing all the facts surrouding the case?

Because I am a tax professional and I know with utter certainty that no court order can be made allowing an ncp to claim EIC. Why? Because that is a violation of the tax code and no state court order can override the federal tax code.

Even IF the court order gives him EIC, the IRS WILL NOT honor the court order. Even if mom signs form 8332 releasing the exemption to him he STILL cannot claim EIC...PERIOD.

What's more, if a person claims EIC for a child that they are not eligible to claim EIC for the IRS bars them from claiming EIC for ANY child for a period of two years (if the IRS believes it was an honest mistake) or 10 years (if the IRS believes it was deliberate fraud).

So PLEASE stop posting wrong information. You are doing it all over the place and if you don't stop I am going to report you to the admin.

 

[punchcard]

OP's original post in this family law, Divorce, Separation & Annulment forum is clear: OP is asking about whether she caused legal problems with her ex and whether a divorce decree was broken and she gets a reply, "It actually doesn't matter what her decree said." How is that a responsible reply?

Then there's the sensationalized "they CANNOT order that a person break a federal law" reply as well as "The state court can never override federal tax law." Don't you think that reply is misleading OP into believing that the court ordered mom into breaking federal law? How can you imply that that the state court' s divorce decree overrode federal tax law without knowing that the divorce decree says or the facts surrounding the case? You haven't even seen the divorce decree, yet you make an assumption and present a conclusion to OP based on that assumption. Less reactionary in posts and more considerate of the OP request may be the better approach.

Have you taken a look at what forum this is? It's family law, not tax law, and OP's request in her post raises at least three areas - federal tax law, the court divorce decree, and the written agreements between mom and dad. Even if OP correctly filed the tax returns, everything isn't OK because she still could have cause legal problems with mom's ex.

It is irresponsible and misleading to OP to limit a reply to 'I know tax rules and I say you and mom are OK.' What about mom's obligation to dad under the court divorce decree, and the written agreements between mom and dad? Isn't dad entitled to the financial benefit of the divorce decree? What about the spirit of the agreement and the intent of the parties under that agreement? We don't even know whether mom will have to indemnify dad for any losses incurred due to his inability to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit before the IRS, yet continue to imply to OP that she's right because federal tax law says this and everything's OK.

Look. We know that this isn't your first screen-name/time here. Would you please - if you have any sense of kindness, compassion and/or decency - quit trolling? Truly, I beg of thee. It's old, it's boring and it's really...well, sad.

Proserpina, yes, this is my only screen name and no, I'm not a troll. I do see a lot of wrong/premature conclusions posted by others, as well as sensitized comments made in an effort to give more weight to their post. I mostly haven't replied to others because I'm not here for their benefit but here for the benefit of the original poster. Seeing how my lack of replies has brought misunderstanding, I'll be more than happy to join in and point out any errors I see. And, certainly, if I make any, feel free to alert me to them as I will be more than happy to correct them.

 

[stealth2]

OP's original post in this family law, Divorce, Separation & Annulment forum is clear: OP is asking about whether she caused legal problems with her ex and whether a divorce decree was broken and she gets a reply, "It actually doesn't matter what her decree said." How is that a responsible reply?

Then there's the sensationalized "they CANNOT order that a person break a federal law" reply as well as "The state court can never override federal tax law." Don't you think that reply is misleading OP into believing that the court ordered mom into breaking federal law? How can you imply that that the state court' s divorce decree overrode federal tax law without knowing that the divorce decree says or the facts surrounding the case? You haven't even seen the divorce decree, yet you make an assumption and present a conclusion to OP based on that assumption. Less reactionary in posts and more considerate of the OP request may be the better approach.

Have you taken a look at what forum this is? It's family law, not tax law, and OP's request in her post raises at least three areas - federal tax law, the court divorce decree, and the written agreements between mom and dad. Even if OP correctly filed the tax returns, everything isn't OK because she still could have cause legal problems with mom's ex.

It is irresponsible and misleading to OP to limit a reply to 'I know tax rules and I say you and mom are OK.' What about mom's obligation to dad under the court divorce decree, and the written agreements between mom and dad? Isn't dad entitled to the financial benefit of the divorce decree? What about the spirit of the agreement and the intent of the parties under that agreement? We don't even know whether mom will have to indemnify dad for any losses incurred due to his inability to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit before the IRS, yet continue to imply to OP that she's right because federal tax law says this and everything's OK.


Proserpina, yes, this is my only screen name and no, I'm not a troll. I do see a lot of wrong/premature conclusions posted by others, as well as sensitized comments made in an effort to give more weight to their post. I mostly haven't replied to others because I'm not here for their benefit but here for the benefit of the original poster. Seeing how my lack of replies has brought misunderstanding, I'll be more than happy to join in and point out any errors I see. And, certainly, if I make any, feel free to alert me to them as I will be more than happy to correct them.

Are you a tax professional? No? Then perhaps you ought to think twice before telling several posters who ARE that they are wrong. Ya know?

The majority of the information you provide is INCORRECT and/or misleading. Do you understand that? Incorrect. Stop, please. Just... stop.

 

[allsaidanddone]

OP's original post in this family law, Divorce, Separation & Annulment forum is clear: OP is asking about whether she caused legal problems with her ex and whether a divorce decree was broken and she gets a reply, "It actually doesn't matter what her decree said." How is that a responsible reply?

Then there's the sensationalized "they CANNOT order that a person break a federal law" reply as well as "The state court can never override federal tax law." Don't you think that reply is misleading OP into believing that the court ordered mom into breaking federal law? How can you imply that that the state court' s divorce decree overrode federal tax law without knowing that the divorce decree says or the facts surrounding the case? You haven't even seen the divorce decree, yet you make an assumption and present a conclusion to OP based on that assumption. Less reactionary in posts and more considerate of the OP request may be the better approach.

Have you taken a look at what forum this is? It's family law, not tax law, and OP's request in her post raises at least three areas - federal tax law, the court divorce decree, and the written agreements between mom and dad. Even if OP correctly filed the tax returns, everything isn't OK because she still could have cause legal problems with mom's ex.

It is irresponsible and misleading to OP to limit a reply to 'I know tax rules and I say you and mom are OK.' What about mom's obligation to dad under the court divorce decree, and the written agreements between mom and dad? Isn't dad entitled to the financial benefit of the divorce decree? What about the spirit of the agreement and the intent of the parties under that agreement? We don't even know whether mom will have to indemnify dad for any losses incurred due to his inability to claim the Earned Income Tax Credit before the IRS, yet continue to imply to OP that she's right because federal tax law says this and everything's OK.


Proserpina, yes, this is my only screen name and no, I'm not a troll. I do see a lot of wrong/premature conclusions posted by others, as well as sensitized comments made in an effort to give more weight to their post. I mostly haven't replied to others because I'm not here for their benefit but here for the benefit of the original poster. Seeing how my lack of replies has brought misunderstanding, I'll be more than happy to join in and point out any errors I see. And, certainly, if I make any, feel free to alert me to them as I will be more than happy to correct them.

PC, it is plain and simple...

IRS tax codes have support tests in place that define who can claim what. Please take a look at these tests and you will then gain a better understanding.

As for the implications of a divorce decree, yes these can override the tax code per say on the exemptions taken by CP or NCP ONLY. This is usually an agreement made by both parties in that one party will sign away their rights to the exemption. As for other credits (EIC, Child care etc), one must still meet the support tests designed for each credit offered/given.

In other words, (and if you read the support tests you would understand), even though one may have the exemption (per court order and agreement of both parties), you must also quaify for the credit. (per IRS rules ie. the support tests put into place). A NCP will never meet these tests as the one intial requirement is that the child must live with you 6+ months out of a year. The NCP parent in most cases will never be able to meet this requirement. A court order can never overide these support tests.

 

[momodylan]

Wow, definitely some confusion with some of the posters, but thank you to all who replied with the best intentions and accurate information! I am forever grateful!

 

[momodylan]

NCP is threatening to have her kicked out of the house now, because of taxes. It's in the decree that she stays in the house until their youngest turns 18, which isn't for another 7 years. He's saying she broke the decree and can now kick her out. He threatens her with stuff like this all the time. is there anything she can do to get him to leave her alone? Can she file a police report for harassment?

 

[Silverplum]

EIC can ONLY go to the custodial parent. No court can override IRS law on this matter. THe NCP CAN take, as dependents the two children.

CP get the Child and Dependent care credit and EIC.

The father can scream all he wants, but he cannot LEGALLY take EIC.

By the way, tell me precisely where I posted that an NCP could take the EIC or the care credit.

I said that family court could assign the tax exemptions and overrule the IRS.

Some errors of assumption as to what, precisely, I was stating were made.

No surprise -- I never believed in the Myth Of The Nice Brigade.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

The court that issued the divorce decree CAN override the IRS rules.

Mom owes the money to Dad.

Silverplum, you stated the above. I clarified it to state that the courts could NOT override Federal law that states that EIC and Child and Dependent Care can only go to the custodial parent.

If they have a court order that states that the NCP can take such, they cannot do so. Ldij further clarified that penalties if an NCP does take the EIC credit.

 

[TinkerBelleLuvr]

The court that issued the divorce decree CAN override the IRS rules.

Mom owes the money to Dad.

Silverplum, you stated the above. I clarified it to state that the courts could NOT override Federal law that states that EIC and Child and Dependent Care can only go to the custodial parent.

If they have a court order that states that the NCP can take such, they cannot do so. Ldij further clarified that penalties if an NCP does take the EIC credit.

 

[momodylan]

NCP is threatening to have her kicked out of the house now, because of this issue with the taxes. It's in the decree that she stays in the house until their youngest turns 18, which isn't for another 7 years. He's saying she broke the decree and can now kick her out. He threatens her with stuff like this all the time. is there anything she can do to get him to leave her alone? Can she file a police report for harassment?