newguyhere said:
Oh really. Then go ahead and tell me the law that states that a minor can be claimed 2x in one year and I will run it by my FIL who is a CPA (and since you are an accountant you would know the difference between a CPA and an accountant). And then I will be sure to just go ahead and tell my judge to take the clause out of my parenting plan that says mom gets to claim the kids because obviously we both can. Oh and I would think that an accountant would know the difference between the word hole and whole. If NCP is in arrears then CP is the one that is allowed to claim them plain and simple. Any judge will tell you that you can't claim a child on your taxes if you are not financially supporting them. What would you be getting a return on then? If mom had already claimed the child and dad does it to then the IRS will either deny dad's claim or request proof from mom that says that she can claim them. I filed my taxes 2 years ago on base and they IRS wouldn't even acept my return, I had to go back and take my daughter out. But hey since everybody's case is different go ahead and tell me the law that I asked for in the beginning.
Yes, I know what a CPA is....and if your FIL the CPA is a CPA who specializes in individual tax then he would tell you that your answer was wrong too....even if he doesn't specialize in individual tax its still highly probable that he would know what's wrong with your answer.
Its much more complex than that. Here is an excerpt from an article that may give you a taste of why your answer was wrong:
"Since 1984, the IRS has refined the language regarding unmarried parents to make it clear that the custodial parent must in some way, generally voluntarily relinquish the dependency to the non-custodial parent either via a form 8332 or via a court ordered agreement with the non-custodial parent. One would think that this would remove much of the state family law court’s authority to decide who gets the tax exemption. Judge’s and higher courts in many states have very differing opinions on whether or not they actually have the authority to make decisions regarding the tax exemption. However, in general the courts have begun ordering custodial parents to sign the form 8332, or face sanctions for contempt of court, in order to avoid any questions regarding that issue. This is an issue that is tricky, because the state family courts are usurping authority that they do not have. Its an issue that may need to be address by Congress in the future. It is also an issue that can be patently unfair, as demonstrated by the Case of King vs Lopez (Jeffrey R. King and Sabrina M. King v. Commissioner. Jimmy R. Lopez and Suzy O. Lopez, Petitioners v. Commissioner, [Exemptions: Dependents: Support test: Agreement on exemptions: Form 8332.] (September 26, 2003)). Mrs. King, who was never married to Mr. Lopez, was forced to sign a form 8332, under duress, releasing the tax exemption to Mr. Lopez from the year 1987 forward. In 1998 and 1999, because Mr. Lopez was providing no child support Mrs. King and her husband took the dependency exemption for her child. The IRS and the courts ruled against Mrs. King, finding that her signature on the form 8332 entitled Mr. Lopez to the exemption, despite the fact that Mr. Lopez provided no support to the child. Had the state family court simply ordered that Mr. Lopez receive the exemption, or had there been an agreement that specified that Mr. Lopez was not entitled to the exemption unless current on child support, instead of Mrs. King being required to provide a signed form 8332, then Mrs. King would have had proper recourse and the exemption would have been denied to Mr. Lopez. However, because Mrs. King was forced to sign the form 8332, she was denied effective justice.
The case above is not uncommon. Often, those child support orders made by state court judge’s neglect to include language that requires the non-custodial parent to be current in their child support obligation in order to take the dependency exemption. Many of those parents continue to take the exemption because they have a court order entitling them to take the exemption, yet ignore their child support obligation as illustrated in the case above. Some will not take the exemption, knowing that they are not supporting their child, but somewhere down the road find themselves in a financial bind one year, and suddenly take it anyway, because they have a court order that states that they are entitled to do so. Since the above case illustrates that the IRS and the tax courts will depend strictly on a form 8332, rather than merit or justice, its clear that the policy of judge’s ordering parents to sign form 8332 is a very faulty one. A judge can rescind a court order, but a judge does not have the authority to rescind a form 8332.
One thing that the IRS has done in recent years, which has both simplified and complicated the issue of false claiming of dependency exemptions, is that while the IRS has apparently, and rather quietly, changed their procedures for dealing with duplicate dependency exemptions. In the past, the first person filing would be able to file electronically, the second would have to file a paper return, and the refund of the second party would be held until the IRS determined who in reality was entitled to take the exemption. What is happening now, instead, is that the IRS is promptly issuing the refund to both parties, and then later in the year sends out a letter to both parties stating that there has been a duplicate exemption taken, gives no opinion as to which party was not entitled to the exemption, and encourages then offending party to amend their return. This has been a big help to parents who are entitled to the exemption but the other parent has taken it. They still have to wait longer to receive their refund, but still receive it within a normal amount of time. However, now that many parents who are not entitled to take the exemption have discovered this “new policy”, it has also encouraged them to take the exemption as well, knowing that they can gain current financial benefits, while being able to worry about the liabilities much further down the road."
