Dependency with Custody Change

[Zigner]

Honestly, your question was answered by me in the first reply you received. All the rest of this is just fluff.

 

[Leah2975]

Honestly, your question was answered by me in the first reply you received. All the rest of this is just fluff.

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?

 

[Zigner]

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?

The court has ordered that the other party be allowed to take the exemption. If you don't allow that, then the court can take action against you. Yes, not following the court order can lead to a contempt finding against you.

ETA: Don't get confused by all of the fluff. The IRS/Federal Government isn't the one who will take action against you.

 

[CTU]

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?

Listen to LdiJ. Listen to Zig.

 

[Leah2975]

Listen to LdiJ. Listen to Zig.

Thanks. Hes behind on child support all the time anyways so really it doesnt matter.

 

[Zigner]

Your decree is a matter of state law.

True

The dependency exemption is a matter of federal tax law.

True

The federal tax courts don't care about what your decree says your deal with him is.

Basically true

Moreover, if your decree says he must stay current with child support, then he could never take the exemption if you are the custodial parent. You must unconditionally allow him to take the exemption, saying that he must stay current with child support creates a condition and therefore he technically could not take the exemption even if you both agreed to it

THIS is where you are wrong. If the CP provides a timely and properly completed form 8332 to the other parent, then the other parent certainly may claim the exemption. If the fails to provide a timely and properly completed form 8332 to the other parent, then the court, upon request, certainly may find the OP in contempt of the court order.

THIS is the post that has confused our OP and let to a bunch of (what I call) fluff. I hope the OP has a better picture of the reality of her situation, despite your insistence on throwing this red herring out there.

 

[Karl J]

True True Basically true THIS is where you are wrong. If the CP provides a timely and properly completed form 8332 to the other parent, then the other parent certainly may claim the exemption. If the fails to provide a timely and properly completed form 8332 to the other parent, then the court, upon request, certainly may find the OP in contempt of the court order.

THIS is the post that has confused our OP and let to a bunch of (what I call) fluff. I hope the OP has a better picture of the reality of her situation, despite your insistence on throwing this red herring out there.

No. again, read armstrong vs commissioner. Her ex could never take the exemption because it is conditioned on him being current with child support. For her to sign over the exemption, it must be unconditional.

If she takes the exemption, how is he harmed in that, legally, he could never take it to begin with?

 

[Karl J]

It seems like people here are making unsupporeted opinions. Read Armstrong vs Comissioner.

 

[Zigner]

It seems like people here are making unsupporeted opinions. Read Armstrong vs Comissioner.

You are misinterpreting it.

First: Of course, if a violation of a state court order wrongly deprives the intended beneficiary of a federal tax advantage, the state court unquestionably retains authority to remedy that violation.

Second: If the form 8332 is filled out, there are no conditions made on that form. Thus, the release of the exemption is unconditioned.

 

[Karl J]

You are misinterpreting it.

First: Of course, if a violation of a state court order wrongly deprives the intended beneficiary of a federal tax advantage, the state court unquestionably retains authority to remedy that violation.

Second: If the form 8332 is filled out, there are no conditions made on that form. Thus, the release of the exemption is unconditioned.

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

 

[Zigner]

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

Are you saying the OP *CANNOT* get in trouble with the court (outstanding child support notwithstanding) for not releasing the exemption?

I hope not.

 

[Karl J]

Are you saying the OP *CANNOT* get in trouble with the court (outstanding child support notwithstanding) for not releasing the exemption?

I hope not.

You can clearly read what I am saying and I have supported my position referencing primary authority. It is what it is.

 

[Zigner]

You can clearly read what I am saying and I have supported my position referencing primary authority. It is what it is.

I was really giving you a chance to clarify your position so that your "advice" could be seen in the proper light. It's unfortunate that you did not.

 

[Karl J]

I was really giving you a chance to clarify your position so that your "advice" could be seen in the proper light. It's unfortunate that you did not.

It is what it is. Her ex could never take the exemption. Do you disagree with that?

 

[Zigner]

It is what it is. Her ex could never take the exemption. Do you disagree with that?

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.