In California, an Order modifying child support is reversed where the court erred in imputing $3,000 of non-taxable income per month based on husband's mortgage-free housing. For information on Arizona child support issues, contact NRG Family Law at www.nrglaw.net.
Continue Reading...Arizona ranks among the lowest in ability to collect child support arrears. Click here for the U.S. Department of Child Support Enforcement's list.
Generally, in order for someone to claim a child as a dependent, he or she must provide at least 50% of the child's support during the tax year. For couples who are still married and living together, claiming kids as dependents is usually a slam-dunk.
Things get complicated, however, when parents divorce or separate. Now, only one of you can claim the dependent exemption. (The IRS will come down hard if both of you try to claim it; they cross-reference dependents' Social Security numbers to make sure taxpayers aren't doing this.)
Continue Reading...In order to qualify as child support, the payments recieved by an ex-spouse must be designated as child support in the divorce or separation agreement. If the agreement lumps the payments together as "family support" or "alimony," or doesn't otherwise designate a specific portion of each payment as child support, none of the payment will be considered child support for tax purposes.
This can have adverse tax consequences for the recipient of child support payments, because family support or alimony is taxable to the recipient. So instead of receiving nontaxable child support, the ex-spouse will be receiving alimony, which is taxable to the payee, regardless of what the payee actually uses the money for.
Copyright © 2004 Nolo
Pending bankruptcy legislation could affect future child or spousal support payments. These payments currently receive priority status, meaning they must be paid before credit card companies can forcibly collect their debts. The new legislation makes it harder for individuals to wipe out these debts by making it harder to qualify for bankruptcy under Chapter 7. Under the new law, most debtors will have to file under Chapter 13, which requires payment of at least part of these debts. The problem is that each dollar of debt that survives bankruptcy competes directly with support obligations.
Continue Reading...One writer believes that by continuing to use the guidelines that the federal government recommended against in 1987 (states should not use only one parent's income when calculating child support), Georgia continues to engage in bad public policy with adverse consequences for children and families. For the complete article, click here.
OMAHA, Neb. -- The state of Nebraska is trying to collect child support from a dead man. This is not child support he owed when he was still alive, but instead, the debt accumulated after he died. To read the full story, click here.
By LESLIE KAUFMAN
Published in the New York Times on February 19, 2005
Everybody loves to hate the so-called deadbeat dads. But because the laws made little effort to differentiate between the wealthy and the out-of-work and incarcerated, the laws have produced consequences for poor men that are vexing local and national policy makers.
Around the country, child support arrears have been piling up at a staggering rate since the enactment of these laws. A decade ago the federal government said fathers owed $31 billion in back child support; as of 2003, the last year for which data was available, the total had more than triple that to reach $96 billion. Changes in reporting may account for a portion of the increase. To read the full article, click here.
Associated Press
February 18, 2005
A lesbian who split with her partner after adopting the woman's biological children must pay child support, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.
"Whether a parent is a man or a woman, homosexual or heterosexual, or adoptive or biological, in assuming that role, a person also assumes certain responsibilities, obligations, and duties," Judge John G. Baker wrote in the 22-page ruling.
"That person may not simply choose to shed the parental mantle because it becomes inconvenient, seems ill-advised in retrospect, or becomes burdensome because of a deterioration in the relationship with the children's other parent." To read the complete article, click here.
Here, we continue with our comments on the Revised Arizona Child Support Guidelines, effective January 1, 2005.
Section 24 -- Modification
Section 24 discusses modifications to child support orders. The reference to "prima facie evidence" was changed to "evidence". Many self-represented litigants use the guidelines to calculate child support; such legal terminology was thought to be confusing.
Section 18 -- Travel Expenses Associated With Visitation (Parenting Time)
Section 18 addresses allocation of children's travel expenses for parenting time purposes. The new guidelines clarify that for this purpose "long distance" generally means more than 100 miles in distance. The change was made to be consistent with A.R.S. Section 25-408(C)(2)'s requirement regarding notification when a parent intends to relocate a child more than 100 miles or more. Defining the distance requirement provides clear direction for the court when allocating travel costs.
Section 12 -- Equal Custody
The two paragraphs at the end of the prior section 10 discuss the method to use in equal physical custody calculations. This function is separate and distinct from the parenting time adjustment described in another section but is frequently confused with that adjustment. The new Section 12 was separated out to emphasize the separate methodology to use for equal physical custody cases.
Here is another change:
Section 4 -- Duration of Child Support
This section has been added to provide for a presumptive termination date and constitutes the most significant change of the entire revision. The hope is that this change will alleviate some problems with overpayments at the termination of the order for child support when the payor is current. It also is anticipated that the change will assist the Division of Child Support Enforcement to better automate the termination of the child support order in the ATLAS system.
Continue Reading...As you may now, effective January 1, 2005, there have been numerous changes to the Arizona Child Support Guidelines. Over the next couple of days, we will make note of some of the more significant changes.
Section 2 -- Premises
A custodial parent may be ordered to pay child support.
A premise is added to clarify that the custodial parent could be ordered to pay child support. This can occur in the unusual circumstance where a custodial parent earns an extremely high income and the non-custodial parent earns a low income and exercises in excess of 100 days of parenting time per year.
This was not seen as a substantive change to the Guidelines. It was apparently intended only to make explicit what was previously implicit.
DES v. Hayden, 427 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 3, ___ Ariz. ___, ___P.2d ___ (Ct. App., Div. 1, 06/08/04).
If unpaid child support judgments have not been reduced to a written judgment within 3 years of the emancipation of the child in question, the statute of limitations set forth in A.R.S. Section 25-503(I) may prohibit the collection of a judgment through the courts, but the State can still pursue statutory administrative remedies to collect the debt until the debt is paid.
Click here to read the full opinion.
Enter keywords:
How can we help? All inquiries will not be treated as confidential or privileged, and any email communications may be disclosed to other persons without regard to confidentiality considerations. If you must send us confidential or proprietary information please clearly indicate so and we will make every effort to treat it that way.
