Child Tax Credit 2009

[mominwestlake]

Sorry, I like to plan ahead. I just read the child tax credit is for children under 17. Does that mean if my ds turn 17 on December 28th, 2009 that we no longer will get the child tax credit for him?

If that is true, I wonder how they came up with under 17 and not under 18?

 

[aka-mad4themouse]

Yes, it's true. DD turned 17 in 2007 and we didn't get the child tax credit for her for the 2007 taxes. But she's still a dependent.

 

[Cyn]

Well we ALL know that kids get cheaper after they turn 17...hahahahahaha.

Seriously, I got hit hard with this in 2007 my TWINS turned 17 then last year my other son turned 17 and the older 2 went to college. Thank got we are getting reimbersed for all those years of swim team dues in the form of scholarships or we wouldn't be able to do college.

 

[Cheshire Figment]

Following is from the CCH Master Tax Guide

A qualifying child for purposes of the child tax credit is the same as for claiming a dependency exemption except that the child must not have attained the age of 17 by the end of the year (Code Section 152(c)).

Put in simple English, if the child reached their 17th birthday on or before December 31 of any year the child tax credit cannot be claimed.

Mike (CPA Retired)

 

[mominwestlake]

Thanks everyone! Anyone know why they chose 17 and not 18? They are still a dependent. And yes, they are very expensive at that age too!

 

[LisaNJ25]

Crazy isnt it. My oldest will 17 this year will one be a junior in HS this fall.

You would think it would be when they are out of hs.

 

[blondietink]

Doesn't anybody realize that kids get more expensive as they get older? More food, larger clothes, transportation costs to sports teams, lessons, etc.? Did I mention more food? My grocery bill is easily twice as much as when they were younger kids.

 

[Cheshire Figment]

The answer as to why is "Ask Your Congresscritter"! They are the ones who make the laws; IRS only enforces them.

 

[kimsuenew]

Sorry, I like to plan ahead. I just read the child tax credit is for children under 17. Does that mean if my ds turn 17 on December 28th, 2009 that we no longer will get the child tax credit for him?

If that is true, I wonder how they came up with under 17 and not under 18?

Yes! We have not been able to claim our HS senior DS (18 now, turned in November) the past two returns for the Child Tax Credit, or for the Economic Stimulus from last year as he was 17 then). It is odd to me, as they are still a minor, and our legal obligation in every sense... however, as odd as it seems it is still "the law"!

 

[BridgetBordeaux]

I believe the reason for "under 17" and not "under 18" had to do with the fact that when the idea was first drafted, it was thought to be way too expensive. As a compromise, the knocked it down to 16 or younger.

If you have followed the current stimulus plan unfold, we went from 1200 per couple to 800 per couple.....but it appears that the 800 is for 2 wage earners. I am not sure how that will impact this stay at home mom.

 

[summerrluvv]

Thanks everyone! Anyone know why they chose 17 and not 18? They are still a dependent. And yes, they are very expensive at that age too!

Weird right! Not to mention, child support goes until age 21 (which really isn't a child) so who knows where they come up with these wacky rules!!

 

[Piecey]

I believe the reason for "under 17" and not "under 18" had to do with the fact that when the idea was first drafted, it was thought to be way too expensive. As a compromise, the knocked it down to 16 or younger.

If you have followed the current stimulus plan unfold, we went from 1200 per couple to 800 per couple.....but it appears that the 800 is for 2 wage earners. I am not sure how that will impact this stay at home mom.

not to steal the thread or go OT or anything...

but what is this $800 stimulus?
DH and I both work (for now, anyway!)

 

[summerrluvv]

not to steal the thread or go OT or anything...

but what is this $800 stimulus?
DH and I both work (for now, anyway!)

It's $13 per pay period times two people from June to the end of the year I believe.

 

[madge]

Well we ALL know that kids get cheaper after they turn 17...hahahahahaha.

no kidding ...

we went 2 years with my oldest DS, with no tax credit. Thankfully he's a college freshman this year and we're getting a little something back. Not much, but it's better than nothing!

 

[madge]

The answer as to why is "Ask Your Congresscritter"! They are the ones who make the laws; IRS only enforces them.

I did. He's my neighbor. He didn't really have an answer. Just a bunch of blah, blah, blah... LOL.

 

[taximomfor4]

Weird right! Not to mention, child support goes until age 21 (which really isn't a child) so who knows where they come up with these wacky rules!!

Where is this, that does child support till age 21? DD is turning 16 this year, and ex-dh's childdd support is scheduled to stop at age 18. Would LOVE to get his help into college, and that will ONLY happen if the court is still taking it automatically from his paychecks.

 

[summerrluvv]

Where is this, that does child support till age 21? DD is turning 16 this year, and ex-dh's childdd support is scheduled to stop at age 18. Would LOVE to get his help into college, and that will ONLY happen if the court is still taking it automatically from his paychecks.

I live in NY. I assumed that was the "rule" in all states these days. I know when I was a child, it was only up to 18.

 

[MommyTo5]

Weird right! Not to mention, child support goes until age 21 (which really isn't a child) so who knows where they come up with these wacky rules!!

Termination of child support varies based on the state your case was filed in.

Here's a chart listing current info for each state:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/educate.htm

 

[summerrluvv]

Termination of child support varies based on the state your case was filed in.

Here's a chart listing current info for each state:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/cyf/educate.htm

Wow, it looks like NY is the only state that goes up to 21 without special circumstances. Ohh and Indiana

 

[MommyTo5]

I believe the reason for "under 17" and not "under 18" had to do with the fact that when the idea was first drafted, it was thought to be way too expensive. As a compromise, the knocked it down to 16 or younger.

I've always assumed that the government believes that we don't need the tax break as much at this point due to the fact that at 16, our children are old enough to get a job that will contribute to their support.

My oldest is now 18 and I know our expenses are much less than they were when she was 13, 14, 15. Her weekend job allows her to purchase her own clothes, make-up, gifts for friends & family, etc... She's been able to save for her own car and now pays for her own car insurance policy, gas, car maintenance & repair, etc... Since she's always divided her money into thirds beginning with the first dollar she made (1/3 towards Spending, 1/3 towards Car, and 1/3 towards College), she already has several thousand dollars to be used towards her college living expenses this Fall - thankfully, scholarships will take care of tuition, books, and room & board. We are still paying for things like her high school fees & supplies, school lunches, shampoo/cleanser/razors/meds, haircuts... and we currently have a few additional expenses: senior portraits, graduation expenses, etc... We basically cover anything that we consider essential and DD pays for all the 'extras'. I'm quite certain that our yearly cost in raising her is substantially less than when she was younger.