Tax Returns/Child Support Question

[kami2199]

I'm not trying to start a debate here, just have a question I'm wondering if anyone can answer (or if anyone has dealt with this situation).

When my brother got divorced he went back to claiming single/0 dependents in order to make sure he had enough taken out to cover himself as he wasn't allowed the exemption on his daughter. Now that he is remarried and has two children to be claiming, he is paying way too much in for taxes as he has never changed his withholding.

He is worried that if he changes his withholding that his child support will be increased based on the new net pay. His feeling on this is that the reduced tax liability is due to his wife and the two children and that he shouldn't have to pay more due to that.

Before any questions whether or not he is trying to cheat or is a deadbeat, it really isn't the case. He pays out the typical percentage our state mandates on all earnings plus his mandatory overtime earnings and pays for all insurance/medical related issues. There are no daycare costs involved and he has regular visitation. There are no issues as far as any of that goes. His wife takes him back for the reviews every so often though and that is why he is questioning whether to change the withholding or just get a large refund. He doesn't feel that it would be fair to lose the tax benefit given to him for having the extra exemptions that have nothing to do with his first marriage - make sense?

So, what is your take on it? He needs to contact his attorney I know, but he ran this by me last night, and I really didn't know what to say.

 

[HappyDznyCamper]

He really needs to ask his attorny, but my guess is that his child support is based on his gross pay(pay before any deductions) not net pay(what he actually "takes home"), so the amount of tax deduction won't matter

 

[PrincessDreams2]

Child support calculations are definately based on the gross incomes of either parent, at least in my state. He shouldn't have to worry about changing his deduction, but he should check with his attorney just to make sure.

 

[kami2199]

I'm pretty sure he said they always took 20% of his net, take home, pay - never gross pay. I could be wrong though, or he could be, lol.

Ok, just looked it up and here it is based off net income - but I don't see an anwer to the income tax issue.

 

[KAMLEM]

Are you saying this is what he claims in regards to withholding from his weekly paycheck? You can claim whatever you want, if it's too much you will get it back when you file your tax returns. It shouldn't have anything to do with how much child support he pays.

 

[LadyZolt]

He should talk to a tax professional. In some cases people are penalized for not having the correct withholding. You can tell who might be in this category because they either owe a lot at the end of the year or they get a large refund. You do that too many years in row and the IRS might notice.

If he gets a large refund, basically he's giving that money to the government to use for the year without them paying interest. He'd be better off correcting his withholding and then taking the extra money he's been living without (because it's been taken in taxes) and sticking it in an interest bearing account. He'll have more money on April 15th doing that than he will if he just gets a large refund check back. It is, after all, his money. The more to spend at Disney World, the merrier.

-Dorothy (LadyZolt)

 

[kami2199]

While he understands he is basically giving the govt. a free loan, that is not the question at hand. The issue here is that in this state they go by NET income rather than Gross to figure child support amounts. If he turns over his paystubs that reflect the 0/single status the check will obviously be less than if he turns over checks that reflect Married/children status. He might have to pay more in child support if he lowers his exemptions to reflect he's married with children.

For instance - he might get $800 per week NET if he files 0/single and if he files Married/Children he might get $1000 per week NET. That equates to $40 more per week he'd be paying out in support. The only reason he would get more money each week is due to the fact that he is married with additonal children now and the tax benefits that come along with it. If he were not married with additional children, he would be paying the lower amount in support. In his opinion, he doesn't feel it is fair to pay out the extra money to ex when he is getting it for the other two children and wife. Am I making sense here, I know it is confusing?

Really, it's not an issue of trying to get out of support, like I said before - he pays it, no problem or questions asked, and it also includes about 20 hours of overtime pay each week plus he takes care of all medical expenses. There isn't any issues right now but soon she will be doing the routine increase or whatever it is and he doesn't know if he should leave his exemptions alone and get the refund at the end of the year OR lower them so he has bigger paychecks but then also risk having to pay the ex an extra $40 per week. Again, in his mind, the extra money is coming from the wife/2 children and has nothing to do with the child he pays support for since he can't claim her.

Confusing, I know.

From the sounds of it though, most places calculate the support based on Gross where IL calculates it on Net so I doubt anyone can answer the question of - how do they handle this situation - make the father pay based on what it would be 0/Single or his current status.

 

[LadyZolt]

.... He might have to pay more in child support if he lowers his exemptions to reflect he's married with children.

.... The only reason he would get more money each week is due to the fact that he is married with additonal children now and the tax benefits that come along with it. If he were not married with additional children, he would be paying the lower amount in support. In his opinion, he doesn't feel it is fair to pay out the extra money to ex when he is getting it for the other two children and wife. Am I making sense here, I know it is confusing?

.... There isn't any issues right now but soon she will be doing the routine increase or whatever it is and he doesn't know if he should leave his exemptions alone and get the refund at the end of the year OR lower them so he has bigger paychecks but then also risk having to pay the ex an extra $40 per week. Again, in his mind, the extra money is coming from the wife/2 children and has nothing to do with the child he pays support for since he can't claim her.

Again, he needs to consult a tax professional in his area as that is the only way he'll get an answer for sure. But let me just say this -- it is not his existing children's fault that he remarried and made more kids to support. His ex-wife will only get an increase in child support if the court orders that. The child support is supposed to be money he is paying to support his children, so if it goes up, it goes up. In every case I'm aware of, when the child reaches a certain age, all child support stops anyway, so it's not like this doesn't have an end eventually. I guess I don't really "get" how giving his existing children more money is a problem.

-Dorothy (LadyZolt)

 

[Sethsmama]

They do base Child Support on his Gross Pay not his net. Also, I'm thinking his Child Support would probably decrease now that he has 2 other children, they will consider his support for them in the calculation.
God Bless him for paying though! I have dealt with a dead beat dad before so I'm glad to hear of the ones that do support their kids!

 

[Leajess99]

I'm not trying to start a debate here, just have a question I'm wondering if anyone can answer (or if anyone has dealt with this situation).

When my brother got divorced he went back to claiming single/0 dependents in order to make sure he had enough taken out to cover himself as he wasn't allowed the exemption on his daughter. Now that he is remarried and has two children to be claiming, he is paying way too much in for taxes as he has never changed his withholding.

He is worried that if he changes his withholding that his child support will be increased based on the new net pay. His feeling on this is that the reduced tax liability is due to his wife and the two children and that he shouldn't have to pay more due to that.

Before any questions whether or not he is trying to cheat or is a deadbeat, it really isn't the case. He pays out the typical percentage our state mandates on all earnings plus his mandatory overtime earnings and pays for all insurance/medical related issues. There are no daycare costs involved and he has regular visitation. There are no issues as far as any of that goes. His wife takes him back for the reviews every so often though and that is why he is questioning whether to change the withholding or just get a large refund. He doesn't feel that it would be fair to lose the tax benefit given to him for having the extra exemptions that have nothing to do with his first marriage - make sense?

So, what is your take on it? He needs to contact his attorney I know, but he ran this by me last night, and I really didn't know what to say.

Depending on the state is dependent on the regulation but I know here unless the difference is over 15% than the child support doesn't get reevaluated and even if it is over, it is up to the custodial parent to bring the request forward. You can also look on line for the state rules on the child support.

 

[kami2199]

Again, he needs to consult a tax professional in his area as that is the only way he'll get an answer for sure. But let me just say this -- it is not his existing children's fault that he remarried and made more kids to support. His ex-wife will only get an increase in child support if the court orders that. The child support is supposed to be money he is paying to support his children, so if it goes up, it goes up. In every case I'm aware of, when the child reaches a certain age, all child support stops anyway, so it's not like this doesn't have an end eventually. I guess I don't really "get" how giving his existing children more money is a problem.

-Dorothy (LadyZolt)

I don't know that it is a problem, if it happens it happens. But, if he were still single, he'd be paying on the lower amount since he'd be claiming single/none as opposed to married/children. The existing child is one and the new wife and he have two. The ex already gets child support from not only his typical income but also out of the overtime he works - so more than the average 40 hour per week - it's not as if he isn't paying a good amount already (the income I posted is just an example, he makes more than this and for this area, the support he pays is actually some of the highest I've heard of around here). And honestly, it's not as if he couldn't change jobs so that he doesn't have the overtime but it's not like he'd ever do anything like that just to withhold it from them.

With that said, the issue with him is more or less why should the ex be able to benefit from the new marriage/children by collecting more support that wouldn't exist if he had not remarried. She is remarried and I imagine the incomes in both households are about the same, not that it matters I guess. He has an obligation to support the child and there is no argument there.

And for the next poster, in our state, child support is calculated off NET income. I know this for a fact as after the first post I went to our state site and found the info. It must be one of the only states that does this instead of Gross. (and it's unfortunate that their are so many dad's who don't support their children, it's really sad that they don't see a problem with this and go about doing everything they can do just to avoid it).

I agree, he needs to contact his attorney, I was just posting to see if anyone has had a similar situation or any knowledge to this as I don't and can't find anything on it.

 

[kgle]

I believe the custodial parent in most cases can only request an evaluation every 3 years. The courts would take into account the fact that he now has 2 dependents of his own other than the original child in question. They would never just up his child support if he started claiming exemptions. I know on Indiana's child support calculator it asks if the parent has other children not related to this order because they figure that into the amount that is set. I wish him luck!

 

[Leajess99]

They do base Child Support on his Gross Pay not his net. Also, I'm thinking his Child Support would probably decrease now that he has 2 other children, they will consider his support for them in the calculation. God Bless him for paying though! I have dealt with a dead beat dad before so I'm glad to hear of the ones that do support their kids!

This is not the case in all states. I know my ex gets no break for his new child with his girlfriend. He would have gotten a break for any previous child support order for prior born children but since I have his oldest kids, no break for him. He went for 5 years without paying what he should have so I don't feel bad for him at all. I am even considering taking him back for a child support reeval plus he is 5 months behind anyway.

 

[RobinFabulous]

I'm not trying to start a debate here, just have a question I'm wondering if anyone can answer (or if anyone has dealt with this situation).

When my brother got divorced he went back to claiming single/0 dependents in order to make sure he had enough taken out to cover himself as he wasn't allowed the exemption on his daughter. Now that he is remarried and has two children to be claiming, he is paying way too much in for taxes as he has never changed his withholding.

He is worried that if he changes his withholding that his child support will be increased based on the new net pay. His feeling on this is that the reduced tax liability is due to his wife and the two children and that he shouldn't have to pay more due to that.

Before any questions whether or not he is trying to cheat or is a deadbeat, it really isn't the case. He pays out the typical percentage our state mandates on all earnings plus his mandatory overtime earnings and pays for all insurance/medical related issues. There are no daycare costs involved and he has regular visitation. There are no issues as far as any of that goes. His wife takes him back for the reviews every so often though and that is why he is questioning whether to change the withholding or just get a large refund. He doesn't feel that it would be fair to lose the tax benefit given to him for having the extra exemptions that have nothing to do with his first marriage - make sense?

So, what is your take on it? He needs to contact his attorney I know, but he ran this by me last night, and I really didn't know what to say.

Lol, unfortunately I've had to become a child support expert. Child support is normally based on GROSS pay. Is the two new children are HIS (meaning not step children, but biological children or legally adopted step-children) then in some states it would lower the amount of child support he would pay. Also, some states have mandates on how often child support can be recalculated, in our state (AL) it is every three years (It is 3 years in GA as well)

Based on his income, even if he changed his withholding, he might still get a refund if he's eligable for EIC. Again, I'd consult a professional that knows the laws in your specific state.

 

[kgle]

Again, he needs to consult a tax professional in his area as that is the only way he'll get an answer for sure. But let me just say this -- it is not his existing children's fault that he remarried and made more kids to support. His ex-wife will only get an increase in child support if the court orders that. The child support is supposed to be money he is paying to support his children, so if it goes up, it goes up. In every case I'm aware of, when the child reaches a certain age, all child support stops anyway, so it's not like this doesn't have an end eventually. I guess I don't really "get" how giving his existing children more money is a problem.

-Dorothy (LadyZolt)

I agree, however he also has an obligation to his children that he has now, and while that reason alone wouldn't decrease the amount he is ordered to pay, his dependents living with him shouldn't be shafted because he had a child prior to their birth. It can go both ways.

 

[RobinFabulous]

This is not the case in all states. I know my ex gets no break for his new child with his girlfriend. He would have gotten a break for any previous child support order for prior born children but since I have his oldest kids, no break for him. He went for 5 years without paying what he should have so I don't feel bad for him at all. I am even considering taking him back for a child support reeval plus he is 5 months behind anyway.

Some states do give credit if you have another legal child in your home that you are raising. Georgia is one of them, Alabama is not. Most states will also give the break for a previous court ordered child support amount.

 

[RobinFabulous]

I don't know that it is a problem, if it happens it happens. But, if he were still single, he'd be paying on the lower amount since he'd be claiming single/none as opposed to married/children. The existing child is one and the new wife and he have two. The ex already gets child support from not only his typical income but also out of the overtime he works - so more than the average 40 hour per week - it's not as if he isn't paying a good amount already (the income I posted is just an example, he makes more than this and for this area, the support he pays is actually some of the highest I've heard of around here). And honestly, it's not as if he couldn't change jobs so that he doesn't have the overtime but it's not like he'd ever do anything like that just to withhold it from them.

With that said, the issue with him is more or less why should the ex be able to benefit from the new marriage/children by collecting more support that wouldn't exist if he had not remarried. She is remarried and I imagine the incomes in both households are about the same, not that it matters I guess. He has an obligation to support the child and there is no argument there.

And for the next poster, in our state, child support is calculated off NET income. I know this for a fact as after the first post I went to our state site and found the info. It must be one of the only states that does this instead of Gross. (and it's unfortunate that their are so many dad's who don't support their children, it's really sad that they don't see a problem with this and go about doing everything they can do just to avoid it).

I agree, he needs to contact his attorney, I was just posting to see if anyone has had a similar situation or any knowledge to this as I don't and can't find anything on it.

Then, I'd leave it alone. I'm on both the recieving end and the paying end. I don't think anyone has ever said it's not fair for a child to get support, but in some cases it's a ridiculous amount and totally unfair....

I'd also see if him having other children would be factored into the calculations, but if it isn't he's better to leave it alone

 

[kami2199]

I guess I don't really "get" how giving his existing children more money is a problem.

-Dorothy (LadyZolt)

You know, this statement bothers me a litte bit. I'm a huge supporter of child support but there comes a time when the non custodial parent should also be able to support themselves and have a life after the first marriage. He is doing nothing wrong. He is paying the correct amount of child support, he is working a job that he has to pay support on overtime and has never tried to get out of any of it.

I have some friends who split up and the husband took a second job to help offset the high insurance premiums and child support that was coming out only to get slapped with a support order to pay out of the second job. He wasn't trying to get out of support, rather have enough money to support himself, be able to live as well as pay off the marital debt she ran up and he was stuck with (she had a shopping addiction, applied for all sorts of credit cards - mostly in his name - and ran them up without him being the wiser until the very end when she decided she wanted to leave him for someone else).

I guess I just wonder when enough is enough? Both of these men would never deny their children anything and infact provide things way above and beyond what is required by choice.

With that being said, I do understand the other side too - deadbeat dads and mom's not getting a cent. Seems like you hear more about those situations than the good dad's.

Sorry, that statement just bothered me the more I thought about it.

 

[LadyZolt]

I agree, however he also has an obligation to his children that he has now, and while that reason alone wouldn't decrease the amount he is ordered to pay, his dependents living with him shouldn't be shafted because he had a child prior to their birth. It can go both ways.

Sorry, but he knew he had a kid before he made two more kids. If his new kids are getting "shafted" because a court looks at his income and gives a certain amount to his existing child, it is he who is responsible for the shafting. But I don't think this thread is about his new kids getting shafted. As I read this, it's about not giving the ex more money. But the money is not for the ex -- it's for the child.

Yes, I know some ex-spouses are jerks or crazy and use child support in a controlling way, so let me just state that the number one rule we should teach our offspring is "Don't have sex with crazy people." The OP's brother chose the ex-wife to mother his child, and then chose another woman to make more children with. He is certainly capable of figuring out how to financially support his offspring. If his ex-wife is a lunatic or wants tons of money, he knew that before he made the two new kids, too. And as I posted previously, child support is not spousal support and it will end when the child hits a certain age. So the whole thing is on a countdown and he can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

-Dorothy (LadyZolt)

 

[LadyZolt]

.... there comes a time when the non custodial parent should also be able to support themselves and have a life after the first marriage. He is doing nothing wrong. He is paying the correct amount of child support, he is working a job that he has to pay support on overtime and has never tried to get out of any of it.

I have some friends who split up and the husband took a second job to help offset the high insurance premiums and child support that was coming out only to get slapped with a support order to pay out of the second job. He wasn't trying to get out of support, rather have enough money to support himself, be able to live as well as pay off the marital debt she ran up and he was stuck with (she had a shopping addiction, applied for all sorts of credit cards - mostly in his name - and ran them up without him being the wiser until the very end when she decided she wanted to leave him for someone else).

I guess I just wonder when enough is enough? Both of these men would never deny their children anything and infact provide things way above and beyond what is required by choice.

With that being said, I do understand the other side too - deadbeat dads and mom's not getting a cent. Seems like you hear more about those situations than the good dad's.

I see what you're saying and perhaps we need more oversight by judges and courts to see that things are done fairly. But I do have a possible solution: 50/50 custody. Each parent takes the children for half the time (maybe 4 days this week, 3 the next, etc). NO ONE pays child support. Each parent provides half the child's financial needs. They either split medical and dental care, or one parent covers the kids there and the other covers things like child care expenses or dance classes, etc.

Yes, this is difficult but then no one can use the children as a way to get money out of the other. Also, there's no way to be a "deadbeat" parent when the child is in your house half the time. Downside -- neither parent could claim the child on taxes since no one will have him more than 50% of the time. (Or both parents would have to agree on who claims which kids which years). Upside -- the child gets to spend the same amount of time with both parents and both parents get to be a part of the child's daily life and involved in what the child is doing.

-Dorothy (LadyZolt)