• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Not to be too silly

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

tuffbrk

Senior Member
What is the name of your state? NJ

Just reading in another foum the importance of how alimony is described in the divorce agreement which got me to thinking (somewhat dangerous :rolleyes:)

Spousal Support Section reads-
Wife shall pay to Husband permanent alimony in the amount of $xxx, per annum. Husband shall receive $xxx payment through Wife's employer. This payment shall continue until the youngest child is emancipated, by operation of law or mutual agreement of the parties. Thereafter, Wife's permanent alimony sum shall increase to $xxx.

That's because the Basic Child Support section reads -
Based upon Husband's representation that he is a schmuck (:p), the parties have agreed to waive direct and ancillary child support from Husband to Wife, except as addressed herein. In consideration therefore, Husband shall be receiving a reduced sum of permanent alimony as further addressed under the Spousal Support section.

So if I'm interpreting correctly - and understand the inference from Golfball in a different forum, the $xxx that I'm receiving as a credit against alimony, which represents my child support, cannot then be claimed by me as alimony. Even though there is verbiage that indicates after emancipation, the alimony goes up, true? I had been thinking that I'd be able to claim the full amount in alimony even though I'm not sending $xx in alimony for him to send back to me as child support.

Or in other words - I can't do that, I can only claim the net and I'll be paying the taxes on the $xxx credit for child support that I'm basically paying myself? From a taxation standpoint, is this correct?

Does being able to claim 1 of the 2 kids basically put me at break even or is this another area in which I didn't do as well as I could have?
 
Last edited:


TinkerBelleLuvr

Senior Member
What is the name of your state? NJ

Just reading in another foum the importance of how alimony is described in the divorce agreement which got me to thinking (somewhat dangerous :rolleyes:)

Spousal Support Section reads-
Wife shall pay to Husband permanent alimony in the amount of $xxx, per annum. Husband shall receive $xxx payment through Wife's employer. This payment shall continue until the youngest child is emancipated, by operation of law or mutual agreement of the parties. Thereafter, Wife's permanent alimony sum shall increase to $xxx.

That's because the Basic Child Support section reads -
Based upon Husband's representation that he is a schmuck (:p), the parties have agreed to waive direct and ancillary child support from Husband to Wife, except as addressed herein. In consideration therefore, Husband shall be receiving a reduced sum of permanent alimony as further addressed under the Spousal Support section.

So if I'm interpreting correctly - and understand the inference from Golfball in a different forum, the $xxx that I'm receiving as a credit against alimony, which represents my child support, cannot then be claimed by me as alimony. Even though there is verbiage that indicates after emancipation, the alimony goes up, true? I had been thinking that I'd be able to claim the full amount in alimony even though I'm not sending $xx in alimony for him to send back to me as child support.

Or in other words - I can't do that, I can only claim the net and I'll be paying the taxes on the $xxx credit for child support that I'm basically paying myself? From a taxation standpoint, is this correct?

Does being able to claim 1 of the 2 kids basically put me at break even or is this another area in which I didn't do as well as I could have?
D*** - I think your right. Aw jeez. I didn't catch that when you posted earlier.
 

tuffbrk

Senior Member
I kicked some tires so I'm calm.

Can only guess that my attn'y was trying to protect me from paying the full amount when it wouldn't be guaranteed that the Schmuck would send back the "credit." That's what I'm telling myself anyway.

I guess in the long run, I may be saving on contempt of court motions and countless phone calls to CSE? Sound good? I'm going to keep telling myself this stuff.

I'm trying to brainwash myself. I refuse to be a bitter, angry woman. That's when he wins.

Sigh...
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
Top