Child support mitske

n 2015 my ex wife put me on child support. In the state of California it’s take a year to hear your case. As time went by I was paying what I thought I should until my case was heard. As a result all the money was considered gift and now I owe back child support. I’ve been paying this and is currently on all Payments. Will they consider this delinquent since I still owe child support? Also the only way to pay child support in California it to take it out of your check. I know that garnishment, but they wasn’t force to granished it the only way Im allowed to pay in California. Will this have an impact on my clearance that coming due. Ps the child support went back to the day she filed not the date we went to court which is the reason way I owe back payments.
Also I forgot to list this under civil cases, after I realized trust I did (a couple of days later) I email my security manger to see if I could correct it, he said just to tell the investigator. I still have the email. I don’t want to look like I lied

Having child support taken out of your check isn’t garnishment, particularly is that’s the only way to pay it in CA. Think about how many cleared personnel are out there. Child support is pretty common so I’m sure that the investigators have seen it many times.

Being behind is a different issue. If everything that you paid before the court order was considered a “gift” it sounds like you were poorly represented or kept poor records (cash payments?) If that’s the cause of you being in arrears, you need to document and supply the information to your investigator. If that’s really the way that it works, the investigators have likely seen that as well. They will just want to know what your plan is.

As far as not listing it under civil cases, I’m sure that you listed your ex-wife in the spouse section. If you checked the “Divorced” box, they know that you were involved in the case.

1 Like

Thanks for the reply. I kept records, some was a gift and I guess I wasn’t paying enough. It was on my credit report in the past but I had it taken off due to the fact that I never missed a payment when it was established, and due to the fact that it took a year to hear the case, they agreed and wipe it clean from my report.

I faced a very similar tax problem. I diligently paid my spousal support to the Ex, had it set up as an allotment. I also paid a financial settlement lump sum to my ex. I faithfully paid every payment and then my ex decided she wasn’t going to file an income tax return in 2013. I was paying and claiming the deduction that existed in those years. When they no longer had a tax form from her to verify the payments I was giving they audited me. I gladly submitted the decree, the record of payments and felt confident I was in the clear. Boy was I wrong. The IRS kept telling me the payments were a financial settlement, not spousal support, or it was a gift. As if I would gift an ex spouse that much money every check, never miss a payment? It took 18 months of digging and working with a great tax person who understood my ex not filing a return caused the issue. So I paid for the ex to get caught up on tax filings, I paid her penalties to get her straight and then rejected the bill one more time. This then lined up with her newly filed tax forms. And the next ugly letter from the IRS said I owe zero. I can’t begin to tell you how much stress that caused m.e

Alimony IS deductible (and remains so.) Financial settlements are NOT. I’m sure that your divorce papers clearly specified which is which. If your ex didn’t file or didn’t claim the alimony as income that’s her problem and not yours. I know that the IRS doesn’t always apply logic at the start of the process but you should have stuck to your guns and forced someone to see the issue in the proper light.

Again . . . Trust me . . . I KNOW that isn’t always easy . . .

1 Like

New tax changes effective this year do not allow alimony to be claimed as a deductible and applies to all who divorced after January 1st, 2019.

Yes, this is true, my point was that it didn’t affect this agreement. Actually, if your alimony agreement (due to separation or divorce) was in place before the end of 2018, the tax issues remain.

This was done to simplify the accounting both for the IRS and for the individuals involved. Now, the IRS has no interest in your private divorce agreements. Courts will, very likely, take this new law into account when setting alimony levels by lowering the amount of payments in order to account for the tax implications. This will also though, result in increased tax revenue because the payer of alimony is likely in a higher tax bracket than the recipient.

1 Like

Ed your absolutely correct, alimony payments will be reduced and may not be granted at all except under extreme situations.

Oh I fought hard and I am glad I did. Each monthly letter from the IRS was written in more harsh terms. But once they had her return lining up with mine, as it had every year prior…they concurred. But had I rolled over and paid the $6k they wanted for 2013, I figured I opened myself up to then pay $6k for every year I paid spousal support. That is why I fought it. In my eyes and my divorce attorney’s eyes the decree and agreement was quite clear: I paid a financial settlement, and did not claim a tax benefit on that. I also paid spousal support and did rightly claim that. All done, water under the bridge now. Glad to see others feel Alimony will be reduced. I see no logic in the receiving spouse not being required to list it as income. If it is “outcome” from one side it flows to another as “income.”

The “income/outcome” argument makes sense but the problem that you describe is just the problem. The IRS doesn’t know anything about your divorce decree or what is part of a financial settlement vs. alimony. They don’t know and they shouldn’t have to. By taking away the requirement to report it as income AND disallowing the deduction for payment, they get out of the divorce business.

Anything that gets a government agency out of a part of my personal life is a good one.

Update it wasn’t a garnishment