Child support/Tax Season

[Miller M2]

Jurisdiction

Arizona

Hello everyone, here I am once more. Now some of you already know my history. But I have an update when it comes to my situation after one year of being divorced. So we end up having both parents (A and B) ( I am the B parent) 50/50 custody. She did the petition I just went by what she asked for and ran with it. Now on the documents from the court states that I as the B parent need to claim one of my child's for 2024 taxes. Also I am paying child support for the amount of $560 for the fact that she is paying for health insurance for both kids. Now at the start of 2024 I asked my Exwife to provide the social security number from one of my child which she did, so I added my child as a dependent. Now is Tax season and she saying that she claimed both of the kids. The reason she says because I never Took care of the kids from January till summer brake (june).but after june I did. It is not true, but she says she has proof. Now I have no clue what is she is talking about "proof". I do recognize that between January and may I wasn't able to completely take care of the kids let's say it was more like her 60/me40% in some weeks ONLY during every other months while I was getting my schedule together to work around it and provide parenting for my kids. At the same time when I was able to keep them longer to make up I DID. So now she is saying that I didn't. But she says that after June I did take care of them 50%. So my personal opinion over the whole year I did take care of them 85-95% over all. Please look at the picture as is a portion of the court order. I just need some advice in how to proceed with this because I been claiming my daughter since January 2024 but here I'm a bit stuck how to move forward because of course I haven't done my taxes. Income wise we both make the same $55-$65k. Of course I might have to go to court to do some paper work but just need some advice. Thanks !

 

[Mark_A]

From reading the document you provided, it looks to me like "if" you made all the child support payments during the year, then you are intitled in the divorce settlement to claim one child as a dependent. Not sure what "taking care of" means, but I don't see anything about that in the document you provided.

 

[Miller M2]

From reading the document you provided, it looks to me like "if" you made all the child support payments during the year, then you are intitled in the divorce settlement to claim one child as a dependent. Not sure what "taking care of" means, but I don't see anything about that in the document you provided.

All child support has been paid. Taking care of means parenting time. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for your input.

 

[Mark_A]

All child support has been paid. Taking care of means parenting time. Sorry for the confusion and thanks for your input.

That is what I figured. So legally you are entitled to claim one child as a dependent, unless there is some other wording in the decree that you did not show us.

Not sure what I would do about it, but you could just claim the dependent, and notify your wife via certified letter with a copy of your return. If the IRS catches it, then you could show them the divorce decree, but that might get a little messy and time consuming if the IRS sent you a bill because someone else already claimed that person as a dependent.

 

[Miller M2]

That is what I figured. So legally you are entitled to claim one child as a dependent, unless there is some other wording in the decree that you did not show us.

Not sure what I would do about it, but you could just claim the dependent, and notify your wife via certified letter with a copy of your return. If the IRS catches it, then you could show them the divorce decree, but that might get a little messy and time consuming if the IRS sent you a bill because someone else already claimed that person as a dependent.

She already did the taxes. I don't know if she got the tax refund money yet. I haven't done my taxes. Because I had a feeling she will do that. And there she is! And that's is all it says on the court order. The rest doesn't pertain in regards of who claims who etc.

 

[Mark_A]

She already did the taxes. I don't know if she got the tax refund money yet. I haven't done my taxes. Because I had a feeling she will do that. And there she is! And that's is all it says on the court order. The rest doesn't pertain in regards of who claims who etc.

I am not sure what advice you are looking for. I assume you have done your taxes both ways (with and without claiming the dependent) and know what the difference is, and whether it is worth dealing with potential hassle from the IRS. You might want to share that number in this thread.

I don't think it matters that much whether she has already filed and received a refund, as probably both of you will get a letter from the IRS asking one of you to file an amended return. If one of you do not file an amended return that removes the child-related benefits (claiming as a dependent or perhaps child-care credits, etc), then you may be audited by the IRS to determine who can claim the dependent. I would go ahead and file as soon as you reasonably can if you chose this route.

Another option is to not claim a dependent and go to Small Claims Court and seek recovery for your damages. That involves court filing fees, process server fees, and probably time off from work to attend court.

Personally, I would choose the first option and go ahead and file and claim the dependent.

In both cases there is a possibility that she would continue to do this again in future years.

 

[Tax Counsel]

I just need some advice in how to proceed with this because I been claiming my daughter since January 2024 but here I'm a bit stuck how to move forward because of course I haven't done my taxes. Income wise we both make the same $55-$65k. Of course I might have to go to court to do some paper work but just need some advice. Thanks !

I'm a tax attorney and I've seen a lot of these kinds of problems. A couple of things you need to know. First, Congress changed the law a number of years ago so that who has primary custody in the divorce decree/custody doesn't matter when it comes to determining whether your child is your dependent. What matters, except in unusual cases, when it comes to determining which parent gets to claim the kid as their dependent is the actual amount of time each parent had physical custody of the child. Because of this I recommend parents keep a calendar and note each night the kid stays with them as that is helpful evidence if there is a conflict between what you claim on your return and what she claims on her return.

Second, the first spouse to file will get to file electronically. If that spouse claims the kid as his/her dependent and then the second electronically files claiming the same kid as his/her dependent the electronic filing is likely to be rejected. That doesn't mean you can't claim your kid as your dependent. If you qualify to claim the child as your dependent you absolutely should do so. Don't let the other keep you from getting tax deductions/credits you are entitled to take. However, what it does mean if the electronic filing is rejected is that you'll just have to mail a paper return instead.

The IRS will initially accept both parents' claims for the dependent. But when the IRS later matches up the tax returns (about a year from April) and the computer flags the conflicting claims both of you will receive letters essentially asking each of you to prove you are entitled to the dependent claim. Again, the court order will be useless for that. You need to have evidence of how many days the kid spend with you vs. spending it with the other parent.

You do also have the option to take the other parent back to court to enforce the order and have the court order the other parent amend his/her return to remove the claim of dependency. But that costs you money to do, especially if you need to hire an attorney. If it's possible to get the court to award you attorney's fees and costs that will cover most of it but may not cover all of it. If the other parent revokes the claim of dependency that will usually be enough for the IRS.

See this IRS internet page to learn more about the rules for dependents:

Dependents | Internal Revenue Service

A dependent is a qualifying child or relative who relies on you for financial support. To be claimed on your tax return, they must meet specific requirements.

www.irs.gov

 

[Tax Counsel]

Another option is to not claim a dependent and go to Small Claims Court and seek recovery for your damages. That involves court filing fees, process server fees, and probably time off from work to attend court.

In many states small claims court would not be a proper venue for this. Rather the parent has to go back to the court that issued the order for enforcement of the order. There won't be tax to pay over the conflicting claims to the dependent when the the returns are initially filed, as I discussed in my previous post. So whatever she does when she files won't impact the processing of your return. The reckoning will come later and as long as you can provide you meet the federal tax law rules for claiming the dependent you won't end up paying anything more than you should. She's the one that would end up dinged for extra tax, interest, and perhaps a penalty.

 

[Mark_A]

In many states small claims court would not be a proper venue for this. Rather the parent has to go back to the court that issued the order for enforcement of the order. There won't be tax to pay over the conflicting claims to the dependent when the the returns are initially filed, as I discussed in my previous post. So whatever she does when she files won't impact the processing of your return. The reckoning will come later and as long as you can provide you meet the federal tax law rules for claiming the dependent you won't end up paying anything more than you should. She's the one that would end up dinged for extra tax, interest, and perhaps a penalty.

The other problem with Small Claims Court is that the judge may end up being Judge Judy, who usually sides with the female in these kind of cases.

 

[Tax Counsel]

The other problem with Small Claims Court is that the judge may end up being Judge Judy, who usually sides with the female in these kind of cases.

Judith Sheindlin, aka Judge Judy, played things up on the show for the TV ratings and her audience was largely female. So siding more with the female litigants in family law cases isn't so surprising. The "litigants" are in an arbitration proceeding and the show puts up the money for the awards so there's incentive for both parties to attend. It's all done for entertainment and like most TV lawyer/court shows it doesn't present a very accurate view of how courts, lawyers, and the justice system actually works. Most real court cases are pretty boring for someone who doesn't have a stake in the case to watch. That's why cable/streaming channels that broadcast real court proceedings don't get a ton of viewers. The rules procedure used for most courts involve a lot of exhange of information before a trial or hearing so there is very, very little of the dramatic sudden introduction of something new that uncovers the real villain (a mainstay of shows like Perry Mason).

Judges, whether small claims court or otherwise, vary widely to the extent they still hold outdated views of the roles of men and women. In the areas that I've practiced where the small claims court judges are appointed there is less of that kind of problem than in areas where the judges are elected. It's not fair to assume that small claims court judges are, as a whole, more biased or less interested in doing their job well than any other judge.

 

[Mark_A]

Judith Sheindlin, aka Judge Judy, played things up on the show for the TV ratings and her audience was largely female. So siding more with the female litigants in family law cases isn't so surprising. The "litigants" are in an arbitration proceeding and the show puts up the money for the awards so there's incentive for both parties to attend. It's all done for entertainment and like most TV lawyer/court shows it doesn't present a very accurate view of how courts, lawyers, and the justice system actually works. Most real court cases are pretty boring for someone who doesn't have a stake in the case to watch. That's why cable/streaming channels that broadcast real court proceedings don't get a ton of viewers. The rules procedure used for most courts involve a lot of exhange of information before a trial or hearing so there is very, very little of the dramatic sudden introduction of something new that uncovers the real villain (a mainstay of shows like Perry Mason).

Judges, whether small claims court or otherwise, vary widely to the extent they still hold outdated views of the roles of men and women. In the areas that I've practiced where the small claims court judges are appointed there is less of that kind of problem than in areas where the judges are elected. It's not fair to assume that small claims court judges are, as a whole, more biased or less interested in doing their job well than any other judge.

I never implied that real Small Claims judges are biased toward woman. It was just a joke about Judge Judy. I saw a few of her shows year ago, and I really think she hates men, and her decisions against men were not just for entertainment. But I think they told her to dial it back a bit, and she is now trying to be more fair. Just before Judge Wapner died, he said some very uncomplimentary things about Judge Judy. Again, it was just a joke.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Just before Judge Wapner died, he said some very uncomplimentary things about Judge Judy.

Only he knows if what he said was true and he's no longer around to explain his opinion.

What I know of Judith Sheindlin is that she often very brusque and can be easily irritated or angered, especially when she thinks someone is wasting her time. I've known judges like that. Few attorneys like practicing in those courts but at least up to a point some judges have to take a firm line in the courtroom to keep things moving because they have a large docket and can't waste time with foolishness. That can be done without being insulting or demeaning to the attorneys or litigants, but it takes time to develop that skill. I don't know what she was like presiding over cases in family court. What I've read suggests that she changed her style for the show to pump up ratings and there's no denying she was a ratings winner. She made far more from those shows than she ever would have made staying on the bench.

Judge Wapner, who was the one who first made that type of show popular, played the role pretty straightforward, not much different than a real small claims court judge. The producers had to rely on finding interesting cases and litigants to keep the audience because Wapner himself didn't provide a lot entertainment value. As a result he wasn't the ratings star that Judge Judy was and didn't make nearly as much money from his show. I wouldn't be surprised to learn if his view of was tinged with a bit of bitterness at her success that he wasn't able to achieve, though he may have couched that in terms of his show providing outcomes actually grounded in the law and her show is more free wheeling providing results that are popular with the audience.

 

[army judge]

As the late, great Paul Harvey was wont to say, "And now; for the rest of the story!"

In 2002, Judge Joseph Wapner, the original TV judge from The People's Court, said that Judge Judy was too rude and abrasive. He said that she didn't act the way he thought a judge should act.

Explanation

The People's Court was intended to educate viewers about the law. Wapner believed that many of today's "judge" shows focus more on the judge than on the law. He was critical of Judge Judy's style, which included berating litigants for starting sentences with "UmmUmmUmm".

Judge Judy, whose full name is Judith Sheindlin, was a former Manhattan Family Court judge who became a popular TV personality in 1996. Her show was the highest-rated court show for its entire 25-year run. It also frequently ranked as the highest-rated daytime television broadcast.

To get on the show, parties had to drop their court disputes and agree to abide by Wapner's ruling — and, perhaps, endure his scolding. To sweeten the deal, the show paid all judgments, which were limited to a maximum of US$1,500.

Wapner's cases shed light on the underbelly of America's judicial system: motorists arguing over fender-benders, a stripper demanding payment for her work, a woman suing her dry cleaner for ruining her fake-fur coat.

"No show has so engrossingly captured the wondrous banality of the human condition," Newsweek said in 1986.

A ratings hit, it led to imitators such as "Judge Judy," "Judge Alex," "Judge Mills Lane," "Judge Joe Brown" and "Cristina's Court."

Meantime, three successors kept "The People's Court" in session long after Wapner stepped down: former New York City Mayor Edward Koch; Jerry Sheindlin, the husband of "Judge Judy"; and Marilyn Milian, a former judge on Florida's state circuit court.

Wapner wasn't thrilled with the trend he launched. In 2002, the New York Post quoted him saying that Judith Sheindlin — the former Manhattan Family Court judge who became TV's much-watched "Judge Judy" in 1996 — was too rude.

She's discourteous and she's abrasive. She's not slightly insulting; she's insulting in capital letters

"She is not portraying a judge as I view a judge should act," Wapner said, according to the newspaper. "She's discourteous and she's abrasive. She's not slightly insulting; she's insulting in capital letters."

Sheindlin, for her part, offered praise for Wapner's legacy in a 2005 interview on CNN's "Larry King Live." Asked about how she came to land a TV show, she said: "All the judges watched Judge Wapner. All America at one point or another watched Judge Wapner. And I used to say to myself, 'I could do that.'"

Joseph Albert Wapner was born Nov. 15, 1919, in Los Angeles, where his father ran a one-man law practice representing "always the little guy," Wapner recalled in his 1987 memoir, "A View From the Bench."

Article content
The elder Wapner appeared occasionally on episodes of "Divorce Court," the 1950s TV show that heralded the reality courtroom boom of the 1980s.

Hoping to become an actor, Wapner transferred to Hollywood High School and tried with minimal success to make his mark on its drama department. He did manage to meet and briefly date a fellow student, Judy Turner, who would achieve stardom later in life as Lana Turner.

Wapner studied philosophy at the University of Southern California and graduated in 1941. As a lieutenant in the U.S. Army during World War II, he was injured by shrapnel while fighting in the Philippines.

Wapner said his war experience shaped his behaviour on the bench: "I realized that a great deal of life is exactly and precisely about being able to feel pain, my own and other people's."

After graduating from USC's law school, he spent 16 years as a lawyer and became a Los Angeles Municipal Court judge in 1959, overseeing traffic tickets and small claims. In 1961, California Governor Edmund G. Brown elevated him to Superior Court, where he became presiding judge. He retired in 1979.

Article content
"When I was on the bench I used to have a yellow pad and I put on the pad at the beginning of the day, 'patience' and 'restraint,'" Wapner said in a 2005 interview with the Archive of American Television.

When I was on the bench I used to have a yellow pad and I put on the pad at the beginning of the day, 'patience' and 'restraint'

His second career, starting at 61, had its genesis in a discussion between TV producer Ralph Edwards, who had come up with the idea of a reality television courtroom show, and his friend, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Christian Markey.

Markey recommended the recently retired Wapner, his long-time tennis partner, for the starring role, according to a 2003 story in the Metropolitan News Enterprise of Los Angeles.

Wapner "had a good wit. He knew how to smile. He knew how to treat people and conduct a court," Markey said, according to the newspaper.

Wapner was quoted by People magazine in 1982 as saying, "The public's perception of judges seems to be improving because of what I'm doing, and that makes me happy."

One of his many fans was Raymond Babbitt, the fictional autistic savant played by Dustin Hoffman in the 1988 film "Rain Man," who compulsively counted the minutes until "The People's Court" and fretted, "Gotta watch Wapner. Gotta watch Wapner."

Article content
A 1989 survey by the Washington Post found that 54 percent of American adults could name Wapner as the judge of "The People's Court," compared with 9 percent who could name the U.S. chief justice at the time, William Rehnquist.

Wapner said in his interview with the Archive of American Television that he learned from a newspaper article, not from producers, that his run as TV's judge had ended in 1993. "It irritated me to no end for a long time," he said.

He received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame three days before his 90th birthday in 2009.

Wapner had two sons and a daughter with his wife, Mickey. One son, Frederick, became a Los Angeles Superior Court judge.

Original TV judge, Joseph Wapner of 'The People's Court,' lamented what he created

Wapner, who has died at age 97, spawned a hit and plenty of copycats including 'Judge Judy,' — 'discourteous' and 'abrasive' — 'Judge Alex' and others

financialpost.com

 

[welkin]

What I know of Judith Sheindlin is that she often very brusque and can be easily irritated or angered, especially when she thinks someone is wasting her time.

Have you ever watched personal interviews of Sheindlin which she gave over the years? What made Judge Judy and the People's Court so popular was the persona she put on for the show. But that wasn't who she was. I would say she was just the opposite in real life.

 

[Mark_A]

Only he knows if what he said was true and he's no longer around to explain his opinion.

I have read the above comment 10 times and I still do not understand what it means. "Only he knows if what he said was true"? What does that mean? It was his opinion of Judge Judy based on watching her show.

Wapner made his comments about Judge Judy quite clear and it doesn't need any further explanation. Whether he was correct or not, obviously people may disagree. My own observation is that his disdain for Judge Judy's behavior was accurate, and was the same as mine, and I didn't even know until the last few days that Wapner even saw her show, much less commented on it.

Lastly, Wapner was a retired Superior Court Judge before he started People's Court, and I don't think his comments about Judge Judy had anything to do with jealously, financial or otherwise. There is no evidence to support that claim. Anyone who made the assertion that Wapner's comments about Judge Judy were because of jealousy probably never saw both Judges more than a few episodes.