Injured spouse game.

[cpadan]

This is a new client. They have two children from current marriage, he owes child support from past. I'm am curious as to why the preparer allocated the kids to the uninjured spouse on form 8379 in 2004. I don't understand the logic.

Why not allocate the kids to the injured spouse so the EIC is allocated to her, and more of the refund. However, it seemed to work, they got most of their refund back doing it this way. If anyone can enlighten me I would appreciate it. I haven't been able to find and an answer in my research.

Thanks for any comments you might have.
Dan

[ecb34691]

And IRS wont give anybody an answer. It's a mystery how the allocate the split but it all done in the Philadelphia Center by humans.

[Koss]

8379 Allocation

Part of it is based on how much income each spouse earned and what their individual tax liability would be if they filed separately.

As I noted in an earlier discussion with Gabriele, it doesn't matter whether the children are his from a previous relationship, hers from a previous relationship, or children of the present marriage.

Because the couple is married, if they choose to file separately, either spouse can claim the children, even if that spouse is not the biolgical parent. Stepchild is a qualifying relationship for dependency and the child tax credit. This is not a new UDC rule. It hasn't changed.

Since the 8379 allocation is based on what "would happen" if they filed separately, the children can be allocated to either spouse, regardless of which one is the natural parent.

This being the case, perhaps the IRS uses some secret formula that allocates the dependent exemptions and associated credits based on the proportion of income.

Think about this: Form 8379, in a way, is used to file a joint return and ask the IRS to figure the tax and refunds separately. But on a regular joint return filed by mail, there is nowhere to indicate "who the child belongs to." It doesn't matter because they are married. The child herself is not property, but the associated tax benefits could arguably be construed as marital property. In fact, that's exactly how divorce decrees treat the exemption!

I know the IRS can access birth records through social security, but I don't really think they look at the issue of which parent is the natural parent. What if the other parent adopted the child? That would definitely make the child "equally" his and hers.

I think the kids literally get split based on proportion of income.


Burton

[Safire]

*venting*

I never understood this anyway, if a woman marries a man who owes back child support, she should be willing to give up any and all refund to get that back child support taken care of. Just go ahead and file together and let that other struggling mom get her money from the dead beat dad. &*@#$!%

[jainen]

I never understood

I never understood why a woman would marry a deadbeat who won't even take care of his own children.

[Gretel]

Maybe she thinks she is the ONE who can make him a better person. Truth just is, it never works. Only he himself can take responsibility for his life and therefor be a better person.

[Matt Sova]

Just to whine

Remember, it is not always the father that is the deadbeat. My brother's ex wife owes him thousands in back child support. The skank lives in FL and if it was the other way around the authorities would be hunting him down.

[Safire]

I never understood why a woman would marry a deadbeat who won't even take care of his own children.

As Brad Paisley would sing, me neither!

[cpadan]

Well, you haven't heard the rest of the story. The child support is form "their" previous marriage! That's right. They divorced and she got some kind of assistance from the county or state (they were living in in Calif. at that time).

Now they are remarried and he has to repay for the support the county/state paid while they were divorced.

As far as alllocating the kids, I will follow what previous preparer did, it worked even though it doesn't make sense.
Thanks for your comments
Dan