Kristyne McDaniel wrote: > IIRC, that is not necessarily the way it always works. It all depends on how > the divorce decree is written. If you were providing more than 50% of the > financial support you might have been the one entitled to the deduction. But > then you'd have to go to court again to wrestle that one out so it might not > be worth it. > > I claimed my son on my tax return every year after the first year he lived > with me. In the first year, I had custody starting on April 11, but > California has a rule that you only get to claim the child deduction if you > have custody as of March 31. My ex in Minnesota didn't qualify for the > deduction under Minnesota's rules because I had him for most of the year. > IOW, that year nobody got the deduction. > > Taxes never seem to be fair... Just like life is never fair.
Again, I have no problem with her taking both for her taxes, but due to that nice benefit, I don't think I should have to pick up 2nd insurances for the kids so that she has no out of pocket costs and I do (via the cost of the insurances). _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
