To reach us at any time, call our toll free number: 1-877-602-9900

  • MacLean Family Law Group - Vancouver

  • Suite 3103 - 1077 West Cordova Street
  • Vancouver, BC
  • V6C 2C6
  • Tel: 604-602-9000
  • Fax: 604-682-0556
  • MacLean Family Law Group - Fort St. John

  • 9503 100th Avenue
  • Fort St. John, BC
  • V1J 4N4
  • Tel: 250-262-5052
  • Fax: 250-262-5053
  • Search BC Family Law

Posts Tagged ‘British Columbia Spousal Support’

Smart BC Divorce Tip #3 – Protect Yourself At All Times

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Lorne MacLean, Vancouver BC Family Law Lawyer, at the MacLean Family Law Group is delighted to announce Smart BC Divorce Tips # 3 is now available at our youtube channel called Protect Yourself at All Times-Winning the Financial Aspects of your Divorce and Family Law Case has just been released to positive reviews. These tips are critical if you are involved in a BC Divorce, BC Child custody, BC Child Support, BC Spousal Support and BC Family Asset Division case.

Step 1 – Obtain Proof of all assets and Debts and All Income and Expenses

Copy tax returns, credit card statements, bills, business information and anything that might help you determine how much money you will need to live on and what marital assets you are entitled to. Go through the garbage or install spyware on a computer, if necessary. Tax returns don’t always show the real income to be used for your case so make copies of all company financial documents as well. Store these documents away from the Home and redirect your sensitive mail to a safe location.

Protect Your Money and Assets

Take half of the money from a joint account, and put it in your own name. If your spouse tries to clean out the account, you won’t be able to access that money until a judge says so. This way, you will have access to money, but make sure that you keep a record of how you spend it and this is not an excuse to try to get rid of or hide assets, so act honestly. Consider a restraining order to freeze assets, closing joint credit card accounts and lines of credit to prevent them being run up by your soon to be ex-spouse.

Be Patient

With joint marital assets like homes and stocks probably worth much less than they were a few years ago, some couples are agreeing to stay together until the financial tide turns. If a moneyed husband pushes for divorce because the economy makes it less expensive for him to cash out now, press him for an upside by asking for a bonus for giving up access to a potential gain or by remaining in as a joint owner of the asset.

Lorne MacLean High Net Worth Divorce Lawyerimg_5802

Smart BC Divorce Tips #2 – Winning your Divorce Case by Putting your Best Foot Foward

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

Today’s Smart BC Divorce Tips #2 video from the BC Divorce and BC high net worth family law firm of MacLean Family Law Group points out a successful strategy to be used to help win their BC Divorce and BC Family Law Child Custody, Child Support, Spousal Support, and Property Division Case.

One of the most important things Lorne MacLean tells his clients when they first retain his law firm is that it is imperative that they do not write or say anything that they would not be proud to have the judge hearing their case know about because rest assured that judge will.

Click Here to see video -> Smart BC Divorce Tips #2

BC SPOUSAL SUPPORT REVIEW ORDERS AND ATTRIBUTED AND IMPUTED INCOME TO RECEIPIENT SPOUSE AND ONUS AT BC SPOUSAL SUPPORT HEARING REVIEW HEARING

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

Lorne MacLean Founding Partner and Divorce Lawyer MacLean family Law Group
The Supreme Court of Canada defined the limited situations when a BC spousal support review can be ordered on BC spousal support awards in the Leskun. The British Columbia spousal support review order is still used as a tool to encourage a reluctant spouse to take steps to move in part or in whole towards self- sufficiency.

The recent decision of Reggelsen v. Reggelsen, 2009 BCSC 1790 – 2009/12/29 follows a line of cases that uses BC spousal support reviews to encourage a spouse to work toward self sufficiency when the spouse is hesitant or refuses to do so without the court nudging them towards this goal by way of reducing a BC spousal support award at the review on the basis of the spouses’s lack of effort to reenter the workforce.

The cases can specify the terms of review and can place the onus on one spouse to show they have made reasonable efforts to reenter the workforce. The problem remains however in setting the income level a spouse who has refused to enter the workforce can earn. The court must look at the education, work skills and work history as well as evidence of existing jobs the spouse could get and then attribute and income to them pursuant to section 19 of the Child Support Guidelines (they apply to spousal support too!).

Although the Supreme Court of Canada established that reviews should rarely be ordered, the courts in BC have continued to use reviews as a useful tool to allow a court to deal with future issues related to spousal support at a time when the actual living arrangements and income and expenses of the parties will be able to be correctly determined. It is often difficult to predict a career path for a spouse who is reentering the work force after a long period of time or who has health issues that impact on their ability to work or how a payor’s career might be impaired by a poor economy or changes in the marketplace. The case of Reggelsen applied the review principals to reduce spousal support by a few hundred dollars a month but the court refused to terminate support as the husband requested.

We provide the key case extracts below:
(more…)

BC SPOUSAL SUPPORT CONSENT ORDERS VARIATION AND MIGLIN TWO STEP TEST FOR VARIATION OF SPOUSAL SUPPORT

Thursday, December 3rd, 2009

In Turpin v Clark the BC Court of Appeal partially allowed a husband’s appeal from a BC spousal support judgment allowing the wife’s upward quantum variation to comply with the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines of a Consent step down BC spousal support Order. The Court of Appeal set aside the Trial Judge’s Order to increase and extend support and remove clawback clauses for employment income earned by the wife but did extend support for 3 more years beyond the minimum time it was to be paid. The case points out that Consent Orders are really just the embodiment of an agreement between two spouses. The two part MIGLIN test for varying separation agreements applies equally to Consent Orders which requires the Court:
a) first determining whether the agreement was fairly negotiated and fair at the time it was signed; and
b) second, even if this test is met, the court determining whether the agreement remains fair at the time of the variation application- which may be years after the original agreement or Order was signed – and whether it continues to comply with the principles of the Canadian Divorce Act including taking into account advantages and disadvantages to each spouse from the marriage or its breakdown and the need to promote self sufficiency among other factors and objectives.

The Court of Appeal pointed out that factors the parties considered as forseen or expected at the time they made their deal should be listed to assist the court viewing the consent order in the future to assess how fairly the agreement continues to reflect the original intentions of the parties. The Court also commented on the blight of non-disclosure in family law cases and the problems it causes.
(more…)

BC Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines and BC Child Support 2009 Update- Beninger 2009 BCCA 458

Tuesday, November 10th, 2009

fsj-petunia-office
Lorne MacLean

An interesting BC Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines SSAG- with child formula- decision was handed down by our Court of Appeal recently. The BC Spousal Support and BC Child Support case dealt with an appeal by the wife in a long marriage from a variation of spousal and child support application that left her with slightly more or slightly less than half of the lawyer husband’s income depending on what figure he earned depending on bonuses and expenses. The court dealt with recent disclosure by the husband and concluded he had been frank and honest with the court contrary to the allegations of his ex-wife, although in prior proceedings his disclosure had been inadequate. The court dismissed the wife’s appeal which argued she received less than a strict application of the guidelines demanded and interestingly pointed out that while a judge must give reasons for departing from the Child Support Guidelines the court need not give reasons if it chooses to depart from the BC spousal support advisory guidelines.

The BC Spousal Support appeal pointed out that caution should be used in applying the SSAG guidelines automatically in variation proceedings and in cases where the paying spouses income exceeds $350,000 per year. To read the court’s comments click below.
(more…)

MacLean Family Law Group now accepts BC Family Law Clients from Penticton and the Okanagan

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

img_59511Lorne MacLean is delighted to announce his BC Family Law firm the MacLean Family Law Group is accepting clients from Penticton BC and surrounding areas starting immediately. Call 1-877-602-9900 to set up appointments in Penticton British Columbia.

We can’t protect your heart but we can protect your rights!

BC SEPARATION AGREEMENT ENFORCEMENT AND VARIATION

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

img_5802Parties often settle their marital breakdown differences by entering into a contract called a separation agreement. How are separation agreements enforced and in what courts in British Columbia? Our Family Relations Act (“FRA”) allows agreements to be filed in either the Provincial family Court or the Supreme Court of BC. Until recently there has been a dispute over whether the Supreme Court of BC has the power to vary a separation agreement or only the power to enforce it. This issue arose in K. v. K. 2009 BCSC 69 and the court held despite wording differences in the FRA, the Supreme Court has the power to VARY- meaning to change the terms of the contract- as well as to enforce.
(more…)

BC Family Asset and British Columbia Property Division and Reapportionment in Short to Medium Length Marriages Ending in British Columbia Divorce

Friday, February 20th, 2009

As Vancouver family lawyers and Fort St John
family law and divorce lawyers, we are often asked what BC courts do in shorter marriages in British
Columbia that end in divorce both with respect to British Columbia spousal
support and BC family asset division. We are also frequently asked what kind of
BC assets are divided at the end of a marriage?
We advise people that the test is- whether the assets were ordinarily
used for a family purpose. If you have a specific question concerning BC family
property division contact us as the courts have construed a family asset to
include a wide variety of family property. Our BC family law lawyers can be
reached toll-free throughout the province at 1-877-602-9900.

A recent British Columbia Court of Appeal
decision applying the spousal support advisory guidelines and dealing with
reapportionment of property in a seven-year marriage provide provides updated
guidance in determining what is a short marriage for purposes of
reapportionment of BC family assets and how it impacts on an award of
entitlement and quantum of spousal support in British Columbia.

In the decision of Wang V. Poon [2008] B.C.J. No
2113 our British Columbia Court of Appeal dealt with a seven-year marriage with
husband was 76 years old and his wife was 47 years of age some 30 years his
junior. The husband brought the majority of assets into the marriage and his
assets were used to purchase various condominiums.

(more…)

British Columbia Family Law Spousal Support Exception Non Deductable or Non Taxable Income

Monday, February 9th, 2009
I have had a number of cases where paying spouses
involved in British Columbia spousal support cases have worked outside of the
country and been paid under a scheme that charged them less tax than they would
have paid on their income had it been earned in Canada. I've also had cases
where paying spouses have worked in countries where spousal support which is
deductible in Canada by the paying spouse, is not deductible. It is important
that we try to correct the spouse's income upward to reflect a higher take-home
pay than they would have earned in Canada and downward in cases where the
spousal support is not tax deductible in the foreign country. The spousal
support advisory guidelines revisions for 2008 apply across Canada and to
British Columbia family law cases.
 
The following extract explains the logic behind
departing from the British Columbia and Canadian spousal support advisory
guidelines when the paying spouse cannot deduct spousal support such that the
net cost to him, of the monthly payment is unfairly high:
 

12.8 Non-Taxable Payor Income

Both formulas produce a "gross" amount of spousal support, i.e. an
amount that is deductible from taxable income for the payor and included in
taxable income for the recipient. As we noted in Chapter 6 on Income, some
payors have incomes based entirely on legitimately non-taxable sources, usually
workers’ compensation or disability payments or income earned by an aboriginal
person on reserve.118
In these cases, the payor is unable to deduct the support paid, contrary to the
assumption built into the formulas for determining amount.

Some of the recipients may pay little or no tax on the support income
received, due to their low incomes, but that is not our concern here. Nor are we
concerned with payors who earn income tax-free by working "under the
table"
or by understating their income for tax purposes. Here we are
concerned with payors who legitimately receive their income on a non-taxable
basis.

What warrants this non-taxable exception is when the
non-deductibility of the spousal support poses a problem for the payor’s ability
to pay, as the non-taxable payor is unable to pay the gross amount of spousal
support that would be required of a payor with the benefits of
deductibility.

Under the without child support formula, ability to pay will usually
only become an issue in longer marriage cases, marriages of 15 years or more. In
these longer marriage cases, the 50/50 net income "cap" will simplify the
use of this exception, as the upper limit on spousal support will be
equalization of the spouses’ net incomes. A simple example helps to explain
why.

Example 12.6

Donna and Jeff have been married for many years, with two adult children.
Later in his career, Jeff experienced became unable to work and Jeff now
receives a disability pension of $37,500 per year, non-taxable. Grossed up,
his disability pension would be worth $50,000 per year. Donna works part-time
on account of health issues and earns $10,000 gross per year.

Under the without child support formula, if Donna and Jeff have
been married for 25 years and using the gross income difference, spousal
support would be $1,250 to $1,667 per month, indefinite (duration not
specified)
. But Jeff cannot deduct any amount for the spousal support
paid, even though Donna will have to include it as taxable income.

In this final version, we have added a net income "cap" under this
formula, so that the upper end of the range for support would leave both Jeff
and Donna with 50 per cent of the net income. This net income calculation
takes into account Jeff’s inability to deduct his support and Donna’s payment
of tax on that support. The "cap" would kick in at $1,318 per
month
(using Ontario tax rates), well below the formula’s upper limit
of $1,667 monthly (if Jeff’s income were taxable, the "cap" would still
take effect, but much higher, at $1,575 per month).

That would only leave a narrow range of $1,250 to $1,318 per
month
if we applied the "cap" literally. Practically, the
non-taxable exception would mean that a court or the parties
will likely have to go lower than $1,250 per month in most cases, in
consideration of Jeff’s ability to pay.

What if Donna and Jeff were married for 20 years? Using the gross income
difference, the range would be $1,000 to $1,333 per month, indefinite
(duration not specified). The net income "cap" would only have a small
impact here, as it would limit the upper end of the range to $1,318. Ability
to pay concerns for Jeff’s position would be much diminished and this
non-taxable exception may not be required.

The problems are actually more serious at higher income levels, especially
where the support recipient has to pay a higher rate of tax. If the payor
receives $68,388 non-taxable, the equivalent of a grossed-up income of $100,000
and the recipient earned $30,000 per year, the net income "cap" has an
even greater impact than it does for Donna and Jeff. Most cases of non-taxable
income involve low-to-middle incomes rather than such higher incomes.

Because the with child support formula already uses net incomes for
its calculations, the basic formula automatically adjusts for the
non-deductibility of support. The result is that the whole range under this
formula is reduced downward, but it is important to be aware of the reduction
and the amounts involved. Another example can help, if we go back to the
familiar example of Ted and Alice.

Example 12.7

Ted and Alice have been married for 11 years and have two children aged 8
and 10, as in Example 8.1. Alice still earns $20,000, but Ted now
receives a non-taxable disability pension totalling $56,900 per year
(grossed-up, this would be equivalent to $80,000 of employment income). This
means that Ted still pays $1,159 per month in child support and there are no
section 7 expenses. When Ted earned $80,000 per year in employment income, the
spousal support range was $474 to $1,025 per month, using
Ontario rates. Now that Ted receives a non-taxable disability pension, the
range is reduced to $380 to $797 per month. The difference in
the two ranges reflects the effect of Ted being unable to deduct the spousal
support for tax purposes.

It might be possible to make an exception here, to increase spousal support
above the upper end of the automatically-reduced non-taxable range, pushing up
towards $1,025 per month, in order to improve the financial situation of the
recipient and the children. At $1,025 per month, however, almost 61 per cent
of the family’s net disposable income or monthly cash flow would be left in
Alice’s household.

The important point is to appreciate how much the basic with child
support
formula has reduced the range for amount when the payor’s income is
non-taxable, in order to make the necessary judgment about whether an exception
should be made, to increase spousal support above the calculated range.

In every one of these non-taxable exception cases, it is
necessary to balance the tax positions of the spouses — the reduced ability to
pay of the payor spouse, who can’t deduct the support paid, and the needs or
loss of the recipient spouse, who still has to pay taxes on spousal support and
only receives after-tax support.


MacLean Family Law Group Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).