<parrisbraeside[at]yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:dca39e9c-663f-4cae-bbcb-2c3f39168108[at]i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
- quote -


interesting case. Except for the written separation agreement, sounds like
the conditions in many marriages!

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

- quote -


The courts did not go along with them on this point. See

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/tcc/doc/...3canlii49.html

for the ruling against the CRA. But, the case is interesting since the
judge laid out the conditions for common-law vs. single.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Stuart Bronstein" <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A6C509629A52avocatstuyahoofr[at]130.133.1.4...
- quote -

They weren't divorced....simply "separated" BUT with a formal, signed,
legally prepared separation agreement.



- quote -

Please delete all unnecessary material from the prior post when responding.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"sharx35" <sharx35[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

Let me get this straight. You were married, got divorced but continued
to live in the same house. As a result CR wants to tax you as married
even though you're not?

You'll have to check Canadian law on that issue. It's possible the
courts go along with them on this point, as it's not a completely
irrational ruling.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Stuart Bronstein" <spamtrap[at]lexregia.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A65ACC7F959Favocatstuyahoofr[at]130.133.1.4...
- quote -

One lived in the basement. One on the main floor. Canada Revenue said that
because the basement didn't have separate meters to measure the water, power
or gas, then the basement didn't constitute a separate residence and
therefore, even in the presence of a FORMAL separation agreement, prepared
by attorneys, Canada Revenue insisted that they were STILL legally married
and not separated, for tax purposes.



- quote -

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascpapc[at]bellsouth.net> wrote:
- quote -

I'd guess no. As the courts in the common-law states say, while you
can get a common law marriage, you can't get a common law divorce.

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"sharx35" <sharx35[at]hotmail.com> wrote
- quote -




So if you're married.....after 12 months of no sex....you're single again?



Some of my redneck buddies would say: Woo Hoo !!!!







--
Two Reasons Why It's So Hard To Solve A Redneck Murder:
1. All the DNA is the same.
2. There are no dental records.
--------------------------
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Athens, Georgia

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Dick Adams" <rdadams[at]panix.com> wrote in message
news:frnh90$678$1[at]reader2.panix.com...
- quote -

Here in Canada, whether you like it or not, after TWELVE months of
consecutive shacking up, YOU_ARE_MARRIED, for income tax purposes, whether
you want to be or not. It is NOT optional. Many government-paid benefits are
tied to FAMILY (adults) total net income. Declaring single to try and get
these benefits is fraud and I, as a tax preparer, refuse to a party to such
schemes.



- quote -

<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

none <hanish123[at]gmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

While you will get some good answers on taxation
here, a pre-nup is a legal contract and, thus,
should be discuss with a California Tax attorney.

You are one more reason I should finish writing
my book "Living in Sin for Fun and Profit".

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Mar 16, 10:57*am, Alan <sfcnm-...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -


Also, the lower-earning spouse should not sign such an agreement
solely for tax purposes, nor for any purpose without having his or her
own, separate legal advice.

Katie in San Diego

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

none wrote:
- quote -

income of each is to be considered (community or separate). Note
that these agreements should be prepared by attorneys with
expertise in family law. Also note that the nine states with CP
laws differ when it comes to the definition of community income.
Another reason to use an attorney.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Hi all:

I am going to be getting married later this year. We both live and
work in California. My spouse makes considerably less money than I
do. I understand that the IRS will insist that 50% of our joint
income be claimed on each of our returns if we choose to file
separately. While I'm not sure that we will be filing separately, I'd
like to maintain all our possible options. Does a pre-nuptual
agreement allow our incomes to be treated separately for income tax
purposes (both federal and state?)

Thanks!

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, > << nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties > << that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. > << > << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts > << to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy > << are at www.asktax.org. > << Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >