Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site lsuc.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!dave From: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) Newsgroups: net.taxes,net.singles,net.women Subject: Re: Marriage penalty Message-ID: <419@lsuc.UUCP> Date: Sun, 17-Feb-85 02:50:02 EST Article-I.D.: lsuc.419 Posted: Sun Feb 17 02:50:02 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 17-Feb-85 03:26:20 EST References: <285@calmasd.UUCP> <399@wxlvax.UUCP> <501@homxb.UUCP> <1405@dciem.UUCP> Reply-To: dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) Followup-To: net.taxes Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Lines: 32 Xref: utcs net.taxes:608 net.singles:5652 net.women:4438 Summary: Canadian tax system In article <1405@dciem.UUCP> mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) writes: || ||Canadian income tax pays no attention to one's marital status, ||except that if one spouse is dependent on the other, the richer ||can claim a deduction from taxable income. The amount of deduction ||depends on the spouse's income. Correct. The deduction is $3,470 for 1984, and you start losing it dollar for dollar once the spouse's taxable income exceeds $490 (which makes income-splitting planning useless between $490 and $3,960 of the spouse's income). || ... That seems fair to me. Well, it's hard to say. As has been noted, there are conflicting goals which are mathematically impossible to resolve. Ther difference in the systems arises because Canada does not have joint returns - each taxpayer must file his/her own return. || ... There are ||anomalies between common-law and certified marriage, but I don't ||know what they are. "Common-law" marriage (there's no such thing, it's just a media term used for living together) does not entitle either half of the couple to claim the other. You have to be married to claim the unused portion of the spouse's basic deduction. Dave Sherman -- {utzoo pesnta nrcaero utcs}!lsuc!dave {allegra decvax ihnp4 linus}!utcsrgv!lsuc!dave