Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site faron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!linus!faron!wdh
From: wdh@faron.UUCP (Dale Hall)
Newsgroups: net.taxes
Subject: Dependents - New Rules for 1985 Income tax
Message-ID: <428@faron.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Jan-86 18:11:30 EST
Article-I.D.: faron.428
Posted: Mon Jan 13 18:11:30 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 15-Jan-86 08:13:42 EST
Reply-To: wdh@faron.UUCP (Dale Hall)
Distribution: net.taxes
Organization: The MITRE Coporation, Bedford, MA
Lines: 22
Keywords: non-custodial parents

Does anyone out there have any idea why the 1985 Federal Income Tax rules
have eliminated the exemption for children of a non-custodial parent? Earlier
rules stipulated that the parent who provided the bulk of financial support 
(via child support, not alimony) was entitled to claim the child as a
dependent. This year, this is allowed only if one of the following two
conditions is met: (i) the custodial parent waives all rights to such an
exemption (via some official IRS form which must be filed with the 1040 of
the non-custodial parent), or (ii) the divorce decree (pre - 1985)
specifically stated that the non-custodial parent shall retain the
dependency exemption. 

This action seems in some way to be related to the recently aggressive stand
taken by the Federal government towards protecting the child-support rights
of children --- for instance, income can be attached, Federal tax refunds
can be seized, and perhaps several other avenues exist, when a person fails
to meet the obligations of support. However, this seems virtually calculated
to punish those who do support their children after divorce.

Anyhow, I'm really curious as to any non-cynical reasoning of this point.
Answers can be mailed to me at my address above, or if the topic is
perceived as of more general interest, simply responding through the net is
adequate. I'll just sit here with bated breath for the answers to roll in.