Maybe I'm misinterpreting this (I do that), but when I first saw the thread title I immediately thought of this:
Adopt A Goat - World Animal Foundation
Adopt A Goat - World Animal Foundation
You forgot to add that married couples frequently pay higher taxes for the same income than two folks living together but not married due to the "marriage penalty."
Wouldn't it be far more fun to fly to some third world country and spend a few weeks trying to make one rather than adopt one?
Wasn't that eliminated a decade or two ago?
Child in Canada or Mexico.
You may be able to claim your child as a dependent even if the child lives in Canada or Mexico. If the child doesn't live with you, the child doesn't meet the residency test to be your qualifying child. However, the child may still be your qualifying relative. If the persons the child does live with aren't U.S. citizens and have no U.S. gross income, those persons aren't “taxpayers,” so the child isn't the qualifying child of any other taxpayer. If the child isn't the qualifying child of any other taxpayer, the child is your qualifying relative as long as the gross income test and the support test are met. You cannot claim as a dependent a child who lives in a foreign country other than Canada or Mexico, unless the child is a U.S. citizen, U.S. resident alien, or U.S. national. There is an exception for certain adopted children who lived with you all year. See Citizen or Resident Test , earlier.
Example.
You provide all the support of your children, ages 6, 8, and 12, who live in Mexico with your mother and have no income. You are single and live in the United States. Your mother isn't a U.S. citizen and has no U.S. income, so she isn't a “taxpayer.” Your children aren't your qualifying children because they do not meet the residency test. But since they aren't the qualifying children of any other taxpayer, they are your qualifying relatives and you can claim them as dependents. You may also be able to claim your mother as a dependent if the gross income and support tests are met.
Actually no.
Roth income limits are much different. Even healthcare subsidies when one has significantly lower income.
Wasn't that eliminated a decade or two ago?
Maybe I'm misinterpreting this (I do that), but when I first saw the thread title I immediately thought of this:
Adopt A Goat - World Animal Foundation
That is hilarious! And my kind of adoption. I love the idea of getting a glossy photo of my goat and a goat adoption certificate.
That is hilarious! And my kind of adoption. I love the idea of getting a glossy photo of my goat and a goat adoption certificate.
Adopt An Animal Adopt A Goat Kits make great gifts and can be sent directly to the recipient. Simply supply the recipient's name and mailing address as shipping information. We'll even include a letter stating the Adopt A Goat is from you.
I got curious and it looks like you can adopt almost anything...
http://www.worldanimalfoundation.org/adopt-endangered-species.html
I've never understood why people with kids get such special treatment...back in the day we just got a standard deduction for each kid, not all the extra stuff you get now.
So to add to the other issues people have raised I will point out that you can't just give money to the mother and do what you are talking about. This risks running afoul of the laws against child buying.
I am struggling with not looking at the ethics of this.
+1. From the moment I read the initial post, I had a very uneasy feeling about this. The whole concept of adopting a child for the sole reason of receiving a tax break strikes me as being crass in the extreme. And the notion of giving a kid back if turns out to not be lucrative enough for you is just plain wrong. What you're describing is not adoption. Full disclosure: I'm the father of two adopted children, both grown, with one grandchild and another on the way. This hasn't been a money-making venture (quite the opposite), but I wouldn't change a thing.
No one said anything about child buying. I am not really sure how adoption is not in actuality child buying anyway. People pay money, they get a kid. Not much different than a pet store or animal shelter. The parent may, or may not, get any money. A surrogate mother is also doing something similar to child buying.
This is an opportunity to look at the tax laws and attempt to minimize taxes. No different than a corporation would do. Look at the tax laws, analyze the ways to take advantage of them, and see if it is a fit. Simple Simon.
There are many deductions and credits for having children. The USD is strong, and there are many countries where you can live for pennies on the dollar. Taking advantage of that is good for both countries. When you buy stuff made in other countries, you are taking advantage of the same thing.
Adopting a kid, and then outsourcing it's raising, is no different than sending a kid to boarding school here in the USA, except a LOT cheaper. A kid raised in another country probably has a better life than being raised as a feral here in the USA. There are a lot of feral kids here.
From what I see, it could actually be a benefit to doing a support arrangement. Easily started and easily terminated. The child doesn't have to actually be adopted, just support provided. Where $3 a day sent could be what is needed for the majority of the kids support, or ~$1,000 a year. A person could get a decent tax reduction, perhaps up to twice+ the amount paid, the caretaker would get extra money.
I take advantage of the child credits. Just as I took advantage of the mortgage interest credits when I had a mortgage. I don't have one anymore - but I recognize the tax code benefits those with debt. There are a lot of things in the tax code that I disagree with.
I agree, and you have helped confirmed my point. Is there an opportunity, or even a business opportunity, to take advantage of the tax laws? I do not understand why you might be against sending money to impoverished countries to help support children and getting a tax write-off.
A entity could be set up, similar to "feed the children" that matches people and a kid. Or it may be able to be done on an individual level. The support person would get a tax write-off, and a tax savings, larger than the amount contributed. Spend/send $1,000, get $2,000 back in taxes. Perhaps even the Government officials in the country would get some of the money to allow it, and confirm the transaction.
This type of opportunity would only likely work with kids from third world countries, as the cost of supporting them would be relatively cheap. A person, even if they were retired, could take advantage of this child deduction. Maybe even multiple deductions.
Why wouldn't others be able to take advantage of tax deductions, or credits, that may be legal and available? The same ones you are saying you take.
No one said anything about child buying. I am not really sure how adoption is not in actuality child buying anyway. People pay money, they get a kid. Not much different than a pet store or animal shelter. The parent may, or may not, get any money. A surrogate mother is also doing something similar to child buying.