We're getting a $54,000 tax refund!

[Deleted]

No not my wife and I, the people in this story. May God bless them and their home/family because alot of kids need a good place to call home, have a support system, etc.

But I just hope (pray to GOD actually) that some scum bags doesn't read the story and run out and adopt children because of this. : money.cnn.com/2011/04/01/pf/taxes/adoption_tax_refund/index.htm

SMITHFIELD, N.C. (CNNMoney) -- The Wards couldn't believe the news when their tax preparer called to tell them they're getting a $54,000 refund this year.

Thelma Ward was speechless. She had to hand the phone to her husband so she could dance around the living room floor in shock.

"I was thanking God like never before," she said. "We're just overwhelmed -- that amount was so huge it was unbelievable."

Even their tax preparer said she had to check the math -- 10 to 15 times.

"We couldn't believe it when we totaled everything up. We were like, that can't be right," said Dee Carter, owner of the local H&R Block where the Wards have brought their taxes for more than 10 years. "We had never seen anything like it before, so we had to check it over and over again."

So what's bringing this windfall? The federal adoption tax credit.

In the past few years, the Wards have expanded their already big clan of seven children by adopting five new kids. For each of these adopted children, they are eligible for a one-time tax credit of up to $13,170.

The credit has been around since 1997, but this tax season it is refundable for the first time -- which is the tax equivalent of hitting the jackpot.

A refundable tax credit lets you get the cash even if you owe no taxes. A non-refundable credit just offsets any taxes you owe, and then rolls anything remaining to the next tax year.

The Wards adopted the five children over a span of three years, so they've filed for the tax credit each year. But because they didn't make enough money, the tax credit simply rolled over from year to year and accumulated.

This year, because the credit became refundable, they are getting all the previous years' leftovers in a lump sum. (The couple had an earlier adoption, in 2004, but unused credits can only be carried for up to five years.)

While the Wards haven't received the refund check yet, H&R Block calculated that the unused adoption credits from the past five years add up to $45,560 -- making up the majority of the $54,000 refund they're expecting.

"When this was first coming through the tax reform legislation, we just kept looking at it going, 'Wow, this is really, really significant for people adopting,'" said Kathy Pickering, executive director of The Tax Institute at H&R Block. "It's not a large population who can claim it, but for those who do, it can really change their lives."

A typical private adoption runs about $30,000, so the credit was intended to help families by reimbursing expenses, such as court fees. But the tax law allows parents who adopt "special needs" children to receive the entire credit even if they had no expenses.

All of the Wards' foster children qualified as special needs, so Thelma was able to claim the full credit even though there were no adoption expenses. This is not unusual for foster children; about 80% of these kids are considered to have "special needs."

"People adopting from the foster-care community are typically lower and moderate income, and most don't have a significant tax liability, so the credit never helped them," said Mary Boo, assistant director of the North American Council on Adoptable Children. "The expenses they have are life-long, so the government really stepped up this year to help these people."

It's significant to the Wards, who only make about $39,000 per year.

"We didn't get into foster care to adopt anyone, but when we started being foster parents we couldn't let a child leave us without a place to call home," said Thelma.

She had to quit her job at a daycare to take care of her new children. And her husband, David, who works at a concrete company, had to take a significant pay cut last year to keep his job. The one saving grace: As foster parents, they receive about $3,300 a month from the state of North Carolina until the children turn 18.

"Any little bit helps, but it still doesn't cover it," said Thelma, who has had to learn to stay on a tight budget to afford giving her children the care they need.

Kelli, only three years old, has a serious heart condition and has required medical attention since she was born. She is scheduled for a major heart surgery this month.

Octavius has a heart murmur and is in and out of the doctor's office constantly. And all of them -- including Joquavius, Zoie and Mckayla -- require either speech therapy, psychiatry or special classes for learning disabilities.

This attention really adds up, both emotionally and financially. So to save money, Thelma focuses on the little things, like using coupons everywhere she can, selling her children's clothes at consignment stores, buying everything used and holding yard sales.

While the kids are at school, Thelma goes to three grocery stores to do her weekly shopping. But the family's weekly grocery bill still totals around $400, including the more than three gallons of milk and four loaves of bread the children go through. It usually takes five or six trips to the car to get all the groceries unloaded.

The Wards hope to use their windfall refund to take their big family on a vacation, pay bills, and buy new windows for their home -- which needs a little repair after housing so many foster children over the past years.

"We'll have to see what we can afford," said Thelma. "Money comes and money goes, so we want to make sure we spend it all wisely."

Many more families are also finding themselves in the enviable place of planning what to do with such a windfall. Tax preparer H&R Block said 8,000 of its own clients have already claimed the credit, and the company expects 150,000 total taxpayers to claim it this year.
That's a 50% jump from the 2009 tax year -- but not because adoptions have increased that much. Instead, many people who had no tax liability in previous years, and thus wouldn't have been helped by the credit, are now filing. And some of the refunds it has seen range as high as $90,000.

A couple from Alabama, Tina and Kenny Thomas, recently adopted five kids from foster care and are now expecting a check for a whopping $65,000, thanks to this credit. Like the Wards, they had absolutely no idea it existed until they went to their tax preparer.

"We went in having no clue about the credit, and we even thought we may have to pay money," said Tina Thomas. "We never, never would have expected it."

But before you run out to adopt a child in order to cash in on this credit, know that the IRS is a stickler for documentation and isn't doling out refunds like this to just anyone.

"If you're claiming the credit because of the nature of the credit and the size of the refund, there are many documentation requirements that Congress included along with it," said Eric Smith, a spokesman for the IRS. "It is a generous credit for those who qualify -- that's why policymakers want to make sure the people who deserve it get it, and those who don't, don't."

[8 Bit WWBG]

I have yet to meet the kid that costs less than the tax credit it provides...

[Deleted]

Apr 1, 2011 9:14:20 GMT -5 8 Bit WWBG said:

I have yet to meet the kid that costs less than the tax credit it provides...

You know that, I know that... alot of people don't think it thru, they see the big pay day at the end.

I have heard many times from some friends and family members about how we are missing out on credits if we had kids, and I always have to tell them:
a) we make to much to get EIC
b) Even if we did, the child will costs us way more than what we will get in EIC.

But for some people, it is just the way they are wired.

[ontrack]

I'm happy for them, but it's a little unfair. My parents adopted my brother in 1981, and back then there wasn't an adoption tax credit at all, let alone it being refundable.

[dividend]

I don't understand why the taxpayers are subsidizing people's personal choices, especially, in this case, financially poor choices. Adopting 5 special needs children on $39k a year? And they're going to use it to take their family on a vacation? GAH! I'm sure they're wonderful, caring people, and I'm not knocking their intentions or their hearts, but I wonder what their large, low income family has cost the taxpayers so far. $3,300/month until the children are 18 (so figure about $600k), plus the extensive medical costs for all these special needs children, and now a $54k check? Entitlement welfare b.s. like this makes me so mad, as a single, childless woman. I don't intend to have kids, adopted or otherwise, until I can afford them. Looks like I'm the sucker, huh?

[hcj]

$54,000 is a small price for us to pay them compared to the cost of foster care for 5 kids. They deserve it as it will certainly cost them more than that to raise those kids even if not a single one of them steps foot in college.

[dividend]

Why do they deserve it? Why are these children deserving of taxpayer dollars? If I have a baby, the government doesn't give me $13k for it. In fact, I probably pay some pretty high medical bills for it even with good insurance. So why should my tax dollars subsidize these parents choices?

[973beachbum]

Apr 1, 2011 11:51:23 GMT -5 dividend said:

I don't understand why the taxpayers are subsidizing people's personal choices, especially, in this case, financially poor choices. Adopting 5 special needs children on $39k a year? And they're going to use it to take their family on a vacation? GAH! I'm sure they're wonderful, caring people, and I'm not knocking their intentions or their hearts, but I wonder what their large, low income family has cost the taxpayers so far. $3,300/month until the children are 18 (so figure about $600k), plus the extensive medical costs for all these special needs children, and now a $54k check? Entitlement welfare b.s. like this makes me so mad, as a single, childless woman. I don't intend to have kids, adopted or otherwise, until I can afford them. Looks like I'm the sucker, huh?

As apposed to what? Should the state just take the kids outside and shoot them?

It is not like they got pregnant with the intention of having a child with medical problems so they could get this. These children are already here and need a home. I am sure if someone checked they would find out that this is way less than what the state would have paid in expenses for these kids if they hadn't been adopted!

And that isn't even including how much better their life is now as apposed to a life in whatever instution they would have been in otherwise.

ETA in the article it says that the $3300 a month is from the state for the foster kids not part of the tax refund.

[pig]

If you've ever looked into adoption, it isn't easy and it isn't cheap. They probably paid out way more than they got with those kids.

"So why should my tax dollars subsidize these parents choices?"

Because people smarter and more caring than you make the rules. Those kids did nothing wrong through any fault or choices of their own and are in need of parents. They are American. America should help support them.

[973beachbum]

Apr 1, 2011 12:02:27 GMT -5 dividend said:

Why do they deserve it? Why are these children deserving of taxpayer dollars? If I have a baby, the government doesn't give me $13k for it. In fact, I probably pay some pretty high medical bills for it even with good insurance. So why should my tax dollars subsidize these parents choices?

But these kids arn't yours or my kids they are wards of the state and as a ward of the state it is the state"s job to support them.

If you want a villian go find the parents who dumped their poor children in the state's lap because they are special needs.

[dividend]

Americans should support them. Voluntarily, and with their own money and efforts. The same way that I voluntarily put my money and effort into doing good things that I believe in. Is it not possible to pay for adoption privately? I'm not against adoption by any stretch, I'm just against being compelled to subsidize it as part of a huge broken taxation structure. And that doesn't make me ignorant or uncaring.

[pig]

"but I wonder what their large, low income family has cost the taxpayers so far. $3,300/month until the children are 18 (so figure about $600k)"

Wow you really don't understand how the system works do you? There are no more orphanages anymore you know? Those kids would be in foster care and the foster parents would be getting that payment. It's paid no matter what. And you're going to knock some family for adopting and accepting legal responsibility for them? Disgusting.

[Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ]

Just tossing this one out. Why is adoption so expensive? Perhaps if it where not expensive, this sort of federal credit would be unnecessary.

[973beachbum]

Apr 1, 2011 12:16:46 GMT -5 dividend said:

Americans should support them. Voluntarily, and with their own money and efforts. The same way that I voluntarily put my money and effort into doing good things that I believe in. Is it not possible to pay for adoption privately? I'm not against adoption by any stretch, I'm just against being compelled to subsidize it as part of a huge broken taxation structure. And that doesn't make me ignorant or uncaring.

The tax code doesn't support them this way for most adoptions. But these were considered "special needs" adoptions. The state goes to these lengths because the people who normally are willing to adopt these kids don't have the means to do so otherwise. If no one adopted the children would be left to a life in an institution and the taxpayer would be footing the bill. This way the child gets adopted into a loving home and taken care of both medically and physically.

And the taxpayers get a smaller bill in the long run.

[973beachbum]

Doc the $3300 a month isn't for the adoption credit on their tax return. They did adopt and get a $54000 refund with the credit but that isn't it.

On top of adoption the 5 special needs kids they are also foster parents to other kids. The $3300 a month is the state of NC payment for the foster kids care.

[hcj]

Apr 1, 2011 12:02:27 GMT -5 dividend said:

Why do they deserve it? Why are these children deserving of taxpayer dollars? If I have a baby, the government doesn't give me $13k for it. In fact, I probably pay some pretty high medical bills for it even with good insurance. So why should my tax dollars subsidize these parents choices?

Irresponsible people have kids, abuse them, abuse drugs, etc... Are you really that cold that you think the government shouldn't take these kids out of these homes and place them in care? If I hear one more time how there are 6,000 churches here and if each one had one member adopt a child in the foster system, the problem would be solved without the government. The fact of the matter is that the churches are NOT adopting these kids, so what is the alternative, throw them on the street? Geez, have a heart.

[Deleted]

Apr 1, 2011 12:23:32 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

Apr 1, 2011 12:16:46 GMT -5 dividend said:

Americans should support them. Voluntarily, and with their own money and efforts. The same way that I voluntarily put my money and effort into doing good things that I believe in. Is it not possible to pay for adoption privately? I'm not against adoption by any stretch, I'm just against being compelled to subsidize it as part of a huge broken taxation structure. And that doesn't make me ignorant or uncaring.

The tax code doesn't support them this way for most adoptions. But these were considered "special needs" adoptions. The state goes to these lengths because the people who normally are willing to adopt these kids don't have the means to do so otherwise. If no one adopted the children would be left to a life in an institution and the taxpayer would be footing the bill. This way the child gets adopted into a loving home and taken care of both medically and physically.

And the taxpayers get a smaller bill in the long run.

Basically you give them a lump sum credit of 13K now instead of 130K for let's say the next 10 years if the state have to cover it.

Dividend, why are so against it? They are adopting kids in need of a loving home and family.

I am only afraid that the news broadcasting this will give other not so nice scums ideas on adopting kids just to profit from it.

[hcj]

Apr 1, 2011 12:21:21 GMT -5 Savoir Faire-Demogague in NJ said:

Just tossing this one out. Why is adoption so expensive? Perhaps if it where not expensive, this sort of federal credit would be unnecessary.

Adopting a perfect blue eyed blond haired baby with great genes is expensive. The process of adopting a foster child is not.

[973beachbum]

Basically you give them a lump sum credit of 13K now instead of 130K for let's say the next 10 years if the state have to cover it.

But do you honestly think that is all the state would have had to pay over the ten years? These kids have serious and very expensive health problems. I think the tab could be much more than that

Also if you are a foster child normally the state will pay for the childs college tuition when the graduate HS. I guess in this case since the state is the child's gaurdian it is their responsibility to pay for it. At least that is the way they do it in NJ.

[pig]

"I am only afraid that the news broadcasting this will give other not so nice scums ideas on adopting kids just to profit from it. "

Caw, I don't think anyone adopts with abuse in mind. I have heard of foster parents doing this a lot, however. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone to take legal responsibility for a child until he's 18 for a one time tax refund. You do see people fostering 8 kids, locking them in a basement and collecting 8,000 a month until they are ready to them back into the system.

[Deleted]

1. why would you take in more kids if you can't afford it?
2. see #1.

[973beachbum]

Apr 1, 2011 12:40:03 GMT -5 @moneyjenny82 said:

1. why would you take in more kids if you can't afford it?
2. see #1.

MJ they agreed to take the children in a foster children.

Later the state dangled the insentives to help them adopt the children. Again it is in everyone's best interest to have them adopted by a loving family rather than languish in state care.

And cheaper too if that helps anyone feel better.

[thyme4change]

I bet they are "affording" these kids in an okay manner. They are probably scraping by, cutting corners, living tight, and helping kids who might go into a worse situation. The fact that they are going to use the money to "go on vacation and pay some bills" indicate to me that they have some debt - maybe a few credit cards, or maybe something lame like Rent-to-own furniture, or some other type of consumer debt. If they had said "We are going to use the money to get the house out of foreclosure and buy back our repo'd car" then I would assume they weren't really able to afford these children. But, getting the money and planning a family trip indicates that things are tight - but not overwhelming.

God bless these people. Taking in foster kids is a huge, huge thing. This isn't like birthing your own baby and raising them from birth. This wouldn't even be like taking in your sister's kids if there was a devastating accident. These kids have problems on top of problems. (80% are special needs!) They take a lot of time and energy, and if this family can take this tax credit and create 12 decent citizens - it was worth it. Those 5 kids they took on recently could easily cost society millions over a lifetime. Law enforcement, public prosecution and defense, court time, rehab and jail facilities, probation. Even if they all grow up and become part of the 50% that pay zero taxes - but mostly stay off welfare programs, it was worth the money.

[Plain Old Petunia]

It's not a giveaway, it is a reimbursement for expenses you paid. In other words, you aren't going to come out ahead. You spend 13k to adopt, you get it back and now you have a kid to support. You spend less, then you get less, and still have a kid to support. That's not incentive to run out and adopt a kid you don't want.

www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=236174,00.html

[Deleted]

Even if they all grow up and become part of the 50% that pay zero taxes - but mostly stay off welfare programs, it was worth the money.

and if they do end up on welfare, was it not worth the money?

I understand the importance of finding foster homes for kids, but I've heard of abuses too.

[973beachbum]

I understand the importance of finding foster homes for kids, but I've heard of abuses too.

I think everyone agrees that we shouldn't have 8 special needs kids in one foster home, but since there aren't 8 separate foster homes willing to take a child each what is the alternative?

[Phoenix84]

I do find this a little irritating, but their hearts are in the right place. I just hope those kids grow up to be productive members of society.

I don't blame the foster parents, they're just cleaning up the mess of the real parents. The ones who had kids they didn't want. Parents breeding who aren't really cut out to be parents are the ones really at fault here.

[thyme4change]

You know what might help - outlawing cold medicine.

[cronewitch]

Apr 1, 2011 12:02:27 GMT -5 dividend said:

Why do they deserve it? Why are these children deserving of taxpayer dollars? If I have a baby, the government doesn't give me $13k for it. In fact, I probably pay some pretty high medical bills for it even with good insurance. So why should my tax dollars subsidize these parents choices?

My niece is a housewife to a man who cooks in a prison. They took in 3 foster kids to add to the two born to them. So now they have their two aged 15 and 11 and two babies and a girl around 8. They are adopting the girl and one baby.

The husband is working at a prison that is closing don't know what he will do now. They both love kids and the kids are adorable but perhaps special you can't always tell. The girl probably has emotional problems since she is older and has been taken from her family. She is very huggy and loves everyone so probably has a higher need to be loved.

The family is very much into telling kids they are loved so it will be great for her. They will find a way to afford to keep them. They are living in a big house they own and don't spend a lot on luxuries.

The adoptions will be final in about 4 weeks but the two fosters are very much a part of the family for at least a year. Should the be turned down if they don't have jobs and the kids told you can't be adopted so back to a new foster home?

[Plain Old Petunia]

Everyone here qualifies for the same thing. How much have you spent to adopt children? You can have it all back! There, now you are getting just as much free money as the family in the story. Cha-ching!