Maintenance paid for a child

A separated parent paying 400 € a month for their child deducts 4 800 € from income, or nothing at all. Between the two lies a box ticked somewhere: the one for attaching the child, or the one for shared residence, and either closes the door on the deduction.

One principle: two advantages never combine

The rule governing the whole subject fits in one sentence: the same child never opens two advantages at once. Either the child counts towards the family quotient, or the maintenance paid for them is deducted from income, never both.

That exclusivity explains the great majority of reassessments in this area. A parent who counts their child as a dependant and also deducts maintenance for that very same child is applying one advantage twice over, and the tax authority sees it through simple cross-checking.

That foundation has a practical consequence often overlooked. A sum paid out of generosity, beyond what needs justify, is no longer maintenance: it becomes a gift, and the tax regime for gifts takes over.

The line is not always sharp, and it is the amount set against real needs that draws it. Regular, measured and documented support remains maintenance; an exceptional and large payment reads far more readily as a gift.

A minor child, with or without a court order

For a minor child, the deduction presupposes that you do not have their principal care. A child is deemed to be in the principal care of the parent with whom they habitually live, and that parent counts the increase in shares.

Where a judge has fixed the maintenance, it is that amount which is deducted, uprated if applicable. Expenses paid directly in addition are added to it: school meals, school fees, the child's medical expenses.

• The maintenance fixed by the judge, uprated where applicable
• Expenses paid directly in addition to that maintenance
• Without a court order, the sum matching the maintenance obligation
• Never the costs incurred in exercising rights of contact

Without a court order the deduction remains possible, but the sum must match the child's needs and your means. That is the only limit, and it carries no figure: it is assessed against the situation of both parents.

Travel costs incurred to exercise rights of contact are never deductible, whatever the distance. They belong to the exercise of parental authority rather than to the upkeep of the child, and that distinction holds consistently.

Maintenance you uprate yourself, without a fresh court order, stays deductible for the amount actually paid. Indexation provided for in the original decision then applies of itself, and it is prudent to keep the calculation in writing.

Shared residence closes the door

Where a child lives alternately with both parents after a separation, no maintenance is deductible. The reason is consistent with the non-combination principle: each parent already benefits from an increase in their number of shares for that child.

Splitting the increase therefore replaces the deduction, and no option exists between the two. A parent who would rather deduct maintenance than split the increase cannot choose: the facts of the situation dictate the regime.

The symmetry holds on the recipient's side too. What one deducts, the other declares: maintenance received for the upkeep of a minor child enters the income of the parent who collects it, and that reciprocity is checked by cross-referencing.

That reciprocity has a concrete effect on withholding. The parent who collects sees their rate rise, the one who pays sees theirs fall, with a one-year lag that takes people by surprise the first time round.

Supporting documents are kept rather than filed with the return. Bank statements, the court order, invoices settled on behalf of the child: nothing is sent in spontaneously, but everything may be called for during the authority's period of reassessment.