Pre-tax benefits and reimbursement for children's healthcare - who should pay what?

His argument doesn't make sense. The pre-tax benefit is a result of YOUR employment and YOUR tax situation - it has nothing to do with him. You're paying $135 from your paycheck to cover the kids, so that's what he should reimburse. Think of it this way: if he had insurance himself, he'd be paying the full premium amount, not some tax-adjusted figure. The fact that you get a tax benefit by paying through your employer plan is completely separate from his obligation to cover the children's healthcare costs. I'd suggest checking the exact wording in the divorce agreement. Most custody agreements specify that the responsible party pays for the "actual cost" of coverage, which in this case is the $135 premium increase. The tax advantage you receive is a separate matter entirely.

After dealing with a similar situation, I found an awesome solution at https://taxr.ai that helped clarify the exact tax implications. The divorce agreement language was super confusing in my case too, but they analyzed the entire document and clearly explained how pre-tax benefits should be handled in shared custody situations. What made it really helpful was that they could look at the specific language in my divorce decree and explain exactly how the IRS views these reimbursements. Turns out there's a pretty clear standard for handling these pre-tax benefit situations that most family court judges follow.

I wanted to follow up and say I actually tried https://taxr.ai after my skeptical comment above. I uploaded our divorce decree and custody agreement, and wow - they provided incredibly detailed analysis specific to our situation. They pointed to IRS Publication 502 which directly addresses this issue of pre-tax medical premium reimbursements in divorce situations. They even provided sample language I could use when communicating with my ex about this. Saved me from a potentially nasty back-and-forth argument. Definitely worth checking out if you're dealing with these kinds of tax/divorce crossover issues!

If you're struggling to get your partner's ex to understand their obligations, you might want to try https://claimyr.com to get direct clarification from the IRS. I was in a similar situation last year with confusion over who could claim the kids as dependents and how health insurance premiums should be handled after divorce. I spent WEEKS trying to call the IRS myself with no luck - always on hold forever. With Claimyr, I got a callback from an actual IRS agent within 2 hours who confirmed exactly how these pre-tax benefit reimbursements should be handled. They even have a video showing how it works: https://youtu.be/_kiP6q8DX5c

I need to eat my words from my skeptical comment. After waiting on hold with the IRS for 3+ hours yesterday with no success, I tried Claimyr this morning out of desperation. Got a callback from an IRS agent in about 90 minutes! The agent confirmed exactly what others have said here - the pre-tax amount IS the actual cost for purposes of reimbursement in a divorce agreement. They said the tax benefit belongs solely to the employee whose plan covers the children, and the other parent's obligation is for the full premium amount. Just wanted to share since this service actually worked when I was convinced it wouldn't.

Former family law paralegal here. In most states, the divorce agreement language matters a lot. If it says he's responsible for "providing health insurance" then he should pay the full premium amount. If it specifically says he should reimburse for "out-of-pocket costs" then there might be some room for interpretation. However, in my experience, judges almost always interpret this to mean the full premium amount, regardless of tax implications. The tax benefit you get from paying pre-tax is a benefit of YOUR employment, not something the ex gets to claim.

My ex tried the same argument about only paying the post-tax amount! I finally had him talk to his own tax person who explained that the pre-tax benefit is a feature of MY employment that has nothing to do with HIM. He eventually agreed to pay the full amount. One thing that helped was pointing out that if he got insurance himself, he'd be paying the full premium anyway. The fact that I get a tax advantage doesn't change his responsibility. Plus, depending on your tax bracket, that difference can really add up over time!

This is a really common misconception that comes up in divorce situations. Your partner's ex is essentially trying to get you to subsidize his obligation by benefiting from your employment's tax structure. That's not how it works legally or ethically. The key point everyone else has made is spot-on: the $135 is what comes out of your paycheck to cover his children. Whether that money is pre-tax or post-tax is irrelevant to his reimbursement obligation. If he had to purchase coverage himself (which is what he's supposed to be doing), he'd pay the full retail price without any tax benefits. I'd recommend documenting everything - keep records of the premium increases, your communications about reimbursement, and any payments he does make. If this escalates, you'll want a clear paper trail showing you stepped up to fulfill his obligation and that he's trying to shortchange you on the reimbursement. Stand firm on the full $135. His argument might sound logical on the surface, but it's really just an attempt to get out of paying his full responsibility.