MacLean Law sets the records for Finding Hidden UHNW Corporate Income for Support. We use life style analyses, private eyes, Mareva injunctions, Anton Pillar raids and forensic analysis of company financial statements. We expose hidden cash, overseas assets, assets held in third parties names for a spouse and more. For one of our record cases where we obtained, $100,000 a month spousal support, millions in lump sum support, 16,000 a month for a child and $1.5 million in fines for the husband’s malfeasance on his true income and asset position read here.
Our team wrote the textbook on how to expose hidden income and assets in Finding Hidden UHNW Corporate Income for Support cases.
Finding Hidden UHNW Corporate Income for Support Tel: 604 602 9000
It’s a common and frustrating scenario for many parents: you need child support from the other parent, but their income seems to be a mystery, hidden behind a complex web of corporations, business dealings, and financial maneuvers. You know they live a certain lifestyle, but their reported income just doesn’t add up. How can you ensure your child receives the support they are legally entitled to when the other parent’s true earnings are obscured by corporate structures? In this article, Jonathan Wai, Senior Associate, MacLean Law explains the legal and practical means for Finding Hidden Corporate Income for Support, and comments on a recent decision from the British Columbia Supreme Court, P.S. v. N.V.R., 2025 BCSC 1800.
The Challenge: When a Payor Hides income in a Corporation Tel: 604 602 9000
In family law, determining a parent’s income for child support purposes is sometimes straightforward. If the other parent is an employee, we look at tax returns, pay stubs, and other common documents. The amount of child support under the Federal Child Support Guidelines is determined by this income, so if a parent is a salaried employee, the determining child support is usually relatively simple.
But what happens when a parent owns and controls private companies, especially those with international connections? They might pay themselves a modest salary, while the bulk of their wealth and spending power flows through corporate accounts, shareholder loans, or through other corporations. This can make it incredibly difficult for the other parent, and even the court, to get a clear picture of their actual financial capacity to pay support. Finding Hidden UHNW Corporate Income for Support can mean looking at personal expenses run through a business, the use of cash payments that are not declared or deposited to bank accounts, correcting capital gains income upward substantially, ensuring non arm’s length parties are not receiving diverted income to reduce the real income of a paying spouse and more.
The goal of the Child Support Guidelines is to ensure children benefit from the financial means of both parents. When one parent deliberately structures their finances to minimize their apparent income, it undermines this fundamental principle. This is where the court’s ability to impute income becomes vital – essentially, the court can “impute” a higher income to that parent than they report. Or in other words, decide that a parent’s income is actually higher than what they report, based on all the evidence.
A Real-Life Example: P.S. v. N.V.R., 2025 BCSC 1800
This case involved a mother seeking child support from the father, who was the majority shareholder and controlling mind of a private company in BC. This company wasn’t just a simple local business; it had associated companies in Slovakia and China, creating a truly international and complex financial picture. In these cases Finding Hidden UHNW Corporate Income for Support is complicated and involves leaving no stone unturned.
The father also had intricate relationships with other corporations, some of which had been dissolved, and many of these dealings were not “arm’s length” – meaning they weren’t conducted as if between independent parties, but rather with entities he controlled or had a close connection to.
The Father’s Corporate Maze
The father, who had a PhD in applied physics, routinely used his shareholder loan account from the for personal spending that far exceeded his reported income.
In this case, the father was consistently taking out significant amounts for personal use, and using his shareholder loan account with the BC company. But, crucially, he claimed that this company had, back in the day, assisted a Slovakian company, owned by other parties, and that the profits of that enterprise remained with the Slovakian company, of about $5 million, which he claimed had been taxed in Slovakia. As such, he said that the repayment of this $5 million debt was not “income” for child support, but rather, a repayment of capital.
To clarify, child support is based on a payor’s income, not the payor’s assets (though the income the assets can make is relevant). In this case, the father was saying his BC company had made money previously, which was now an asset, and not income. That the profits of such money were held by the Slovakian company, and in turn, that he could draw on the same through the shareholder loan account in his BC company and thereby reduce the amount the Slovakian company owed, was just the mechanism by which he could access his capital asset. The father contended that this was not income for child support accordingly.
However, the court rejected the father’s claim that these funds were merely capital or the repayment of a legitimate debt. Why? Because (para 113):
-
The Slovakian company funds were not used to invest in the BC Company
-
The source and structure of the funds were vague;
-
The “debt” did not include any interest or a repayment schedule and did not resemble a commercial transaction;
-
Tax had not been paid on the Slovakian company funds; and
-
There were concerns over manipulation of earnings arising from Slovakian company and the appellant’s non-arm’s length relationship with the companies involved in various transactions.
And, crucially, these funds were routinely used for the father’s personal expenses and lavish lifestyle over a number of years.
Vancouver Finding Hidden UHNW Corporate Income for Support Tel: 604 602 9000
The court emphasized that under section 19(1) of the Child Support Guidelines, it has wide discretion to “impute” income. They added that identifying the source of monies as capital “does not automatically mean that income cannot be imputed” (para 119). And as well, that “the Guidelines are designed to provide flexibility for trial judges “where parties have unusual forms or patterns of income, or where they are able to manipulate their income for tax purposes in a manner that might frustrate the goals of the Guidelines” (para 122, quoting Brown v. Brown, 2014 BCCA 152).
As such, the court “imputed” income based on the father’s actual personal spending funded through these mechanisms. They further “grossed up” for tax where appropriate (meaning, calculating what income would have been needed to generate the amount spent, if receiving that amount after taxes), and also included other benefits he received, such as rental income and employment benefits like nanny expenses.
The Outcome: Justice for the Child
The court’s work in Finding Hidden Corporate Income for Support led to a significant outcome for the mother and child. The court awarded retroactive child support, going back to January 1, 2019, finding that the mother had not unreasonably delayed in seeking support.
Based on the imputed income, the father’s guideline income was set at $1,028,640 per year prospectively. This resulted in a monthly child support payment of $7,281, Furthermore, the court calculated arrears (unpaid past support) totaling $404,457.
Key Takeaways for Parents Seeking Support
This case offers crucial lessons for anyone dealing with a situation where the other parent’s income is hidden behind corporate structures:
- Look beyond the corporate financial statements: Don’t be discouraged by complex corporate setups. With proper advocacy, courts can examine the true financial reality, not just what’s on paper.
- Disclosure is key: Non-arm’s length transactions, a lack of clear financial records, and evidence of manipulation or control over corporate entities are red flags that will lead courts to impute income based on actual spending or access to resources. Good advocacy will seek the right documents and expose any façade that hides income.
- The “lifestyle” test. If you suspect the other parent is hiding income, keep detailed records of their lifestyle, spending habits, and any discrepancies between their reported income and their apparent wealth. This evidence can be crucial for the court to impute income, even if corporate records are unclear.
MacLean Law: Your Partner in Finding Hidden UHNW Corporate Income for Support Tel: 604 602 9000
The P.S. v. N.V.R. case is a powerful reminder that while some parents may try to hide their true income through elaborate corporate structures, the courts have the tools and the will to uncover the truth. Finding Hidden UHNW Corporate Income for Support is a specialized area of family law that requires a deep understanding of both legal principles and financial analysis.
At MacLean Law, we have ample experience at Finding Hidden UHNW Corporate Income for Support to make sure that child support or spousal support is awarded at the proper amount. Our team is skilled at navigating complex financial disclosures, working with forensic accountants, and presenting compelling arguments to the court to ensure that children and spouses receive the support they are legally entitled to, regardless of how cleverly income may be concealed. If you are facing a similar situation, don’t hesitate to seek professional legal guidance with our team.
