AP's can take adoption tax credit for re-adoption expenses...?

I think people are confused about what "readoption" means. It has nothing to do with adoption disruption or multiple families taking credit for the same child.

In some cases of international adoption, the US government recognizes the adoption as 'full and final' in the other country. These children receive IR-3 visas and become citizens as soon as they enter the USA. Readoption is not required in these cases. (This was the case with our Russian adoptions.)

In other cases, although the child is legally adopted according to the laws in the original country, the adoption does not meet the criteria to be recognized by the USA. These children are granted IR-4 visas and are required to be "re-adopted" in the USA after the remaining criteria have been met. (For instance, the USA requires that both parents meet the child in person before the adoption is final. For children who are "escorted" to the US, or countries that require only one parent to travel to the country, both parents might not meet the child before the adoption was finalized in the original country. If both parents haven't met the child, the child must be readopted here.)

For adoptions of children who come in on IR-4 visas, the readoption is a *requirement* of making the adoption legal and gaining the child US citizenship.

I know the tax credit is controversial and I won't give an opinion on whether international adoptions *should* qualify for it. Right now they *do* qualify for it... so the "readoption" part isn't a red flag to me because it is part of the expense of making the adoption legal and final in the USA.

I am little confused by many of the responses saying that the tax credit was intended for and should only be available to those adopting from the foster system. The tax credit can only be used to reimburse the adoptive parents for money they spent out of pocket for eligible adoption expenses related to the adoption process itself. (basically you can only be reimbursed for money you actually spent on fees) Since adopting from foster-care requires adoptive parents to pay little or no adoption fees (usually a couple hundred dollars if any), then how would these families really benefit from the tax credits, and why would they go up to $11,000 in reimbursements if this was their only intended purpose? Also, adoptive parents do not recieve any of credit back until they file taxes for the year when the adoption was finalized. We didn't recieve any of the tax credit money back until over a year after our oldest son arrived home. Families who do not have the money to cover the portion of the fees covered by the tax credit will still have to get a loan, borrow money from family, etc, until the get the money back often 1- 5 yrs later (depending on how much they owe. in taxes) I also don''t understand how a family could "donate the ten K to a mother, who is otherwise fit, to raise her child? Instead of adopting him/her?" -If the family didn't adopt the child then there would be no fees to reimburse, and they wouldn't be eligible for the tax credit, so how would they give that money to the mother? Also, in our case poverty was not the reason our children's birthmothers placed them for adoption, social stigmas in a very conservative culture were unfortunately a big part of the reason, which money can not change. Even if it were the issue and we were able to get the money to give to them, since their first mothers live in Seoul, the 3rd most expensive city in the world, I doubt that $10,000 would do much to support a single mother and child, especially since no other social welfare programs would be offered to help them after the money was gone (probably about 6 months later)

"Does that mean if the adoption is 'disrupted', they can deduct the cost of dumping the kid?"

No. If an adoption is disrupted and handled by a place like A Child Is Waiting, that's a private adoption that the new adoptive parents will get to take a tax deduction on. Actually, I think that's one case where the adoption tax credit is useful and justified. If you adopt through fostercare, no way do you have 12k of expenses to write off. Usually the tax credit goes to IA parents and parents who do private adoption of infants.

As others have said, the term "Readoption" refers to additional paperwork that some IA parents have to do in their home state after adopting. This is why it applies to IA parents only. They've adopted once overseas, and they readopt when they get home. In my state it was the only way to get a state issued birth certificate for my children, and to get the papers they need to prove citizenship. It cost very little, I didn't use an attorney for it or anything as it was just filling out a couple of forms and going to a court date a month later.

I'm a little confused, do you mean that the original adoptive parents can use the tax credit to re-emburse expenses related to finding their internationally adopted child a new home, or that the new family adopting the child from a disruption can use the tax credit to cover adoption-related expenses just like any other adoptive parents.

If it's the first one, then of course the disrupting adoptive parents should not get to use the tax credit again. However, if it's the latter then I don't really see the problem. This would be like any other private adoption, one family is adopting a child from another. In these situations, if the child is not adopted, they will end up in the fostercare system, with little chance of ever being adopted again.

It's hard enough to find homes for older children who've already had one disrupted adoption, why make it harder by making it more expensive for potential adoptive parents? If a child had already been adopted domestically (through fostercare or private adoption) and the adoption was disrupted, would their still be a problem with the new adoptive parents in this case using the tax credit, or only if they were adopted internationally.

I understand that some people disagree w/ the tax credit in general and when applied to IA, but in this case, not allowing it would only punish the children by making it harder for them to find a new adoptive family.

What Kim said is right. When you adopt internationally and bring the child in on an IR4 visa, some states require you to "re-adopt" in the state before they consider the adoption full and final. Parents would have to do this because they can't get proof of citizenship for their children unless the state considers the adoption final. Whenever I've seen the term 'readoption' that's what it refers to.

In my state, I only had to validate the adoption. That was a five minute stop in probate court and cost $100. I suppose I could've claimed that as part of the tax credit, but I didnt' bother.

By "re-adoption" do you mean a case where a child adopted overseas comes to the US to be adopted by someone else again (after the original adoptive parents give up)

or

do you mean situations where a child is adopted overseas in accordence with that countries laws only to be brought back to the US where, owing to US laws, they must be adopted again under US jurisdiction?

I know about 20 years ago there were a number of countries where, if someone adopted a child from them and brought it to Canada, they must be readopted again in Canada in order to make the adoption legal under Canadian law. Some adoptions from India were that way. If you were Muslim or Hindu it was possible for you to go to India and conduct a fully legal "religious adoption" and bring the child back to Canada where you would still need to do a civil adoption to make it legal under Canadian law.

If that was the case in your example then I could see where, by having to do the adoption again or "re-adopt" there would be additional expenses which would result in the qualification for additional tax credits (not, as someone else here already said, a tax rebate).

Yes, adoptive parents can claim the re-adoption expenses on their taxes.

I think that ours ended up being something to the tune of six hundred dollars. It's NOT another $15 K or whatever. The re-adoption process fees are a drop in the proverbial bucket.

BTW, re-adoption is REQUIRED in most states and is also necessary for the international adoptee to become a US citizen.

My question is, if the tax credit was designed only for children being adopted from foster care and if foster care adoption expenses are covered by the state, why did there need to be a tax credit?

Another instance where an anti-IA person does not have the facts straight. Re-adoption does not mean re-homing, which is a disruption. Re-adoption means that when your child comes into the U.S. on an IR-4 visa (as my daughter did, because I travelled to China without my husband) it is necessary in most states to "re-adopt" or go through a legal process in your state to obtain the child's official U.S. birth certificate, passport, and certificate of citizenship. This can cost anywhere from $1500 to even $4000 in court costs. So yes, that is part of the tax credit, and rightfully so. Once again, you are attempting to villianize IA without the correct information. Wow, it's getting old.

It is a non-refundable credit, meaning, it only reduces your tax liability. so for many couples, full tax credit will never be realized.

Don't confuse tax deduction with tax credit. these are two seperate items.

I was able to reduce last years tax liability from 400 to 0.

Well I didn't know this! I read it as we are paying for rich people to fly across the world in order to get a baby instead of them having the responsibility and expense of adopting a child who really needs and wants a home living in the US foster system.