 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mead v. Holzman8/29/2000
Retirement Fund Manager Adm'r, 160 Ariz. 150, 157, 771 P.2d 880, 887 (App. 1989) ("Where the legislature has specifically used a term in certain places within a statute and excluded it in another place, courts will not read that term into the section from which it was excluded.") (citation omitted); see also State Compensation Fund v. Superior Court, 190 Ariz. 371, 375, 948 P.2d 499, 503 (App. 1997) ("The provision of one exemption in a statute implicitly denies the existence of other unstated exemptions.") (citation omitted).
Additionally, we agree with Holzmann that adopting Mead's interpretation of section 4(a) would unduly complicate calculation of gross income, thereby potentially frustrating the trial court's ability to consistently and efficiently establish child support obligations. See Guidelines, § 1(b) (one purpose of Guidelines is " o make child support orders consistent for persons in similar circumstances"); see also Boutz v. Donaldson, 991 P.2d 517, 526 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) ("one of the driving forces behind the child support guidelines is efficiency and ease of administration"). If section 4(a) is interpreted as requiring the imputation of a pre- tax income to Holzmann, the court should similarly consider the differing tax treatment afforded to capital gains, personal injury awards, interest generated from tax-free municipal bonds, unemployment and workers' compensation benefits, and a host of other income sources. As a New Mexico court stated, when addressing a similar issue, " e should avoid 'introducing such complexity into the process' without a clear indication of legislative intent." Boutz, 991 P.2d at 526 (citation omitted); accord In re Marriage of Fain, 794 P.2d 1086, 1088 (Colo. Ct. App. 1990) ("Selection of gross income as the starting point for a determination of child support greatly simplifies application of the guideline in most cases. It substantially reduces the need for computations and the potential for error, by court personnel, attorneys, and parties and can be applied with limited information.").
Based on the foregoing, we hold that section 4(a) of the Guidelines does not require or allow the trial court to impute a pre-tax income to a party who receives non-taxable disability benefits when calculating that party's gross income. Accordingly, the trial court did not err by declining to impute to Holzmann a pre-tax income when determining Holzmann's gross income under section 4(a) of the Guidelines.
B. Deviation under section 17 of the Guidelines
We are mindful that a failure to account for a parent's untaxed income may effect an unfair result for both the children and the fully-taxed parent. Rather than imputing a pre-tax income in the calculation of gross income under section 4(a), however, we agree with Holzmann that the trial court must make any necessary adjustments under section 17 of the Guidelines. See Guidelines, § 3 (" f application of the uidelines would be inappropriate or unjust in a particular case, the court shall deviate from the guidelines in accordance with Section 17.").
Section 17 directs the trial court as follows:
a. The court shall deviate from the guidelines, i.e., order support in an amount different from that which is provided pursuant to these guidelines, after considering all relevant factors, including those set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes section 25-320, and applicable case law, only if all of the following criteria are met:
1. Application of the guidelines is inappropriate or unjust in the particular case,
2. The court has considered the best interests of the child in determining the amount of a deviation. A deviation that reduces
Page 1 2 3 4 Arizona Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|