It was not error for trial court to refuse to value office equipment by taking into account generation of income tax deductions for depreciation.
A trial court may deduct a self-employed individual’s depreciation expense in calculating his or her net available income for the purpose of determining spousal or child support.
Inclusion of depreciation upon real estate to determine ability to pay is discretionary. It was payee’s (wife’s) burden to prove tax deduction was only a paper transaction. Here, there was no abuse of discretion in excluding the deduction.
Court can consider depreciation costs as business expense as part of the overall economic circumstances in determining income for child support.
Court did not abuse its discretion by not adding back depreciation to rental properties to determine income available for child support.
Court did not misuse discretion by refiguring payor’s income by using MACRS depreciation tables.