home
products
MCLE courses
support
shop

 

 

Case of the Month (from CFLR Monthly)

September 2020
[Archive]

On these facts, presumption that tax returns are correct does not apply. . .

 

In reversal, Fifth District holds that trial court erred by allowing depreciation deductions taken on equipment and other assets used in self-employed husband's businesses (as listed on his income tax returns) to reduce amount of income available for child support; burden was not on wife to show that those amounts were incorrect.

 

In re Marriage of Hein

(July 21, 2020)

California Court of Appeal 5 Civil F076581, 52 Cal.App.5th 519, ___ Cal.Rptr.3d ___, 2020 FA 1946, per Franson, J, (Hill, PJ and Pena, J, concurring). Kern County: Schuett, J, reversed and remanded. For appellant: Ira Stoker, (661) 633-9480. For respondent: Claudia Ribet, CALS, CFLS, (424) 281-5566. CFLP §§E.22.7.5, E.37.0.5.

 

During Martin and Jessica Hein's marriage, Jessica earned $9,086 a month as a physical therapist working three days a week. Martin was self-employed as a farm owner and manager. He was also the president and sole shareholder of two corporations. The assets of the corporations included four ranches totaling 110 acres; he managed more than 6,000 acres of trees and vines. Martin also owned other companies and real estate. He reported wages and salaries of $7,760 a month on his income tax returns.

 

Jessica filed for divorce in May 2003 and their disso judgment was entered in November 2004. It included provisions for joint custody of their two daughters but did not order either parent to pay child support. On February 28, 2014, Jessica filed a request for modification of child custody and child support and for attorney's fees and costs. After several days of trial, the trial court issued a statement of decision that, among other things, determined that it was appropriate to deduct from Martin's gross income depreciation deductions taken by the two corporations on equipment and other assets used in his businesses, that Martin's federal tax returns were presumed correct, and that Jessica had the burden of showing that the returns were incorrect. The court also rejected her request for attorney's fees, finding that an award would not be appropriate because there was no disparity in the parties' incomes.

 

Jessica appealed, and the Fifth District reversed and remanded in a partially published opinion.

 

Depreciation delineation. . .
The justices began by noting that the income issues here involve the provisions of Fam C §4058(a)(2) and (a)(3), which list income sources of funds available for child support. Pursuant to subdivision (a)(2), these sources include income generated from the proprietorship of a business, such as gross receipts reduced by operating expenses; subdivision (a)(3) states that, at the discretion of the trial court, self-employment benefits may be included. Jessica contended that it was error for the lower court to allow depreciation deductions related to corporate expenses to affect the amount of income Martin had available for child support. In the trial court, Jessica had relied on Asfaw v. Woldberhan (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1407, 55 Cal.Rptr.3d 323, 2007 CFLR 10553, 2007 FA 1281, which held that depreciation of rental property could not be deducted from gross income for child support purposes. However, the lower court had reasoned that Asfaw applied only to rental income, whereas here, the deductions were related to equipment and vehicles, which clearly were expenditures required for the operation of a business. When the justices focused on the reasoning in Asfaw, they noted that there, the court had specifically stated that it did not consider the type of depreciation applicable to equipment. And, in In re Marriage of Rodriguez (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 625, the justices had found that the same reasoning applied to motor vehicles. Here, the panel saw no reason to depart from the treatment of depreciation assets set forth in Asfaw and Rodriguez in determining whether depreciation from equipment and other assets used in a self-employed parent's business should be deducted from income available for child support. After all, the justices pointed out, "claiming a depreciation deduction on federal tax returns does not involve an outlay of cash with a corresponding reduction of cash available for child support." Summing up, the panel held that the depreciation and section 179 expenses that Martin and his corporations claimed should not have reduced his income available for child support.

 

Who knew. . .
The panel then turned to Jessica's contention that the trial court erred by placing the burden on her to show that the income tax returns considered by the trial court were incorrect. That was so, she argued, because Martin was the one who had access to and knowledge of the information needed to determine whether or not the returns were correct. When the justices looked further, they could find nothing in the Family Law Code or Family Law rules that answered the question of who had the burden of proof. Generally speaking, they found that the Evidence Code places the burden of proof as to each fact on the party who seeks relief based on the validity of the fact. That would mean, the panel continued, that Jessica had the burden re the tax returns, unless some exception applied. Their analysis, the justices said, was influenced by the fact that Martin was self-employed and the issues involved two corporations.

 

Maybe, maybe not. . .
The justices looked to prior decisions for the principle that income tax returns are presumptively correct in child support proceedings. When they reviewed cases such as In re Marriage of Loh (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 325, 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 893, 2001 CFLR 8869, 2001 FA 1023, and County of Orange v. Smith (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 955, 117 Cal.Rptr.3d 383, 2005 CFLR 10086 2005 FA 1212, they found that neither case held that the income tax returns of a self-employed parent's wholly owned entities are presumed correct. And, in In re Marriage of Alter (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 718, 89 Cal.Rptr.3d 849, 2009 CFLR 11153, 2009 FA 1380, the court did not specifically support the presumption of correctness, but instead, found that any such presumption could be rebutted. Having found no definitive case law on the issue, the panel proceeded to review what a trial court must consider in determining which party has the burden of proof.

 

Beast of burden. . .
The panel first considered which party had greater knowledge of the particular fact in question. Here, it was Martin. Then, they looked to see to which party the evidence was more readily available. Again, that was Martin. Next, the justices reviewed the public policy underlying the issue. The policy here was advancing children's interests, along with fairness considerations. Given all that, the panel concluded that, on these facts, Martin should bear the burden of proof as to the correctness of the tax returns, since he had greater knowledge of the businesses and has control over their financial records; the presumption of correctness did not apply. Accordingly, the justices reversed the trial court's ruling and remanded for further proceedings in line with this opinion.

 

Non-pub. . .
In the unpublished parts of the opinion, the panel declined to consider Jessica's contention re the voidability of the judgment and vacated the lower court's ruling on attorney's fees.

 

 

COMMENT:

  

This case is one of those that cries out for the help of your friendly forensic. Unless you are extremely savvy regarding tax issues, better practice dictates that you do not try to handle a case like this one on your own. The corporate tangles, the money involved, and the complexity of the issues must be addressed by someone with specific expertise and knowledge. Dealing with the burden of proof issues requires extensive research, as happened here. This opinion will be a great help to attorneys who do such research in the future; it is full of information and guidance.

 

Library References
10 Witkin, Summary of Cal. Law (11th ed. 2020) Parent and Child, § 453

Hogoboom & King, Cal. Practice Guide: Family Law (The Rutter Group) ¶¶ 6:197 et seq.

 

 

Welcome to CFLR
     

 

 

 

Find out what's new from CFLR!

 

Subscribe to our free monthly e-newsletter and you will be e-mailed information on our publications, product specials and upcoming continuing legal education programs.

 

Subscribe now to our monthly e-newsletter!

 

 

New:

 

DissoMaster Suite certification has been renewed
pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 5.275,
effective through March 31, 2021.

 

 

CFLR DissoMaster Suite 2020-2

What's New in 2020-2?


Current DissoMaster subscribers:
click here to install the 2020-2 CFLR Suite update

 

To purchase DissoMaster call The Rutter Group at (800) 747-3161 ext.2

 

 

Now Enrolling!!!


2019 Basic Training: Family Law

2019 Accounting for Family Law Lawyers

 

 

 

Free DissoMaster Help
(800) 953-4357

 

Call the Reference Attorneys for assistance using DissoMaster.

Interested in group or judicial training? Click here to inquire about our options, including free in-person training for judges, court staff, and bar associations.

 

 

Advanced Family Law Course Materials

 

Family Law Refresher Course Materials

 

Click here for more MCLE attendee support.

 

 

 

First Alert™ Login — Searchable archive and the latest Citalerter™ for subscribers.

 
     
© 2020 CFLR / The  Rutter Group • A Division of Thomson Reuters • All rights reserved.
Conditions of Use | About | Contact | Shop for Thomson Reuters Legal Products
Privacy Statement | Cookie Policy |For Calif. Residents: Do not sell my info.

 

 
 

Our Privacy Statement & Cookie Policy

Our Thomson Reuters Privacy Statement has changed to make our Privacy Statement clearer and more concise.
In addition, it has been updated to address new laws in California. Please review our updated Privacy Statement at the link below.

Privacy Statement          Cookie Policy