mclean county it's pretty clear that for purposes of calculating child support i don't think there's any question that you're allowed to deduct expenditures for the repayment of debts that represent reasonable necessary expenses for the production of income i think that's uncontroversial in this particular case what's interesting is especially in comparison a lot of the cases that were presented by the other parties in this is there was no dispute that these expenses or expenditures if you will were reasonable and necessary uncontroverted there was no doubt about that they were all found to be reasonable necessary there's a really narrow issue here and what was decided by the trial court and also testified to by mr knoblock is that payment is not really consider repayment of debt and therefore should not be considered an expenditure or be deducted for the net income for purposes childs it isn't for purposes of calculating childs or so what i present to your honor's is that that's actually completely erroneous and not only is that abuse of discretion again as i pointed out in my brief in the trial court proceedings the testimony of mr knoblock which the court expressed it just in his findings was it miserably incorrect so for that reason i would say that it was an abuse of discretion but focusing more on the issue of is one payment considered the repayment of debt and i don't know why i would i would submit to this court that that's exactly what it is it's an out of pocket expense it's a true quote unquote out of pocket expense which is what the courts and other districts have hel to be repayments of debt simply because it's not financed over a period of time does not make it or not doesn't make it a does not mean is no longer repayment that is it's one payment and in fact that would you know not only violate public policy but also twice in the face of what the petitioner would want because in effect if you require someone to finance equipment in this particular example because we're dealing about restaurants the deductible expenses or the repayments if you will would also include interest so would be to the detriment of the petitioner to even have that fine so i would suggest your honor is that all those expenses which were never ever controverted that they were reasonable necessary but the fact that they were only one payment one payment as a repayment that doesn't mean they're not a repayment and that because it was made in one payment but that's not what that means and i would submit if in fact that is the finding at what point does it become a repayment of debt to payments three payments and payments fifteen payments i don't know suggest any repayment of any data for the purposes of generating net income are allowable to be deducted from the net income and that's consistent with case law i would suggest that for that reason the if the course i'm inclined to do that i suggested at least theory mand it to allow evidence to be presented to determine what is the correct calculation factoring in that these one payments are actually payments of  they're actually contained in their records there's a list of all the assets and the actual record it stoves of men's dishwashers good systems bar accessories i mean all that purchase arguably it would judge but then again i didn't choose to file the petition for modification that year that was actually the petitioner who did that and the years to come after that it was presumably in other words you wouldn't have if i go these days are assets for the production of future income correct or on your client is fortunate enough to be able to pay for those  calculation was the difference between three thousand dollars a month for basically sixteen hundred dollars and that's what the net factoring in what part does the rather expensive vehicles play in this very minor actually again this was never checked out and mr knox testimony was that no i think these are all reasonable and necessary expenses and so did so did actually the petitioner in this case when she was question on the stand the reason why was there was there were two vehicles they weren't fully and that if she filed the petition of model modify in two thousand and eleven which would be the year that those expenses were in her that year would be substantially different than twelve thirteen and fourteen because and thirteen fourteen and twelve we're not being clear always child support be the following year that was i believe that was averaged over three years over three years if i'm not mistaken but it was it three years partly retroactive a please the court the primary issue on this appeal was molen brink's claim that the assets and inventory which he purchased open his business in two thousand and thirteen should have been subtract idea from his income as a statutory deduction for purposes of determining his child support mr mon bring argues that this expenditure of assets in inventories falls under the  expenditures for the repayment of death that represent reasonable and necessary expenses for the production of income that exception as the court knows a set forth in section five zero five eight three age of the code in this case the court properly rejected mr mone brings argument because it is not an expenditure for the repayment of debt whether those purchasers purchases were necessary for the production of income  we do not know we did not get that part of the test and there was little evidence in order to introduce as to exactly what the expenditures were essentially consisted of testimony of mr mone brink  asked what he purchased as well as a statement which was attached or appended to his two thousand and thirteen tax returns showing those expenditures in this case the court properly held that it is not an expenditure for the repayment of green paid for the inventory and assets at the time of purchase there was no debt and there never was any debt associated with the transaction essentially he paid cash for the inventory and the assets moreover there was not any debt associated with the business at all other than a a debt on a vehicle which was a range rover rather than out of the business which was sugar in c was debt free what miss ramon brink essentially was asking the trial court to do was to engage in a hypothetical scenario to pretend that he had financed the purchase of that equipment instead of paying for it outright in other words if he knew then what he knows now he would not have purchased all of that equipment and assets in cash instead he would have financed one hundred percent of that purchase after doing so he then would have argued that the repayment of that debt should be subtracted from his income for purposes of calculating his child work the interesting thing about that is that mr mone brink had the funds at the time to pay for that inventory and assets in cash so even had he done that even if he had financed one hundred percent of that purchase and argued that that was repayment of death he could have satisfied the first prong of that test i suspect there's a possibility he then would not have met the second prong of the test showing that it was necessary for the production of income because i don't mean of that that would have been necessary i think that we could have been shown that he could have paid for all of that in the cash that he had on hand and therefore it was not a necessary  loan for him to produce income regardless the court correctly declined to engage in that hypothetical scenario i wish was this to the sole benefit howard was going to beat the sole payments are due and shall enter an order containing provisions for self executing modification appoint terminations of those payments and what their statutory section tells us is that what what is contemplated is that there actual debt owed and that the deduction would only be allowed for that time period when the debt is being paid back in addition to the plan language of that statute this court that's that's an interesting point i think that that's an issue that perhaps has not been determined yet but i think that i would argue that the encouraging of that that itself was not necessary due to the fact that the support out who are have the resources  them and i guess the one thing i would say on that is interesting lee and knocked it appears as though the argument by this film mr mone bring here is he wishes he would have done that for the sole purpose of being able to reduce his child support and i wonder if that would have some impact upon that argument if it is shown that the item gore is is financing one hundred percent that purchased for that sole purpose of reducing the support obligation could be an interesting factor i think do you think that  into looking at even all the facts that would have gone into considering that deviation because there was no request made for deviation at any point in time so there wasn't even full discovery pertaining to what the assets and liabilities were  argument that there should have been a deviation based upon the fact that he had purchased these things one hundred percent at the time instead of financing them i would hope and i suspect that perhaps director rob would have denied that request for deviation based on other factors for instance in this case there was some evidence shown that the child does have some special needs and has some additional expenses that perhaps a normal child would not otherwise need resource s the the second issue just real briefly there were some things brought up by mr mole and break about appreciation in his brief in his motion to reconsider and at the time  depreciation was something that should have been added back in to mr mole and grace income so i don't think that that's relevant to what the court needs to determine at this point my name is frank b s and i represent the department of health care and family services this court should affirm the circuit court's order because the payment of business expenses do not fall under the deduction for repayments of debts and section eight five  five eight three age one the circuit court determines a parent's child support obligations are done and undertakes a two part process and partner on the court determines the parent's net income by taking the parent's total income and then that net income and then either applying the guidelines statutory guidelines and subsection a one or the citing that a deviation from those guidelines is appropriate under the factors such as ordered so section five zero five eight t automobile expenses from his from his total income under five a five a three age two term is not a zero in that case this court held that he could not do so and in reaching that conclusion based this decision on the plainly which of section option before your payments and that then the court turned to the second sentence of five o five three h which limits a court to only reducing that income for the period that such payments are jew and requires the courts once for an order sentence wouldn't make any sense because there would be no period of time in which multiple payments are being made and therefore it would be inconsistent with the plain language of the act and in this case  attempting to do sanction the same thing that the parent wasn't a although the specific business expenses are different in gay was automobile expenses entertain expenses and here it's the purchases of equipment there are nonetheless business expenses the e purchases made to of for the purpose of the business and although known very claims that gay does not stand for the proposition that business expenses are not expenditures for the payment that's exactly what this court howled when it stated we therefore hold only such businesses as constitute repayments of debt may be deducted from that income under the first clause of section five zero five three age of the act and further holds that non reimbursed business expenses do not fit into this  category the court and reiterated it reaffirmed that holding and einstein about ten years later in the context of medical expenses when the court held that ongoing medical expenses for the parents child did not all together be ignored and the child in the process of calculating his child support obligations but that's not the case as this court pointed out in gay and then again refund and einstein expenses  nature can be considered during step through the process when the court is deciding whether or not to deviate from the statutory guidelines and subsection a want there's a list there's not exhaustive list of factors  subsection it's true of things that the court can look at including the financial resources and needs of both the parent and the child and so these types of expenses can be considered under section five five eight two in step two and the difference between step one and step two is very important here because the core pointed out in k that when the general assembly amended the statute for calculating child support what it did is it imposed stricter guidelines on what the court can take into consideration when determining that income whereas before it was very discretionary here the court listed a number the general some listed specific fact specific deductions that the court could take into account when determining that important here because that step to a decision is a discretionary decision and it is one that the court took into account in its order the court said the court mentioned five zero five eight and whether or not a deviation from the guidelines was proper were going to be taken into account it would be during the process of the citing whether to deviate under five days and it would be based on the evidence that was presented at the hearing and then the course the system now not to deviate would be subject to an have not having enough information in front of it to find out if you wanted to to find that the court's decision wasn't used discretion when the transcript records are aren't on the record are for the scor requires that there must be multiple payments and they must be made over some period of time a single one time expenditure does not meet the debt does not qualify as a repayment of that otherwise every time any at any business purchase or expenses made every single one of those would then qualify for induction under five zero five eight three age and that would be inconsistent with the general assembly's with the language in the statute setting forth straightforward straightforward application of listed duction under five a five it creates and then moving on to a more discretionary decision by the board takes other factors into account in terminating the final child support obligation you keep this kind of short first and foremost i want to talk about the gamer and i think he's that we're just mention and counsel correctly point out they were from business expenses or medical expenses day to day expenses for automobile entertainment they work on going variable business expenses that were not allowed this is not a business that the statute clearly says it's a repayment that a business expenses way different than a repayment of debt when you purchase an asset and you can finance it over five years let's say the payments on that is not necessarily a business expense for purposes of calculating that income for child support it's the repayment of the bet of that asset now whether it comes in one installment five installments i would submit it doesn't matter in interesting way what i heard before your honor's previously there is no debt in these companies there never was any that well i'm sorry when you purchase a not for let's say five thousand dollars you get an invoice for five thousand dollars you have a debt that's a bet you write a check for five thousand dollars you paid back that that's exactly what we're argument here contested who they were reasonable necessary even the expert in his own testimony said so now the question becomes is is one payment considered repayment that that's really what's before this court and i would suggest it is in those repayments should have been allowed deductions for purposes of calculating the men who've come in child support the notion that if you knew now that is the policy that our legislature is one i find that incredibly inconsistent i want to suggest as i stated before just the fact that there's one payment vs ten payments these are substantial repayment