also you receive the interest of the company i when they signed the agreement that established it that interest tower was subject to forfeiture if he did not remain employed there and the amount of forfeit implicitly relief whereby the case is remanded back for determination of what the prorated amounts of equity might have been such that the difference between the not income and what amount or percentage would be deemed an increase and whether or not they'd increase would be deemed to be capital gains or income or worth five hundred thousand dollars but he doesn't realize it until it's liquidated then he gets five thousand five hundred dollars or whatever amount to be credited against the gains that he had  it's one thing when some third party terms way you get a way and so on and so forth it's another way it's another thing for an ex spouse to decide whether they get paid for them both stops or what capital gains should be in his own pocket because it went from zero to what say seven hundred fifty thousand dollars on the day of the divorce and then for her and he's supposed to be able to keep that interest but there after his employment well this is an interesting for the problem was that the current never presented any of that evidence before the trial he never said at the time of the divorce my interest in this company was ten percent of the company subject to forfeiture i mean i suppose you could argue that at the time of the divorce my interest was valued at x and then that would have given them all first of all us a chance to argue against that and second that he would give them a truck heard some more evidence to could be made that all julie was doing was agree at the time of the words that she was not going to ask who were her share of the ten percent interest at that time but she never that's the way the common understanding of those two qualities read together she was greedy i'm not i'm not gastric or partial like ten percent interest which was marital property at the time you just hang out to each person however the income from the still considered income for purposes of child support and meanwhile the child support provision says any additional income in bonuses and not just some of it and that's and for that reason i agree with your comment i never even bothered to tell her about it and the record shows your he did testify that she didn't receive any information about any of these matters on till we have tainted discovery on his motion to modify which was later find regarding his so what he did not bring who should modify for it was to say that i receive all this income but if this income is given to job is child support of all that is then that would be that never would be a windfall he never did bring that and i don't know even if he did i don't know if it necessarily would have been successful but we'll never know because that was because we never had a chance to bring everything in the arguments on the end never got a chance to say what's what's in the best interest of the children but what were their needs what would bring them in the best position that they would have been had the marriage not  first year he has nothing to fire in the second year he gets twenty percent he's fired thirty or he gets forty and if it's in the fourth year he gets sixty and when he did lose the employment was at the sixty level and so he so he got a ten percent interest in the capital count i'm sorry it regarding the well should it be considered income anyway even if he doesn't get it and some of the discussions were that if he controlled it then then he should be attributed anyway because he can otherwise he can shield the income that isn't really the question here burden of proof we make it a crime fiction argument that mr powell didn't pay child support that he was obligated to pay and with respect to that in order to prove