it's not to do it is not to carbo exceptions exemptions or anything else because the judge may not like what the statute says this concept was also reiterated i some other time until it was amended with the it works why there was never any suggestion of an amendment in this particular case but obviously in the way he's brought out it carried over into two thousand and fifteen we became aware of the over withholding we became aware of the fact the owner was holding had not been included in part of his net income and that's why this case arose and we asked for twenty eight twenty fifteen s that's when the trauma work and or the or removing your stipulation or stipulation that's correct that was based upon no knowledge to that didn't have anything to do with the  zero nine this work was set at six o five that's correct ok so you got six or five and there was no request to modify that six or five about income from that per year thanks refunds based upon what he over with held in calendar year two thousand and fourteen fourteen thousand dollars and by not properly taking that i disagree with you because it's obviously shown by what we put into our green that this gentleman has over when elman all of his years he gives monumental tax refunds why not taking those tax refunds into account is depriving h has there's it doesn't make a difference about how much you are withholding which you look at is you look at the gross income you take the proper deductions and with it probably with the tax deduction would be based on which on his country whatever it would be for the and when you take that your each of you get a figure and then use stipulate if you reach an agreement on the chassis work because you've taken the proper things now in fact that if in fact that x number that you you're getting to the person pays that amount which elsewhere which is the proper amount based on the proper relationship but in fact on the actual return i mean i was actually is no provision to say that when you get divorced you can't over with the whole withhold on your own on your taxes i disagree well all the cases you cited are deal with someone who's trying to claim if there is one or a refund regardless of where it is which is more noble of the amount of his actual tax that means he will rule with l judges a world that percentage and i think that's what the cases say and i think that's june twenty fifth he was the proper amount of twenty eight percent under the statute that you've been taken some one month i think that they thought it was seven twenty one was for the proper amount  it would be seven twenty one plus twenty percent of this massive or with all in retrospect yes what would be the proper obama based on the stuff in june twenty fifty i don't have those it's either probably calculated at the time it's agreed upon or it  leave there has been some some misstatements your honour's with respect to the first mr olson in his client not having the all of the information necessary to make the appropriate calculation of child support going forward had all available information to calculate the child support in the spring of twenty fifteen going forward relevant to the just position of the october tenth two thousand and fourteen petition a modif involved in the underlying hearing on my part revenge or this was the trial attorney however i have read the transcript of the proceeding and mr olson was very much involved and stipulated to the income figures and had all relevant discovery to support that calculation of his own doings that is only one misrepresentation of the record in this case which i find quite frankly rather troubling even in oregon it today guidelines yes in multiple different years and had during degrees of tax refunds yes he did over with all the one of the initial questions that i believe it was justice support was calculated personally then by mr olson was looking into two thousand and fourteen tax return so the parties or the benefit of the actual rose didn't on the actual taxes pay which results in the actual net income if you want to consider parties and council use in the support local ations so that it actually matches what was paid it doesn't necessarily match with holdings and that would be the according to the section five zero five result in the property tax with now you can actually look at it on the the opposite side one using the phrase that the actually or if you start with a net income as opposed to the actual rose would have to add the tax refund back again and it would get the exact same thing but you can't do it both ways and if essential olsen is trying to do that also taking new account all the different tax years which just doesn't make any sense at all because the supporters probably got it way to one fifteen but he's trying to go back into twenty fourteen and get a portion of the tax refund and that is the real issue in this case really doesn't have anything to do with the tax refund it has to do with retroactive the an increase in child support and and that retroactivity predated the visitation to and the reason is obvious is opening the floodgates of litigation because every divorced spouse will try to go back ten fifteen years to explore all sorts of financial issues that can be done moving to the issue both the uncovered  ultimately your honour's how much i might ever think i'm almost done i found it a little bit difficult to actually identify the issue after reading the initial grief in this matter because it looked pretty simple yet of then went all over the board but i decided not to file a petition for attorney fees because i wanted to take the high road i would respectfully request leave eft i will have to consult with my file of ten or fourteen days to discuss that with brief that was presented on a ship with it doesn't make sense to ed in child's court to alicia's when that's not income and it doesn't make sense to say that he expenses i think the just ship would just missed it again in buying the smoke and mirrors and not in finding this equation of almost equalling holmes hundred  we're trying to take this pace back into only one and even before that's just ridiculous this place deals with a request to increase that was file in in two thousand and fourteen ok it took until two thousand and fifteen to get anywhere with an increase and it didn't include the knowledge about what mysteries bird have been over with all that we covered that i did not see them in my initial questions or your questions or my attempted responses i don't think you follow where i'm coming from and i guess i don't see where you're following what five zero five five or three sales with respect to u expenses can be considered as a either a part of child support but they usually are down in the next the area or the ninth circuit area they are considered as something that somebody ate over in a bar in some proportion will see where there's any big difference here from where the ferries are agreed upon in the initial divorce which was fifty fifty that's a big difference from when these folks were divorced until two thousand and fifteen and i think that's why i don't share what was fourteen dollars to fourteen thousand has to be added back into his income then you take out the problem out of that one item that somebody asked about here on the tax return and that's the problem of bad results in two regardless of what the burdens actually withholding figure out pretty closely with holding all the i do not have to be and i do not have that accounting knowledge but i know what you're suggesting that perhaps i that the person had to pay you have that in front of you i don't recall that number there was like fourteen thousand so when you take the statutory induction you don't writers or of the three you know the three plus no that's what somebody calculated was the proper amount but what i'm saying is we get twenty percent to fourteen thousand in addition we are seeing a bigger chunk out of him for the increased medical