that may be part of the value but it doesn't mean that they actually can for them to cash the accounts receivable they see the money that they're not subject to child support payments in this case in my opinion it doesn't matter if it was part of of child support you know i don't think that case law supports the notion that you have to look at some of these bottom line of all their assets money you know property whatever there might be and that there has to be an i think that's i think that's different because again we're looking at a spendable asset that can be used to buy a car or support a child's whatever a child's needs might be so when you liquidate an asset then it becomes you know subject to child support payments you know after that you can put it back in another another  missible evidence that he gave in the trial court which was the affidavit of barber clients conceded that he's not paying any taxes on this two hundred seventy five thousand dollars  that that leaves us with the entire two hundred seventy five thousand dollars as potentially being accessible for calculational trial support position is that every time properties sold it becomes subject to child school but it's pretty simple and this stuff was his ass that he sold it there for twenty percent of the proceeds should go to a difference until you were the entire proceeds that's that clear are those only best of stock options would have had some value with the time they were awarded in the divorce they went up significantly when they vested in that properly was subject of a self employed person who has significant income but also significant expenses you don't pay child support based on the proceeds you base that on the net income while i  the statute or the term income is used for the i r s shouldn't necessarily be the same as the state i think to edit it it's a good starting point  he was working family members and they were avoiding the issue of income to completely divorced from a concept of profit basically i think that you would then again if you're going to look at a public policy argument you can look at all the facts of the of the man in this instance mrs march was paying maintenance to mr march that obviously implies a significant disparity in income  my question is if we determine that by say selling and stuff it became income available for pain for child support payments which which is not being consistent with the case with a pocket full of stock options you sit down at the poker table they see your audience you can't you can't believe it you you walk through a table with cash you can play and i bet i would bet if you walked into vegas with two hundred seventy five thousand dollars  percent of all proceeds and every capital transaction you'd have a lot of businesses would be in trouble and the wouldn't reinvest would you sell or i wouldn't be able to continue confronting non marital assets and parties waiving any claim to those property and between each other that's a separate issue from the child support council takes issue with the concept that any time it's child support practically speaking meaning every time somebody sells a car is something to go into and seek child support probably not i mean it practically speaking he trains fees whatever would make it worthwhile but if that were to happen no money no additional money so i think for child support purposes which is a very different animal from probably just distribution and maintenance what you have in your hands to spend ok you've got money