their history together and apart their employment past employment see amount of earnings that they've had their current family situations and their living environment they also both provided financial affidavit with mr goodrich or chris income of expenses that he had which was computed based on this eighty thousand dollars a year salary without considering the fact that he had some substantial unreinforced avoids them and when i say it a significant period of time since in fact he hasn't resided in the state of illinois and shortly after the time of the party marriage dissolved at the conclusion of the trial and because the evidence at the trial differs slightly from  and dependently duction is for the subject child in this case and also for his current family and also computation fees as a single tax payer claiming i believe two exemptions one for the subject child is in this case and for himself the court using that information and information the rest of the information presented at trial used only two documentary pieces of paper to determine of course disengages twenty would which is twenty three hundred years why didn't the court just take the next week leave it from the evidence submitted saying that some of the against two of the payments were from the preceding calendar is yeah if what if what you do is what the court at the court at the urging of the state in term of the payroll period ended on may twenty fourth two again twenty one zero periods since the first of the year up until may twenty fourth two thousand and nine and use that number to divide all of the year to date taxes and then from information that shown on the on the wage and benefit statement that's what that's reported took that number and added to it the amount of the income tax refund that was identified on the two thousand and eight income tax return and then computed child support from that by multiplying the number by that net by twenty percent and that process was incorrect using what you suggested had he taken fifteen thirty eight forty six and just taken all those numbers out and used the net i think what he did was because he knew that mr goodrich had had a bonus in prior years he assumed and i think again at the urging of the state that the amount that was shown for his current wages on that tax return might not have been consistent with what his wages were throughout the year and that he may have earned more or more than that as a result of some bonus and that would have been included in this year's big number the fact the matter is if you take your date number and you divide it by the number of times the guy was paid during the year you come up with exactly the amount of the current wage exactly the same now so if we're if what we're going to do is use a number of payroll periods in the year to determine how much child support out of then you've got to go by the numbers that are shown on this particular piece of paper which is where we get to the issue as to whether this is a noble view or whether it is based on a discretion situation the guy wasn't paid this thirty five thousand three hundred eighty four dollars fifty six cents on may twenty fourth two thousand and nine and that date two weeks last that's how much you've been paid he wasn't paid the thirty five thousand three hundred fifty six until june file and there's all kinds of ways to compute how many fri there were before if you bought up until back to the first year there are all kinds of ways to do it the guy testified eighty thousand dollars a year you got paid weekly every friday you can sit down you can count on the clock and i wonder if you can take the total number of days that accrue through june five divided by seven i think there's any number of different ways to come up with that number but the fact of the matter is there were twenty three payroll here now if you take the number that the judge just under that circumstance to compute child support and you extrapolate it out for a year you come up with him computing trials for based on almost eighty thousand dollars and the guy salary is only eighty thousand dollars so somewhere in there there is a phantom eight thousand dollars that the judges including as a part of the  patients and assessing is this guy's income that's that's not it's not right and it's a matter of black and white mathematical computations based on a calendar that i think is probably generally accepted in the world today and as a consequence no amount of of persuasion or cajoling that i could put forth in the courtroom in front of the judge that was going to convince him that the manner in which he was going about computing child support was wrong so he computed any computer in an amount of money that was about with the first wife that was secondary to the support of this particular child in that he included the benefit of the new wife and families tax status of the dependency deductions and child tax credit that accrued only because of the fact that there was a marriage ears the other thing that occurred in that competition is that mr goodrich honest tax returns showed a substantial amount of money that was paid out as i'm employee and reimbursed employee expenses that incurred during the course of the year  probably it wouldn't but i think the fact that they have presented tax returns and just about every child support case that gets presented the evidence as presented is actually current wave state there are a few cases where the parties actually get on the witness stand and testify about those thing when we presented the information to the judge what we did was we actually did that from the computation of taxes we computed as taxes though those deductions did not exist at all so we took them completely out of the picture we computed this tax as though it was a single taxpayer claim one example and that's the information that we initially provided to the judge so what we did was we took that tax status that he would have had just because of the fact that he was married and he had one child support and we computed his tax based on that and said this is really what is tax liability ought to be and off the top of my head i can't remember exactly what the numbers were but i believe it came out to be something in the neighborhood of eight hundred fifty eight hundred sixty dollars  it correctly identified what child support should be without consideration of that now the evidence closed and the court then invited this to provide other complications of the child support liability that my client would obtained and so what we did was we went back and since the judge used the civically added back that tax refund all of a sudden that the duction became germane where it hadn't been before the tax refund included  either that the action is germane to the process of determining what the child support would or it's not and if it's not it shouldn't be considered at all and if it's not considered at all then the tax liability without that action should be considered and the tax liability without that action is obviously significantly greater out so in the alternative that because the judge indicated simply that he was going to have that bad we provided that the judge when we made some argument to him he invited us to do after the course of the evidence that the tax return does specifically itemized those things so we indicated to the judge at that time not only what those were but also the fact that there seems to be a split in the law of between this district and from here what we were doing at that phase of the process was computed acts like we do take the position that later on we do take the position that the court should have considered that duction that that expands as a factor to reduce net income for child support but at least in doing what the judge did here up until this point in the process what we're trying to do is to consider whether or not the refund ought to have been added that that refund accrued because of a very large expense that or so our position has to be either we got to consider the expense as a part of child support connotation or we can't consider the refund as a part of the child support consultation but to be also so on those bases is his reasoning under the circumstances was just wrong in the first instance i think that's a matter of been over review because it's a matter of law in the second instance obviously it's a matter of discretion and that's i think the judge has the right to look at the tax returns decide whether they have their refund back as a as a factor of over withholding the evidence that's presented in this case doesn't indicate a tax return doesn't indicate can compute it either way but the fact that the practicalities of it are that you can either add the refund back and consider what those deductions are when you're computing child support or you can do even if that meets on two of the test you're still not meeting on one that was an expenditure for repayment of adept at that point you have to satisfy both hong kong or that statute to claim that adoption for purpose following the reasoning of the first district's basically the first district's interpretation of five zero five eight three eight reads out that first prong of the test it's in the churches for repayment  rationale you got all their cheer ashenoff first would be the plain language of that first struck first sentence there must be expenditures for repayment of tax and then if you look to the last sentence of that section it says net income is reduced quote only for the period that such payments are due and shall enter an order containing provisions for itself executing modification of but upon terminations of such payment period to allow day to day ongoing i reimburse to it and i'm looking at that paste out christopher to crack house all christopher testified at page thirty one of the transcripts that he testified he was paid weekly not that he was does europe today i don't know the circuit court the year to date amount to find it by the number of pay period in the year to date i don't believe that there was any evidence before the court that that current amount for that stub was the amount that he in fact earned every single week so i think the proper thing to do is to take what's shown as the year to date amount total through knowing at that point that earnings he had to it considered paystub prepared by a neutral third party over the father but takes into consideration how the court interpreted the third parties  was then that his testimony he made a thousand dollars a year was not correct in that if you take the they start and you do the calculation using the twenty two weeks after you can even say that the company had any sort of just five minutes and he sort of regular stifles to line it with a check for particular period if christopher thought that there could be any date amount corresponded to that pay date notation and stead of the weekly paper area notation or explaining why he was played on june fifth for the period ending may twenty fourth or describing his employer's pay policy paid weekly this is through may twenty fourth there are twenty one pay periods i can figure what your average weekly pay is by that by fifty two and get the nothing complex less taxes and insurance  i'll just touch on the tax refund issue the circuit court probably clear the federal tax refund in determining net income only the amount of federal tax actually they may be deducted when calculating net income for child support purposes under five zero five eight three a there is it's case law that sags the effect of for example a new family or business expenses which results in a tax refund should be claims that single plus one as it was earlier here but with the new family even if that alone decreases the amount of federal tax code and just as pope i believe you questioned whether we had a case  years because of his new family and because of his current wife that affect you are entitled to claim as many exemptions if you want there's a limit i guess on the number that you can claim but claim as many as you want up to that limit the in the other statement the council made which i think the license situation is that the the court didn't believe believe that the pay stubs showed something different than what testimony was well if the court believed the case that showed something different than what the testimony was the court had the tax return and the tax return is the preferable means i think of determining what the child support obligation would have been but didn't have the tax return for two thousand and not no because it hadn't occurred right but if it hadn't for two thousand and eight but he what's wrong with using the most current information i agree the most current information is vast but if you're going to use the most current information let's use it properly the problem in this case is it's not used properly this analysis of saying well the payroll period ended on may twenty fourth two thousand and nine so that's the way we've got to compute the number of weeks up until the air up until through that point of the on may twenty fourth he had been paid on june five on may twenty fourth he hadn't been paid on may twenty ninth twenty eight twenty twenty nine the end paid on that day either he's paid at the rate of fifteen thirty eight forty six a week which is what the evidence shows he got paid then because earnings on that date were thirty five three hundred fifty six they were fourteen hundred thirty four hundred dollars less than they were less than that so the number the judge used when he divided it by twenty one was a wrong number either either subtract out the wages that have been earned and divide that by twenty one while i suppose or use the right number  that's the difference between the situation may twenty fourth the end date that he'd been paid thirty three thirty four hundred dollars less that so on may twenty fourth what you want to do is use that year to date number like the say that unlike the judge did take those paid exactly the same amount every week and if you're not going to do that use the most current information available use the thirty five thousand dollars through that payday and divide that by the number of times that the guy was a from january one until that date which has two then twenty three and what you find is that here at that point i'm not saying he's not going to get a raise tomorrow or that he didn't get a raise six weeks later but i don't know anything about that and there was no testimony about it but through that day the guy was earning an annual salary of eighty eight thousand dollars a year and the judge computed his trial supporters though he made a it's just wrong as justice turner said it's wrong and think you probably already have you're going to see that the judge was wrong and given the situation that i've been through in this case until this court tells the judge that he was wrong when he did it this way he's going to continue to do it this way and we that can't be the case now this guy makes eighty thousand dollars a year and that makes a substantial difference in the child support if you have a guy that makes one hundred sixty thousand dollars a year is going to make twice as big differences child support maybe the guy that makes one hundred sixty is going to show up with a wire of astute enough to figure that