FOURTH DIVISION

									DECEMBER 31, 2003

1-02-3785

In re MARRIAGE OF JOAN RODGERS,		)	Appeal from the

								)	Circuit Court of

		Petitioner-Appellee, 		)	Cook County.

          						)

	and							)	No. 88 D 18685

								)

MARK RODGERS,						)	Honorable

								)	Veronica Mathein,

		Respondent-Appellant. 	   	)	Judge Presiding.

	JUSTICE HARTMAN delivered the opinion of the court:

	Respondent, Mark Rodgers (Mark), appeals from the circuit

court's judgment in a post-dissolution of marriage proceeding,

wherein his monthly child support payment was increased from $250

to $1,000 per month.  The court found Mark "receives $46,000 per

year in gifts and loans from his parents and earns $15,000 per year

and has a gross income of $61,000 for which [he] has little or no

tax liability."  No report of proceedings or reference to any

record documentation is set forth in explanation or support of

these conclusions. 

	On appeal, Mark questions only whether the circuit court erred in failing to deduct $46,000 in "gifts and loans" from his annual

income in calculating child support.  He maintains that this court must determine whether the term "net income," as employed in the

Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (750 ILCS 5/101 et seq. (West 2000)) (IMDMA), includes "gifts and loans."  Petitioner, Joan Rodgers (Joan), pro se, responds that Mark "simply attempted to characterize the largest portion of his annual income

as gifts and loans" to lessen his child support obligation.  Joan

asserts that the court's characterization of the funds as "gifts

and loans" is inaccurate.

	This case involves questions of fact and law.  Therefore, it

must first be determined if the circuit court improperly

characterized the money as it did.  It is possible that the 

court's factual determinations were based on the testimonial

evidence presented or documentary evidence, or perhaps, both;

however, the record is barren of any evidence that might serve

either to support or to disturb the court's findings.  This court

will not speculate in ascertaining the form in which the money was

given, whether it was given regularly, or whether it will be

received or terminated in the future.  In the absence of a

sufficiently complete record on appeal it will be presumed that the

court's order had a sufficient factual basis.  Foutch v. O'Bryant, 99 Ill. 2d 389, 391-92, 459 N.E.2d 958 (1984).  Where, as here, the

record does not support an alternate finding, the circuit court

cannot be said to have abused its discretion in characterizing

$46,000 of Mark's income as gifts and loans.

	The remaining issue is whether the court erred in prohibiting

Mark from deducting gifts and loans from his gross income, a

question of law and reviewed de novo.  Gay v. Dunlap, 279 Ill. App. 3d 140, 145, 664 N.E.2d 88 (1996) (Gay).  Regarding gifts, Mark relies exclusively on In re Marriage of Harmon, 210 Ill. App. 3d 92, 568 N.E.2d 948 (1991) (Harmon), where the court held that a $10,000 annual gift from respondent's mother to be deductible from

gross income.  This holding was based on the court's uncertainty that the gift would be received in the future.  Harmon, 210 Ill. App. 3d at 95.  Absent this contingency, the exclusion of gifts

from net income lacks clear support in IMDMA.

	Under IMDMA, child support awards are a direct function of net

income, the calculation of which is a straightforward, mechanical

process, explicitly set forth in section 505(a)(3) of IMDMA (People v. Boland, 308 Ill. App. 3d 1063, 1067, 721 N.E.2d 815 (1999) (Boland)), where "net income" is to be considered as the total of "all income from all sources," minus delineated deductions.  See

750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3) (West 2000).  There is a rebuttable

presumption that all income, unless specifically excluded, is

income for child support purposes.  Jennings v. White, 286 Ill. App. 3d 213, 218, 675 N.E.2d 985 (1997).  Although gifts may be

deducted from income for purposes of taxation, the circuit court

must use IMDMA's definition of "net income," not a definition from

the Internal Revenue Code.  Boland, 308 Ill. App. 3d at 1067; People v. Davis, 287 Ill. App. 3d 846, 852, 679 N.E.2d 110 (1997) (Davis). 

	Subsection 5/505(a)(3)(h) of IMDMA makes deductible

"reasonable expenditures for the benefit of the child and the other

parent, exclusive of gifts."  The phrase, "exclusive of gifts,"

references solely the clause, "reasonable expenditures for the benefit of the child and other parent."  The word "gifts" refers to

those given to the child or custodial parent, and are non-

deductible.  IMDMA does not, however, permit the deduction of gifts

received as unearned income.  This construction is consistent with

the axiom that where the language of a statute is clear, the court

must give it effect.  Gay, 279 Ill. App. 3d at 147.1 

	Turning to whether loans may be deducted under IMDMA, the

statute allows for the deduction of "[e]xpenditures for repayment

of debts that represent reasonable and necessary expenses for the

production of income."  Respondent's reliance upon Consolidated- Hammer Dog Plate & Filne Co. v. CIR, 317 F. 2d 829 (7th Cir. 1963), for the assertion that the proceeds of a loan do not constitute

taxable income, is without merit.  IMDMA's definition of "net

income" for child support purposes must be applied; not the tax

code.  Boland, 308 Ill. App. 3d at 1067; Davis, 287 Ill. App. 3d at 852.  Respondent provides no authority for his contention that

loans may be excluded from child support; indeed, his position

directly contradicts the language of IMDMA, which provides only for

the deduction of "expenditures for repayment of debt," not the

proceeds.  The record presented in this appeal is devoid of any

evidence relating to "expenditures for repayment of debt."

	Accordingly, loans and gifts are to be considered in

calculating child support payments.  The circuit court did not

commit error by not deducting Mark's unearned annual income. 

	For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the circuit

court is affirmed.

	Affirmed.

	GREIMAN and THEIS, J.J., concur\\ring.