Opinion ID: 2165640
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 19

Heading: Use of Gross Income Instead of Net Income

Text: Buckhalter contends that the court erred in calculating his child support obligation using his gross monthly income. He argues that because the court did not include any deductions, the calculation is grossly incorrect and inequitable. [26] Paragraph E of the Nebraska Child Support Guidelines provides for deductions from a party's monthly income for federal and state income taxes, FICA, health insurance, retirement contributions, and child support and other obligations to other children. These items are annualized to arrive at monthly net income. Monthly support amounts are then determined by plugging the combined monthly net income of both parties into table 1 of the guidelines to establish the appropriate support level. [14] Table 1, however, does not provide for support amounts when combined net monthly income exceeds $10,000. Paragraph C(3) provides that when total net income exceeds $10,000, child support may be more but shall not be less than the amount which would be computed using the $10,000 monthly income unless other permissible deviations exist. We have previously held that total monthly child support calculations which exceed the combined net monthly income provided for in the guidelines should be left to the discretion of the trial court and affirmed absent an abuse of discretion. [27] Although the referee did not consider any deductions which Buckhalter may have been allowed for taxes, the court did not abuse its discretion in adopting her child support recommendation. Contrary to Buckhalter's assertion, the referee's calculations were far from arbitrary. She engaged in a detailed extrapolation of the child support guidelines, in which she determined a pattern of increases for every $1,000 increase in income starting at $7,000 per month. She extended that pattern until she reached a monthly income of $89,000. Further, she provided a table which shows her calculations. Buckhalter proposes that the referee should have reduced Buckhalter's income by one-third to one-half to allow for deductions he could have received. But the referee's table reveals that even with such deductions, the child support award would change very little. Deducting one-third of Buckhalter's income for a net monthly income of $59,000 would yield a support amount of $3,975a difference of only $60 or about 1.4 percent. Even allowing for deductions worth half Buckhalter's income would yield a support amount of $3,929a difference of $106 or about 2.5 percent. Thus, $4,035 was not grossly incorrect or inequitable. The referee acted well within her discretion in recommending $4,035. The trial court did not err in adopting the child support recommendation.