Opinion ID: 1057970
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Adoption of Additional Children

Text: Finally, the record indicates that Mr. Kesser had adopted two children prior to the modification hearing and was in the process of adopting a third child when the trial court rendered its final judgment. Although the trial court considered the two children adopted prior to the modification hearing in calculating child support pursuant to the fixed amount provision of the MDA, the trial court made no findings regarding the effect of the two adoptions on the child support obligation in modifying the 21% provision. Accordingly, we remand the case to the trial court for such findings. [7] See Tenn.Code Ann. § 36-5-101(e)(4) (Supp.2003). On remand, the trial court also should entertain any petition filed by Mr. Kesser seeking a modification of his child support obligation under both the fixed amount provision and the 21% provision based upon his incurring legal obligation to support his third adopted child. [8]
Gross income as defined in the Guidelines in effect at the time of both the parties' divorce and the modification hearing included capital gains. Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs., ch. 1240-2-4-.03(3)(a) (1994). Therefore, Mr. Kesser is required to pay child support pursuant to the 21% provision on any capital gains that he has received. Mr. Kesser contends that he is obligated to pay child support on capital gains only to the extent that they exceed capital losses, which is the same method employed in the Internal Revenue Code in determining taxable income. The term capital gains as used in the Guidelines is analogous to the term used in the Internal Revenue Code. Alexander v. Alexander, 34 S.W.3d 456, 462-63 (Tenn.Ct.App.2000). While the Internal Revenue Code provides for the subtraction of capital losses from capital gains in some instances, the result is defined specifically in the Code as net short-term capital gain, net long-term capital gain, or net capital gain. 26 U.S.C. § 1222(5), (7), (11) (2000). The plain language of the Guidelines, however, refers only to capital gains and does not refer to capital losses or a net amount of capital gains. See Tenn. Comp. R. & Regs., ch. 1240-2-4-.03(3)(a) (1999); see also City of Cookeville v. Humphrey, 126 S.W.3d 897, 902 (Tenn.2004) (noting that where the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, we must apply the statute in accordance with its plain language). Accordingly, we conclude that Mr. Kesser's capital losses should not be considered in determining child support due from his capital gains. [9]