Opinion ID: 2518798
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Glenn's retirement deduction

Text: Glenn argues next that the superior court undercounted his retirement deduction by disallowing his claimed deductions for contributions to a voluntary retirement plan. In his child-support worksheet, Glenn listed mandatory and voluntary annual contributions totaling $3,927. Marian's worksheets credited Glenn only for a $519 mandatory retirement deduction. Glenn insists that Rule 90.3(a)(1)(B) entitled him to a combination mandatory/voluntary retirement deduction of 7.5% of his gross income. Marian acknowledges that she credited Glenn only for his mandatory contribution. But she insists that this credit was correct under the version of Rule 90.3 in effect when she filed her proposed child-support calculations in April 2005. Marian's argument is accurate in a technical sense but lacks substantive merit. It is true that on April 7, 2005, when Marian filed her proposed child-support worksheets, Rule 90.3(a)(1)(A) provided that voluntary tax-deferred contributions to a qualified retirement or pension plan or account up to 7.5% of the parent's gross income could be deducted if the parent is not a participant in a mandatory retirement plan. [31] This phrasing implied that a parent could not claim credits for both voluntary and mandatory contributions. But in February 2005, this court had issued an order amending the rule to resolve this ambiguity in favor of allowing combined credits. Our order provided that the amended version would take effect on April 15, 2005  eight days after Marian filed her worksheets. [32] Because the amended rule was in effect when the superior court issued its May 1, 2005, order modifying the parties' support, the amended rule allowing a combined deduction applied to this case.