Opinion ID: 1191948
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: business expense deductions from income

Text: Roseman contends the district court erred when it refused to deduct $23,507.00 for business expenses in the calculations for child support. In determining a parent's income for a presumptive child support obligation, all reasonable unreimbursed legitimate business expenses shall be deducted. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-6-301(a)(i) (Michie Repl. 1994). Roseman relied almost exclusively on the deductions which appeared in his federal income tax return. In Houston v. Smith, 882 P.2d 240, 244 (Wyo.1994), we discussed the applicability of a federal income tax return in determining net income under the Wyoming child support statutes, holding: [T]here are fundamental differences in the Wyoming statutory scheme and the federal income tax scheme, which foreclose any reliance upon the figures derived for taxable income on a federal income tax return in order to compute net income for purposes of the Wyoming statute. The concepts simply are different. We recognized that [t]he only factor in the Wyoming statutory definitions of `income' and `net income' that relates in any way to the federal above the line deductions is the phrase that permits an individual to deduct `all reasonable unreimbursed legitimate business expenses' in arriving at income. Id. at 243 (emphasis in original). However, that recognition did not excuse the responsibility of the party claiming the deductions to show they are reasonable. Roseman failed to present any evidence that the amounts he claimed were reasonable business expenses. For example, Roseman claimed $5,502.00 in travel expenses for continuing medical education conferences, including a trip to Africa. There was no testimony regarding how much was spent on each trip, why it was reasonable to travel to Africa, how many hours of continuing education were needed, whether he traveled to obtain minimum hours, or whether he attended conferences primarily because he enjoys traveling to different places. Similarly, there were discrepancies between Roseman's testimony and his tax returns on the use of his vehicle for personal purposes. Neither he nor his expert could identify how the amounts claimed were calculated, and no records other than the tax return were submitted to the district court. The absence of any specific evidence that the amounts listed on Roseman's tax return represented reasonable business expenses clearly supports the district court's determination that Roseman failed to show that these deductions were appropriate. Therefore, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's refusal to include the deductions when calculating child support payments.