Court Opinion

ID: 9687633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:40:13.395206+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:29.600471
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, Judge
(concurring in part; dissenting in part).
I concur in part and dissent in part. The issue before us is what income figure should be used to compute the child support obligation of a salaried father who also farms. The trial court did not adopt income as reported for income tax purposes but elected to disregard the depreciation deduction on farm machinery. The majority has affirmed. I disagree and find the depreciation adjustment should not have been made.
Kim works a full-time job at Maytag in Newton, and, also, has a cattle and farm operation. During the marriage he had both *858the full time job and the farming and cattle operation. His basic contention is his income for purposes of applying the child support guidelines should be his income as defined by the Internal Revenue Code less applicable deductions for federal and state income tax and FICA. I agree with this contention in total.
The majority, however, has elected to recalculate his income for child support purposes. The majority has decided Kim should not be able to deduct depreciation on his farm schedule in computing child support.
Child support guidelines have come in response to a federal mandate. In 1988 Congress, in the Family Support Act,1 required the states to enact guidelines to establish presumptions of correct child support in a given ease. The guidelines came as a response to congressional concern about inadequacy of noncustodial parental support and lack of consistency and efficiency in establishing child support awards.
The states have been left free to develop their own guidelines and discretion in choosing the method of formulating their guidelines.2 It was contemplated the guidelines would be fair in their particulars, as well as promote equity through uniformity.3
Before applying the guidelines there needs to be a determination of the net monthly income of the custodial and noncustodial parent.4 See In re Marriage of Powell, 474 N.W.2d 531, 533 (Iowa 1991) (court must determine the parents’ current income from most reliable evidence presented); In re Marriage of Lalone, 469 N.W.2d 695, 696 (Iowa 1991) (application of child support guideline chart first involves determination of net monthly income of each parent); In re Marriage of Miller, 475 N.W.2d 675, 678 (Iowa App.1991) (first step in using the child support guidelines is to arrive at “net monthly income”).
This is one of a series of cases that have come before the Iowa appellate courts seeking further definition of “net monthly income” as used in the guidelines. See In re Marriage of Gaer, 476 N.W.2d 324, 326-30 (Iowa 1991) (in determining income available for child support, self-employed truck driver would be allowed deduction for straight line method of depreciation of truck); Powell, 474 N.W.2d at 533-34 (court may determine current monthly income based upon income pri- or to temporary unemployment); Lalone, 469 N.W.2d at 697 (“net monthly income” excluded alimony paid); State ex rel. Dep’t of Human Serv. v. Burt, 469 N.W.2d 669, 671 (Iowa 1991) (amount father ordered to pay to be applied toward his accrued obligation for public assistance advanced in past is not deductible from gross income in determining net income under child support guidelines); In re Marriage of Mayfield, 477 N.W.2d 859, 861-62 (Iowa App.1991) (“net income” was properly found to equal average of last 2 years of taxable income); Miller, 475 N.W.2d at 678-79 (“net monthly income” did not *859exclude alimony paid); In re Marriage of Jennings, 455 N.W.2d 284, 287-88 (Iowa App.1990) (net monthly income under the guidelines means gross monthly income less specifically enumerated deductions).
The definition of income as used in the guidelines is most readily adaptable to the parent employed at a set monthly wage. It is more difficult when used in determining the income of a person who has income from self-employment. See In re Marriage of Cossel, 487 N.W.2d 679, 682 (Iowa App.1992). And may, when dealing with self-employment income, require an average of several years. Id
It seems apparent, in nearly all eases, we should look to what is currently referred as “total taxable” income on the federal 1040 and as “net income” on the IA 1040. Cossel, 487 N.W.2d at 683. And, when a person has fluctuating income, average it over a period of several years so as to fairly spread income fluctuations. See Cossel, 487 N.W.2d at 682.
When we attempt to dissect income and fail to use a uniform definition of income, we are not following the federal mandate for consistency, uniformity, and efficiency. Income must be reported to the federal and state government in a particular way, and there are serious penalties for not following these reporting requirements. The result is what is defined on the federal tax return as “adjusted gross income.” There is a degree of fairness in this system and these figures are most easily ascertained.
To have uniformity in the guidelines, we need a uniform definition of income for child support purposes. We are not doing a service to the bench, or bar, or parents, or children and are only asking for costly litigation when we refuse to use adjusted gross income as defined for federal tax purposes in computing child support.
If we do not use adjusted gross income for a self-employed person, then do we not use adjusted gross income for an employed person? How do we treat pension and life and health insurance benefits afforded a salaried worker when their value is not included in his or her adjusted gross income?
How can we discount depreciation, as the majority has here, without evidence of the fair market value of the equipment at the beginning and the end of the tax year? We cannot. Clearly, farm machinery, in nearly all eases, decreases in value with age. Furthermore, the farm machinery is paid for with after-tax dollars; consequently, depreciation is the only way to account for its decline in value with use.
Unfortunately, right now, Kim’s farming is not showing a profit. He was farming when he and Beverly were married. The farming economy clearly has its ups and downs. Kim works hard at a job and pays substantial child support. When there is a profit on the farming operation, it should be a part of his child support obligation.
There are a large number of persons in this state who have jobs outside the farm and also farm. We have long respected our farm economy with its ups and downs.
I would compute Kim’s child support obligation on his adjusted gross income less deductions for:
(1) Federal Income Tax;
(2) State Income Tax;
(3) Social Security Deductions;
(4) Mandatory Pension Deductions;
(5) Union Dues;
(6) Dependent Health Insurance Coverage;
(7)Individual Health/Hospitalization Coverage or Medical Expense Deductions not to exceed $25 a month.

. On October 13, 1988, the Family Support Act of 1988 (PL 100-485) was signed into law. This Act replaced the existing Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) Program with a new Family Support Program and significantly amends the Child Support Enforcement Program (Tide IV, Part D of the Social Security Act). The intent of the Act is to: 1) reduce long-term welfare dependency by providing education, training, and employment to needy parents and 2) improve child support enforcement and establishment services available to children.
The Act has impact on issues of:
1) child support guidelines and periodic review for modification of orders;
2) immediate income withholding;
3) establishment of paternity;
4) visitation/custody demonstration projects; and
5) requirement for automated tracking and monitoring system.
See generally 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 657, 667.

. For a discussion of the history of congressional action on child support guidelines, see Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 566 A.2d 719, 723, 725 (D.C.App.1989).

. Fitzgerald, at 724.

. 1. The guidelines are based on a determination of “net monthly income” which is gross monthly income less deductions for:
a. Federal Income Tax;
b. State Income Tax;
c. Social Security Deductions;
d. Mandatory Pension Deductions;
e. Union Dues;
f. Dependent Health Insurance Coverage;
g. Individual Health/Hospitalization Coverage or Medical Expense Deductions not to exceed $25 a month.