Court Opinion

ID: 9529342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:49:59.302936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:44.702841
License: Public Domain

ORME, Judge
(concurring in the result in part):
While I otherwise concur in the court’s decision, I take a somewhat different view of the tax exemption issue. I agree with *980the majority’s decision to remand for more detailed findings in accordance with the discussion in Motes v. Motes, 786 P.2d 232 (Utah App.1989). I write separately, however, to express concern that the majority has taken an overly restrictive interpretation of the Motes opinion.
The primary issue addressed in Motes was whether a state divorce court has the authority to award the tax exemption for supported children to the noncustodial parent. Id, at 235-40. After concluding that a state court does have this authority, we went on to outline considerations for courts awarding these exemptions, and made essentially two points. First, the tax exemption should not be awarded to the noncustodial parent without regard to the economic realities of the particular case. Id. at 239. Rather, such an award should ordinarily be limited “to those situations where the noncustodial parent has the higher income and provides the majority of support for the child.” Id. Second, the award of the exemption should be supported by findings to that effect, or by findings that enumerate other exceptional circumstances so that awarding the exemption to the noncustodial parent is in the best interests of the parties and the children. Id. In my view, this is the lesson of Motes: the award of the tax exemption for dependents should be based on economic realities and it should be supported by adequate findings.
It bears mention that the trial in Motes preceded the effective date of Utah’s statutory child support guidelines, see Utah Code Ann. §§ 78-45-1, -13 (1992), and thus some of the discussion in Motes is not directly applicable to the post-guideline context. Specifically, before the adoption of the guidelines, setting child support was a much more case-specific exercise, and the question of which parent would get the tax exemptions was among the myriad of factors to be considered in arriving at the right figure. With the guidelines, the Legislature has fixed what it considers appropriate child support figures at particular income levels, apparently without regard to who enjoys the tax benefit of dependency exemptions.
The guidelines specify the appropriate total child support based on the parents’ combined monthly adjusted gross income, see id. § 78-45-7.14, and divide this total obligation between the parents in proportion to their respective incomes. See id. § 78-45-7.7. The guidelines as I read them do not mandate any particular adjustment to reflect the fact that one party has the economic benefit of the tax exemption for the supported children. The guidelines are rebuttable, however, and child support may be adjusted after considering factors relevant to the parents’ respective economic situations. Id. § 78-45-7(3). Thus, it may be appropriate in some cases that a trial court, having decided which parent should be awarded the tax exemption for dependents, would consider increasing the support obligation of that parent.
But to make such an upward adjustment mandatory, as the majority all but does, goes further than the Legislature has seen fit to require. It also reflects an overly rigid interpretation of Motes without taking into account the subsequent enactment of legislatively-mandated guidelines. Thus, it might be that, in a particular case, the economic burdens of a noncustodial parent would permit a child support award at the guideline level, without adjustment down ward, only if that parent had the benefit of the tax exemptions. Where appropriate findings were made to that effect, I would regard it a sufficient justification to award the exemptions to that parent. It may even be enough that the custodial parent’s income is too low to make any real use of the exemptions while the noncustodial parent will benefit materially from having the opportunity to utilize the exemptions. Where the court’s findings so establish, giving the exemptions to the noncustodial parent would be unobjectionable, even if not accompanied by some increase in child support, if the court found support at the level prescribed by the Legislature to be entirely adequate.
In conclusion, I agree that under Motes we need adequate findings to ascertain whether there is a sound reason for shifting the tax exemptions for dependent children to the noncustodial parent. I disagree *981only with the majority’s effort to narrowly limit the circumstances which would constitute such a sound reason.