Court Opinion

ID: 9954146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-25 18:12:47.091699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:11:51.367664
License: Public Domain

J-A26023-23

NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT O.P. 65.37

 WAYNE COUNTY CHILDREN AND               :   IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
 YOUTH SERVICES                          :        PENNSYLVANIA
                                         :
                                         :
              v.                         :
                                         :
                                         :
 ANDREW GLUSHKO                          :
                                         :   No. 491 EDA 2023
                   Appellant             :

             Appeal from the Order Entered February 8, 2023
   In the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne County Domestic Relations at
                           No(s): 2022-30251

BEFORE: DUBOW, J., McLAUGHLIN, J., and KING, J.

MEMORANDUM BY McLAUGHLIN, J.:                       FILED MARCH 25, 2024

      Andrew Glushko appeals pro se from the child support order entered in

the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas. He claims the court abused its

discretion in calculating his child support payments. We affirm.

      In May 2022, Wayne County Children and Youth Services (“CYS”) filed

a complaint for child support against Glushko for the support of his child who

was in CYS’s custody. The trial court held a de novo hearing on the issue of

child support on February 7, 2023. Following the hearing, on February 8,

2023, the court ordered Glushko to pay child support to the Pennsylvania
J-A26023-23

State Collection and Disbursement Unit in the monthly amount of $390, which

included $380 child support plus $10 arrears. This appeal followed.1

       Glushko raises the following question: “Whether the common pleas

court erred or abused its discretion in calculating [Glushko’s] child support

payments?” Glushko’s Br. at 4.

       Glushko maintains that at the February 7, 2023 hearing, he testified

that he is a self-employed contractor and “[i]n 2021[,] his net income was

$12,917, including a depreciation deduction of $9,288 for that year.” Id. at 5.

He asserted that the deduction was for “equipment, machinery, and a vehicle

that were necessary for [his] business operations.” Id. He argues that he

“made payments on loans for these same items in the amount of $12,000 per

year: $500 per month on a personal loan for the equipment and machinery,

$500 per month on a vehicle loan.” Id. He maintains that these payments

were not deducted as expenses from his tax returns, but instead depreciation

of the items was taken over time. Id. Glushko also submitted his 2022 tax

____________________________________________

1 CYS moved to quash the appeal. It asserted that after Glushko had appealed,

the trial court issued an order on May 23, 2023, terminating Glushko’s monthly
child support obligation and re-classifying the matter as an arrears-only case.
See Mot. to Quash Appeal, filed Aug. 14, 2023, at ¶ 10. CYS argued that
because the trial court had, in effect, rescinded its February 8, 2023 order,
Glushko lacked standing to appeal. Id. at ¶ 12.

This Court denied the motion per curiam. See Order, filed Aug. 18, 2023. We
explained that pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1701(a), after an appeal is taken, a trial
court may no longer proceed further in the matter. Thus, we concluded that
the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the May 23, 2023 order and
that the February 8, 2023 order was properly before this Court.

                                           -2-
J-A26023-23

returns as evidence at the hearing, which demonstrated a net loss of $2,014

for that year, including a depreciation deduction of $5,573. Id. at 5-6.

      Glushko concedes that the amount of child support that he was ordered

to pay “is consistent with the Pennsylvania support guideline calculation for

[his] 2021 net income if depreciation was added back into this income[.]” Id.

at 6. However, he argues the trial court erroneously added back his

depreciation expenses as income and did not account for his loan payments

when calculating his income for support payments. Id. at 9. Glushko

maintains that his “depreciation expenses were relevant to actual expenses

that negatively affected his cash flow” and that “[n]either the lower court or

hearing examiner opined that Glushko was incredulous or sheltering his

income.” Id. According to Glushko, “there was an actual negative impact on

his cash flow necessary for his business’s operations” and “these expenses

should not have been added to his income when calculating his child support

payments.” Id. at 11.

      We review a child support order for an abuse of discretion. Silver v.

Pinskey, 981 A.2d 284, 291 (Pa.Super. 2009) (en banc).

      Depreciation expenses, which are permitted under federal income tax

law, are not automatically deducted from a party’s gross income for purposes

of determining a support award. See Cunningham v. Cunningham, 548

A.2d 611, 612 (Pa.Super. 1988). Rather, the trial court must consider the

“actual disposable income of the parties[.]” Id. “Depreciation and depletion

expenses should be deducted from gross income only where they reflect an

                                     -3-
J-A26023-23

actual reduction in the personal income of the party claiming the deductions,

such as where, e.g., he or she actually expends funds to replace worn

equipment or purchase new reserves.” Id. at 613; see Fennell v. Fennell,

753 A.2d 866, 868 (Pa.Super. 2000) (stating that this Court has “held

repeatedly that deductions or losses reflected on corporate books or individual

tax returns are irrelevant to the calculation of available income unless they

reflect an actual reduction in available cash”).2

       Here, the trial court did not err in adding back Glushko’s depreciation

expenses as income. A review of the record reveals that Glushko failed to

meet his burden of showing that the depreciation expenses resulted in an

actual reduction in his personal income. Besides his own self-serving

testimony, Glushko did not present any evidence that he had made the alleged

loan payments or any other evidence of an actual reduction in his available

income. See N.T., 2/7/23, at 18-21. The trial court evidently did not credit his

testimony. Accordingly, the court did not abuse its discretion.

       Order affirmed.

____________________________________________

2 See also Amato v. Amato, 284 A.3d 893 (Table), 2022 WL 3088530, at

*12 (Pa.Super. 2022) (unpublished mem.) (stating “[i]t has been a long
accepted practice of adding back depreciation in child support cases as
depreciation is a fictional expense that business owners are able to use on tax
returns, over the passage of time, to reduce taxable income. It is a tax shield;
not an actual expense. Accordingly, the burden is on the business owner, in a
child support case, to demonstrate why it shouldn’t be added back to income”)
(incorporating trial court’s opinion) (emphasis removed).

                                           -4-
J-A26023-23

Date: 3/25/2024

                  -5-