In the Matter of Janice E. Maves and David L. Moore
166 N.H. 564
| N.H. | 2014Background
- divorced couple, SLF owned by respondent (S-corp) as marital asset;
- 14-year-old son with shared weekly parenting time;
- Respondent’s child support increased from $650 to $950;
- Respondent provides health insurance, medical expenses, camps, and ski-related expenses for son;
- SLF profits and capital gains reported on respondent’s personal tax returns;
- 2011 capital gains of $1,000,389 and a $887,754 line of credit used for expenses are central to income calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether capital gains from SLF condo sales are gross income | Maves: capital gains should be gross income | Moore: gains are SLF funds, not his personal gross income | Yes, capital gains are gross income |
| Whether line of credit funds should be included or excluded | Maves: include all funds available to pay | Moore: exclude line of credit as double-counting | Exclude line of credit; do not double-count with capital gains |
| Whether AGI was the proper measure of income | Maves: use gross income not AGI | Moore: AGI appropriate | Vacated; remand for proper gross income calculation with appropriate deductions |
| Whether legitimate business expenses of SLF should reduce gross income | Maves: deduct business expenses; self-employment standard applies | Moore: expenses may be deductible if necessary and actually incurred | Remand to determine deductions and any special circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- In the Matter of Woolsey & Woolsey, 164 N.H. 301 (N.H. 2012) (gross income broadly construed to minimize child’s burden; de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- In the Matter of Albert & McRae, 155 N.H. 259 (N.H. 2007) (capital gains included under gross income where applicable)
- Jerome v. Jerome, 150 N.H. 626 (N.H. 2004) (property division and child support have different purposes)
- Knight v. Lincoln, 317 P.3d 210 (Okla. Ct. App. 2013) (capital gains treated as income for child support in many jurisdictions)
- Rattee v. Rattee, 146 N.H. 44 (N.H. 2001) (treatment of business income in asset disposition context)
- Bank of N.Y. Mellon v. Cataldo, 161 N.H. 135 (N.H. 2010) (avoidance of absurd results when interpreting statutory income)