Automated Summary
Key Facts
Jessica Breaux appealed a child support judgment from the Twenty-Seventh Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry, challenging the trial court's inclusion of her per diem allowances in her gross income calculation. Matthew Thomas Pickett, the domiciliary parent, sought child support for their minor child. The trial court found Jessica's gross income at $14,197/month in 2019 and $13,066/month in 2020, including per diem payments. Jessica argued per diem should be excluded under La.R.S. 9:315(C)(3)(d)(ii) if not taxable under federal law. The trial court required Jessica to prove her per diem was non-taxable and found she failed to provide federal tax returns. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding the burden of proof was properly placed on Jessica and the trial court's calculation was not manifestly erroneous.
Issues
- Whether the trial court legally erred in placing the burden on Jessica to prove that her per diem allowances were not subject to federal income taxation under the Internal Revenue Code, as required by Louisiana child support guidelines.
- Whether the trial court erred in its calculation of Jessica's gross income by including per diem allowances, given that the court found she failed to prove these payments were exempt from federal income taxation under the Internal Revenue Code.
Holdings
The Court of Appeal, Third Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court determined that the trial court did not err in placing the burden of proof on Jessica Breaux to demonstrate that her per diem allowances were not subject to federal income taxation under the Internal Revenue Code. Additionally, the court found the trial court did not manifestly err in calculating Jessica's gross income by including the per diem payments, as Jessica failed to provide sufficient evidence (including federal tax returns) to prove the per diem allowances were exempt from federal taxation.
Remedies
The Court of Appeal, Third Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment. All costs of this appeal were assessed to Jessica Breaux, the appellant.
Legal Principles
- Verified income statements and documentation of earnings are required under La.R.S. 9:315.2, including federal tax returns. Without proper documentation such as tax returns, the trial court may question the reliability of income testimony and supporting evidence like pay stubs.
- Under Louisiana child support guidelines (La.R.S. 9:315(C)(3)), when a party claims per diem allowances should be excluded from gross income calculations, the burden of proof is placed on that party to demonstrate the allowances are not subject to federal income taxation. The trial court properly assigned this burden to the appellant.
- Findings of fact in child support cases, including gross income determinations, are reviewed on appeal using the manifest error-clearly erroneous standard. An appellate court must review the record in its entirety and find that no reasonable factual basis exists for the trial court's finding before reversing.
Precedent Name
Div. of Admin., Office of Cmty. Dev.—Disaster Recovery Unit v. Leger
Cited Statute
- Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:315.2
- Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:315
Judge Name
- Billy H. Ezell
- Charles G. Fitzgerald
- Candyce G. Perret
Passage Text
- Put simply, the trial court's decision to include the per diem payments as gross income is reasonably supported by the record. The trial court did not manifestly err in calculating Jessica's gross income.
- The issue here is whether the trial court erred by including the mother's per diem allowances in calculating her gross income for child support.
- I know what the statute says. I know it says that if it's not taxable by the Internal Revenue Service, that it's not included in gross income. It says that. Now, all I have that it's not being taxed, is Ms. Breaux's statement that she's not paying any tax on it. I also have that her employer is not withholding any tax from it, but again employers don't necessarily always withhold tax from per diem. It is quite unusual, in my view, for someone to receive per diem when they're not required to travel. In this case, not even required to leave their home, much less go to an office down the road, not required to do so. No explanation, other than her employer classifies it as per diem.