{
  "id": 173525,
  "name": "In re MARRIAGE OF CONNIE S. CROSSLAND, n/k/a Connie S. Heller, Petitioner-Appellee, and ALAN E. CROSSLAND, Respondent-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Marriage of Crossland",
  "decision_date": "1999-09-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 3-99-0039",
  "first_page": "292",
  "last_page": "296",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "307 Ill. App. 3d 292"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "Treas. Reg. \u00a7\u00a7 1.61-1",
      "category": "laws:admin_compilation",
      "reporter": "Treas. Reg.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(c)(2)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "699 N.E.2d 237",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 Ill. App. 3d 666",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        1073551
      ],
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/298/0666-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 C.B. 594",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "C.B.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 434,
    "char_count": 6361,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.818,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.126044899151866e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4278104630810522
    },
    "sha256": "9c31df1d7d35450cb4a4fdc6beb952f303091010ecd50e9d949b5fa1f8a04e93",
    "simhash": "1:892bef0660dfec01",
    "word_count": 1019
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:00:41.446378+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "In re MARRIAGE OF CONNIE S. CROSSLAND, n/k/a Connie S. Heller, Petitioner-Appellee, and ALAN E. CROSSLAND, Respondent-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HOMER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe respondent, Alan E. Crossland, appeals from an order of the circuit court granting a petition filed by the petitioner, Connie S. Heller, to increase child support. Alan argues that (1) the court erred in failing to deduct per diem income in determining Alan\u2019s net income for support purposes; (2) the law-of-the-case doctrine precluded the court from reconsidering the treatment of per diem income; and (3) the evidence failed to prove a substantial change in circumstances. We affirm.\nFACTS\nAlan and Connie were divorced on June 20, 1991. As the noncustodial parent of the parties\u2019 two minor children, Alan was ordered to pay child support. On September 8, 1997, Connie filed a petition to modify support. At the time, Alan was employed as an over-the-road truck driver for Capitol Transports, Inc. A letter from Capitol\u2019s payroll department stated that per diem at the rate of $32 per day was segregated on Alan\u2019s pay slip because it was nontaxable income. Alan\u2019s net income for support purposes without deducting per diem was $487.28 per week. On March 23, 1998, Associate Judge Patricia Walton granted Connie\u2019s petition, increasing Alan\u2019s support obligation from $75 to $95 per week. In so ruling, Judge Walton determined that per diem should be deducted in calculating Alan\u2019s net income for support purposes. Neither party appealed from the court\u2019s order.\nOn October 1, 1998, Connie filed another petition to modify. She alleged that Alan had changed jobs in March to work for Callaway Carriers, Inc., and his income had increased substantially. The evidence showed that Callaway did not segregate an amount for per diem income. Alan\u2019s net income for support purposes was $576.17 per week, an increase of approximately 18% over what he had been paid working for Capitol. On December 16, 1998, Judge John Clerkin granted Connie\u2019s petition, increasing support to $144 per week. In so ruling, Judge Clerkin denied Alan\u2019s claim for a $36 per diem deduction. Alan appeals from Judge Clerkin\u2019s order.\nISSUES AND ANALYSES\nDeductibility of Per Diem Income\nInitially, we consider Alan\u2019s argument that the trial court erred as a matter of law in ruling that he was not entitled to a per diem deduction from his current wages. Alan requests that this court adopt the Internal Revenue Service\u2019s current $36-per-day allowable deduction for employees of the transportation industry (Rev. Proc. 97\u201459, 1997\u20142 C.B. 594) in calculating his net income under section 505(a)(3) of the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act (Act) (750 ILCS 5/505(a)(3) (West 1998)).\nFor the purpose of child support, \u201cnet income\u201d is defined as the total of all income from all sources, minus the following deductions: (a) federal income taxes; (b) state income taxes;(c) social security payments; (d) mandatory retirement contributions; (e) union dues; (f) health insurance; (g) prior support obligations; and (h) expenditures for repayment of certain debts, including those reasonably and necessarily incurred for the production of income. 750 ILCS 5/505(a) (3) (a) through (a)(3)(h) (West 1998).\nAlan concedes that his business travel expenses do not fall within subsection 505(a)(3)(h) of the Act because they do not constitute repayment of debt. Nor do such expenses arguably fit within any of the other deductions listed in section 505(a)(3). Notwithstanding, Alan contends that his travel expenses constitute \u201cordinary and necessary expenses\u201d incurred in carrying on his trade, and that he should be allowed to deduct the Internal Revenue Service\u2019s per diem allowance as a reasonable estimation of the actual expenses so incurred. He argues that the legislature in drafting section 505(a)(3) never contemplated that a supporting parent would have to pay child support on \u201cgross receipts\u201d reduced only by those deductions enumerated in section 505(a)(3). The statutory deductions, he maintains, are in addition to those allowed by section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C. \u00a7 162), which permits deductions for ordinary and necessary business expenses.\nThe treatment of tax deductible per diem paid to over-the-road truck drivers for purposes of child support appears to be an issue of first impression in this state. We note, however, that the Industrial Commission Division of the Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled that payments to over-the-road truck drivers, designated by employers as \u201creimbursement,\u201d constitute \u201cwages\u201d to the extent that the payments represent real economic gain rather than actual reimbursement for travel purposes. Swearingen v. Industrial Comm\u2019n, 298 Ill. App. 3d 666, 699 N.E.2d 237 (1998). Although the definition of \u201cwages\u201d for purposes of establishing workers\u2019 compensation benefits is not coextensive with the concept of \u201cnet income\u201d for purposes of child support awards, we believe Swearingen\u2019s rationale is instructive.\nFurther, we are unpersuaded by Alan\u2019s federal income tax analogy in this instance. It is true that for tax purposes an employee can deduct from his adjusted gross income (AGI) actual business expenses for which he either receives specific reimbursement or recovers under an expense allowance arrangement. I.R.C. \u00a7 62(a)(2)(A); Treas. Reg. \u00a7\u00a7 1.61\u20141(c)(2), 1.61\u20142. However, as in the instant case, when employee business expenses are not specifically reimbursed by the employer or recovered under an expense allowance arrangement, they can only be taken as itemized deductions on the employee\u2019s federal income tax return. I.R.C. \u00a7 162(a)(2). In such instance, the deductions are subject to certain threshold limitations and do not reduce AGI.\nWe conclude that the trial court properly disallowed the claimed per diem deduction in computing Alan\u2019s net income for the purposes of child support.\nCONCLUSION\nFor the reasons stated, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Fulton County.\nAffirmed.\nBRESLIN and SLATER, JJ., concur.\nFor a more detailed discussion of the federal income tax ramifications, see Federal Tax Service (CCH) \u00a7 A: 10.42 (1998).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HOMER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jeff L. Neigel, of Sebo & Clark, of Canton, for appellant.",
      "Kirk W Bode, of McCoy & Bode, of Pekin, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "In re MARRIAGE OF CONNIE S. CROSSLAND, n/k/a Connie S. Heller, Petitioner-Appellee, and ALAN E. CROSSLAND, Respondent-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201499\u20140039\nOpinion filed September 9, 1999.\nJeff L. Neigel, of Sebo & Clark, of Canton, for appellant.\nKirk W Bode, of McCoy & Bode, of Pekin, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0292-01",
  "first_page_order": 310,
  "last_page_order": 314
}