The right to child support and the responsibilities of parents to provide such support have been internationally recognized. Ĭhild support is often arranged as part of a divorce, marital separation, annulment, determination of parentage or dissolution of a civil union and may supplement alimony (spousal support) arrangements. In other jurisdictions, and even with legally shared residence, unless they can prove exactly equal contributions, one parent will be deemed the non-resident parent for child support and will have to pay the other parent a proportion of their income the "resident" parent's income or needs are not assessed. In some jurisdictions where there is joint custody, the child is considered to have two custodial parents and no non-custodial parents, and a custodial parent with a higher income (obligor) may be required to pay the other custodial parent (obligee). Typically one has the same duty to pay child support irrespective of sex, so a mother is required to pay support to a father just as a father must pay a mother. The obligee is typically a custodial parent, a caregiver, a guardian, or the state.ĭepending on the jurisdiction, a custodial parent may pay child support to a non-custodial parent. Often the obligor is a non-custodial parent. Child maintenance is paid directly or indirectly by an obligor to an obligee for the care and support of children of a relationship that has been terminated, or in some cases never existed.
Of course, any distributions actually made from the S-Corp will be automatically counted as income.Child support (or child maintenance) is an ongoing, periodic payment made by a parent for the financial benefit of a child (or parent, caregiver, guardian, or state) following the end of a marriage or other similar relationship. The Court states that the burden is on the shareholder party to prove the S-corporation income was properly retained for corporate purposes, rather than impermissibly retained to avoid child support obligations. Id. at 1233. The Court states the “potential for manipulation is greater if the spouse is a sole or majority shareholder who, by virtue of his or her ownership, has more control than does a minority shareholder over whether income is retained or distributed by the corporation.” Id. Rosen, that “proceedings under Chapter 61 are in equity and governed by basic rules of fairness ” that the Court should not allow a shareholder of an S-corporation to reduce the amount of available income by manipulating the retention of pass-through income for his personal benefit. The Court points out that its conclusion is consistent with Rosen v. However, the Court states that where such income has been retained for non-corporate purposes, such as to shield the income from the reach of the other spouse during dissolution, the improper motive for its retention makes it “available” or “business” income under the meaning of Chapter 61. Id. at 1231-32. The Court states that if such income has been retained for corporate purposes, then it cannot be included in a child support calculation because it is not “available” income. The Court finds there is no bright-line rule that such income is or is not to be included in child support calculations. 2d 1222 (2005) reviews the issue of whether the “pass through” income of an S-corporation that not “distributed” to shareholders constitutes income within the meaning of Chapter 61. Section 61.30(2)(a)(3), Florida Statutes (2013) (“Chapter 61”) provides that income for purposes of calculating child support shall include business income from close corporations.įlorida Supreme Court case, Zold v.