- 15 -
As previously noted, we believe the language to be merely
precatory. In other words, we construe the Superior Court to
recommend a particular allocation and to request notice if Ms.
Ambrose elected this option. It also appears that the agreement
of Mr. and Ms. Ambrose would have been necessary to effect a
change in their stipulation.
Also, the references in Ms. Ambrose's filings to allocations
between spousal and child support were indirect and vague. The
October 11, 1990, document contains the implication that the
amounts reported as income were solely derived from monthly
spousal support of $9,500; however, the space provided for
spousal support was left blank. The affidavit accompanying the
October 12, 1990, request for modification of the temporary order
does, however, contain the statement that Ms. Ambrose received
$9,500 in spousal support with estimated taxes paid on that
amount. Likewise, the August 27, 1992, document lists $8,000 for
child support and $9,500 for spousal support.
Ms. Ambrose in her 1989 Federal income tax return reported
the $9,500 proposed monthly amounts set forth in the memorandum
of opinion. We note that the tax reporting of items in a
particular manner is not probative evidence, but instead
represents a self-serving representation. See Old Mission
Portland Cement Co. v. Commissioner, 69 F.2d 676 (9th Cir. 1934),
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011