In the Mumma case, the wife called the court’s attention to the depreciation deduction that the Husband was taking for his business. She pointed out that depreciation is a non-cash flow event and so the money is available to the Husband.
The argument on the other side is that equipment really does wear out and needs to be replaced eventually. When it does, it will take cash flow to purchase new equipment.
Taking a look at the Maryland Child Support Guidelines in Section 12-201 of the Family Law Article, we see that income from self employment means gross receipts minus ordinary and necessary expenses.
However, the statute goes on to say that ordinary and necessary expenses do not include accelerated depreciation, investment tax credits, or any other expenses the court determines in not appropriate to subtract.
So what about straight line depreciation? Does the fact that the law expressly disqualifies accelerated depreciation but not straight line depreciation mean you get to deduct it from income? Or does the catch-all provision at the end allow the court to decide? In the cases I have tried, the trial judges have included straight line depreciation as income.