I’ve an X who when the time comes for their yearly bonus to be paid out voluntarily chooses to have it awarded as added paid time off ( PTO ) as opposed to added pay to their pay check. I believe the term for that style of benefit mgmt is called a cafeteria plan where in the employee can pick from a variety of methods for benefits. I believe X is doing this to suppress their income. X contends that it isn’t income for the purposes of child support. I contend that is time that they will be paid NOT to work in addition to their allotted normal time off, i.e. sick leave, holiday, vacation.
Surely this situation has come up before and these slack ass arguments have been brought before the judges. Is there a precedent? Need I have the monotonous debate with the X or is there a precedent to point to?
As always, thanks bunches