In this domestic matter, the plaintiff appeals a trial court judgment that awarded the defendant the right to claim state and federal income tax dependency deductions regarding their minor child for odd-numbered years. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Jennifer Axler Dirteater and Bryan Lee Dirteater were married in 2014 and subsequently divorced in 2020. They are the parents of one child, born on May 3, 2015.
On February 26, 2020, the trial court signed a stipulated judgment, wherein Jennifer and Bryan agreed to a joint custody implementation plan regarding the physical custody of the minor child, child support, and other incidentals.
1
Pursuant to the stipulated judgment, the parties were awarded joint custody of their minor child with Jennifer being designated as the domiciliary parent. Additionally, Bryan was awarded physical custody of the minor child every other weekend with specified holiday and summer schedules. The stipulated judgment also provided that “[e]ach year, the Father shall be allowed to take advantage of any tax deductions and/or credits, allowed by law and related to all healthcare expenses related to the child, and the Mother shall claim the remainder of the ‘Standard Deductions and Exemptions.’ ”
On November 10, 2020, Bryan filed a motion to modify custody, seeking additional physical custody of the minor child, revision of the holiday schedule, and the right to claim the minor child as a dependent for tax purposes for every odd-numbered year
2
Prior to the commencement of the hearing on the motion to modify custody, the parties agreed to amend the February 26, 2020 stipulated judgment. Bryan was awarded custody for three weekends every month, and the parties revised the holiday and summer schedules. Additionally, Bryans rule for the tax dependency deduction was continued without date and without prejudice. Otherwise, all other provisions in the February 26, 2020 stipulated judgment not specifically amended therein remained in full force and effect. The trial court signed this stipulated judgment on April 15, 2021.
On July 1, 2021, Bryan filed a motion to set his rule for the tax dependency deduction for hearing. Following a Zoom hearing on August 23, 2021, the trial court awarded Bryan the exclusive right to claim the minor child as a tax dependent for both state and federal taxes for odd-numbered years beginning in 2021. Jennifer was awarded the exclusive right to claim the minor child as a tax dependent for both state and federal taxes for even-numbered years beginning in 2022. The trial court also awarded Jennifer any and all stimulus money received for the benefit of the minor child. The trial court signed a judgment on September 21, 2021 in conformity with its ruling, and Jennifer appealed.
3
In her appeal, Jennifer argues that the trial court erred in (1) awarding Bryan the right to claim the minor child as a tax dependent every other year as it significantly harms her, and (2) failing to give written or oral reasons as to its decision to deviate from the child support guidelines.
4
DISCUSSION
In her initial specification of error, Jennifer challenges the trial courts conclusion that Bryan is entitled to claim the minor child as a tax dependent every other year. The right of a party to claim the federal and state income tax dependency deduction is governed by LSA-R.S. 9:315.18, which provides, in pertinent part:
A. The amounts set forth in the schedule [for support] in R.S. 9:315.19 presume that the custodial or domiciliary party has the right to claim the child as a dependent. However, the claiming of dependents for federal and state income tax purposes shall be as provided in Subsection B of this Section.
B. (1) The non-domiciliary party whose child support obligation equals or exceeds fifty percent of the total child support obligation shall be entitled to claim the child as a dependent for federal and state tax purposes if, after a contradictory motion, the judge finds both of the following:
(a) No arrearages are owed by the obligor.
(b) The right to claim the child ․ would substantially benefit the non-domiciliary party without significantly harming the domiciliary party.
Both elements of LSA-R.S. 9:315.13(B)(1) must be satisfied in order for a non-domiciliary party to be entitled to the tax dependency deduction. State ex rel. Dillashaw v. Brinson, 2002-0896 (La.App. 1 Cir. 4/2/03), 843 So.2d 1154, 1156. With respect to a trial courts decision to award a parent the right to claim a child as a deduction for tax purposes, such a ruling is “entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal absent clear abuse of discretion.” Westcott v. Westcott, 2004-2298 (La.App. 1 Cir. 11/4/05), 927 So.2d 377, 379.
At the August 23, 2021 hearing on Bryans tax dependency deduction claim, the parties agreed and stipulated to the accuracy of certain numbers.
5
The parties stipulated, based on their 2020 tax return, that Jennifer earned $47,500.00 and Bryan earned $64,000.00 in 2020. The parties also agreed that Bryan pays to Jennifer $805.00 per month in child support and daycare and that he was not in arrears on his child support obligation.
6
Additionally, the parties stipulated to and agreed that the detriment to Jennifer if Bryan was awarded the exclusive right to claim the minor child as a dependent was $3,250.00 and that the benefit to Bryan would be $3,695.00. No other evidence was introduced.
On appeal, Jennifer specifically asserts that while Bryan earned $64,000.00 and she only earned $47,500.00 in 2020, the harm to her is greater than the benefit to him because the $3,250.00 amount represents a larger percentage of her income. Thus, she argues if Bryan is allowed to claim the child she would be significantly harmed within the meaning of LSA-R.S. 9:315.18(B)(1).
After the stipulations and argument, the trial court ruled that it was going to order that the parties alternate the tax dependency deduction, but that Jennifer would receive any and all stimulus money received. Thus, in granting Bryan the tax dependency deduction for odd-numbered years, the trial court implicitly made the findings required under LSA-R.S. 9:315.18(B)(1). See Folse v. Folse, 2001-0946 (La.App. 1 Cir. 5/10/02), 818 So.2d 923, 926. Moreover, considering the alternating of years for the tax deduction, as well as the lack of great disparity in benefit to the party when claiming same, we can find no clear abuse of the trial courts discretion in allowing Bryan the exclusive right to claim the minor child as a tax dependent for both state and federal taxes for odd-numbered years beginning in 2021.
Jennifer also argues that the trial court erred in failing to give written or oral reasons for deviating from the child support guidelines, thereby violating LSA-R.S. 9:315.1. Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:315.1 provides, in pertinent part:
A. The guidelines set forth in this Part are to be used in any proceeding to establish or modify child support filed on or after October 1, 1989. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that the amount of child support obtained by use of the guidelines set forth in this Part is the proper amount of child support.
B. (1) The court may deviate from the guidelines set forth in this Part if their application would not be in the best interest of the child or would be inequitable to the parties. The court shall give specific oral or written reasons for the deviation, including a finding as to the amount of support that would have been required under a mechanical application of the guidelines and the particular facts and circumstances that warranted a deviation from the guidelines. The reasons shall be made part of the record of the proceedings.
Louisianas child support guidelines set forth the method for implementation of the parental obligation to pay child support. See LSA-R.S. 9:315.1(A). Louisiana Revised Statutes 9:315.2 requires the court to calculate a basic child support obligation by combining the parents adjusted gross incomes, determining each partys percentage share of the combined adjusted gross income, and applying these calculations to the schedule contained in LSA-R.S. 9:315.19. The total child support obligation is thereafter computed by adding together the basic child support obligation, the net child-care costs, the cost of the childs health insurance premiums, extraordinary medical expenses, and other extraordinary expenses. LSA-R.S. 9:315.8(A). Each parents share of the total child support obligation is then determined by multiplying his or her percentage share of the combined adjusted gross income by the total child support obligation. LSA-R.S. 9:315.8(C). Thereafter, the court fixes and awards, as a money judgment, the total child support obligation in favor of the domiciliary parent or parent with legal custody. See LSA-R.S. 9:315.8(D); see also Lambert v. Lambert, 2006-2399 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/23/07), 960 So.2d 921, 924.
In support of her argument that the trial court erred in failing to give reasons, Jennifer refers to Guillot v. Munn, 99-2132 (La. 3/24/00), 756 So.2d 290, 297, wherein the supreme court stated:
Thus, although the amount of support determined by the use of the guidelines is presumed to be in the best interest of the child, this presumption can be rebutted, and a court may deviate from the level of support mandated by the guidelines, if the application of the guidelines would, in actuality, not be in the best interest of the child or would be inequitable to the parties. When deviating from the guidelines, courts must give specific reasons for the deviation, specifying the particular facts and circumstances evidencing that a deviation is warranted. Deviations should be allowed only in limited circumstances so that the function of the guidelines, which is to provide adequacy and consistency in child support awards, is preserved.
However, the matter currently before us does not involve a deviation from the amount of support set forth in the child support guidelines. Moreover, Jennifer has not offered any argument or evidence to show how awarding Bryan the tax dependency deduction for odd-numbered years is a deviation from these statutorily mandated guidelines. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.
7
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the September 21, 2021 judgment of the trial court is affirmed. All costs associated with this matter are assessed to Jennifer Axler Dirteater.
APPEAL MAINTAINED; JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. We note that the 2020 stipulated judgment in the record was signed by both parties before a notary public, but it does not indicate that the trial court signed the stipulated judgment on February 26, 2020. However, the parties agree that it was signed by the trial court on that date, and the record shows that notice of the judgment “Rendered, Read[,] and Signed on February 26, 2020,” was sent to the parties on February 28, 2020.
2
. In response to the motion to modify custody, Jennifer filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action or res judicata, arguing that there was no cause of action that would constitute a material change in circumstances to modify the stipulated judgment. Following a hearing on February 8, 2021, via Zoom video conference, the exception was denied, and the trial court signed a judgment in accordance with its ruling on February 22, 2021.
3
. On April 11, 2022, this Court issued a Rule to Show Cause Order stating that it appeared that the September 21, 2021 judgment regarding the tax dependency deduction was not a final, appealable ruling. However, a party has a right of appeal, and this Court has jurisdiction to review, judgments regarding modification of custody, visitation, or support. See LSA-C.C.P. art. 3943; Dupuy v. Dupuy, 2000-2744 (La.App. 1 Cir. 3/28/01), 808 So.2d 562, 565. As such, we maintain the appeal.
4
. Bryan has not responded to the appeal.
5
. Counsel for Bryan waived Bryans presence at the hearing. Jennifer and her counsel were present.
6
. In the first stipulated judgment, Bryan agreed to pay the recommended child support obligation, based on the Child Support Worksheet A, in the amount of $500.00, plus fifty percent of the cost of daycare, for a current total of $805.61 per month.
7
. We recognize the case of Greene v. Greene, 93-789 (La.App. 3 Cir. 3/2/94), 634 So.2d 1286, amended on other grounds, 93-789 (La.App. 3 Cir. 7/6/94), 638 So.2d 1245, cited by Jennifer. Therein, the third circuit stated that “it would appear that to allocate the tax exemptions to a non-custodial parent is a deviation from the child support guidelines for which the trial judge must give reasons.” Greene, 634 So.2d at 1291-92. However, Greene concerned the calculation of the amount of child support due and was decided under prior versions of LSA-C.C. 131 and LSA-R.S. 9:315.18. Specifically, Article 131 previously provided that a provision for child support shall consider the impact of any dependency exemption granted to a parent. Also, the earlier version of LSA-R.S. 9:315.18 referred to the Internal Revenue Code and did not include Subsection B nor the language in Subsection A that “the claiming of dependents for federal and state income tax purposes shall be as provided in Subsection B of this Section.”
McCLENDON, J.