When on the lecture circuit talking about appellate practice, one of the data points commonly referenced is that 85-90% of cases appealed to the Superior Court are affirmed. Trial judges also know this and for that reason they tend to “smart” when the appellate court finds an error and sends the case back to be corrected. Sometimes, they have a point, as in situations where the decision to reverse offers no clear path over what the chastened trial court is supposed to do.

Witness, September first’s Cymerman v. Cymerman. 35 EDA 2026. This is a support case that began in 2024. The case was sent to a hearing officer and a hearing took place in August 2025. A report and disposition was made a couple weeks later to which husband/obligor excepted. Those exceptions included argument that the hearing officer erred in assessing husband’s earnings. It was also argued that the private school contribution imposed was too high and that husband should have been assessed a lower than guideline support amount. The trial court reviewed the report and the arguments, affirming the recommendation. Husband appealed.

Let’s start here. The case was heard and evidence entered in late August 2025. At that hearing husband said he didn’t have a tax return for 2024. Instead he introduced “calculations” that showed his gross earnings from self-employment were $285,000 or $17,778 a month. The last time this writer did division $285/12 is $23,750 a month. Father offered his own tax analysis that yielded a net income of $15,000 a month. The trial court had adopted that analysis. Husband said it was too high.

Now, the real fun begins. Husband said the trial court erred because it did not make him file a return for 2024. Had it done so, the trial court might not have erred. Nothing is offered as to why husband did not file his 2024 returns in April 2025 when it was due. Topic no. 301, When, how and where to file | Internal Revenue Service Yes, you can seek an extension which now allows you to file as late as October of the year the return is due, but there is nothing discussed in the case indicating why an extension was needed or sought. And shouldn’t the burden be on Mr. Self-employment to have a complete documentary analysis of what the return looks like based on the data he had on August 25?

Husband’s second issue is a common mishap. Wife sought a contribution toward private school for the 2024-2025 academic year. Husband replied tuition had already been paid from marital assets before the support action was filed. One would hope that how and when the tuition for that year was paid would be clear, but then again, this is family court and the parties had but 10-11 months to prepare for the August hearing. The trial court said it calculated future tuition not past, although such a calculation should not produce an arrearage. The issue is complicated because wife seems to have paid the tuition out of her pre-tax retirement account. That’s messy but it’s also an equitable distribution issue and not one for support court.

The appellate decisions tells us (but without explanation) that the court disagreed with husband calculation of taxes by $1,500 or about $125/month. But then the trial court seems to have decided to calculate net income based on what it thought the husband would pay rather than the actual amount calculated to be due. Unfortunately the opinion provides an analysis bereft of facts in a numeric sense.

The Superior Court affirmed while suggesting the trial court did not “consider taxes owed when calculating [Husband’s] net income.” This conclusion seems patently erroneous. The opinion tells us that Husband asserted his net income was $15,000 and the trial court concurred. Meanwhile, we don’t seem to have a common understanding of gross income with husband asserting $17,778 while his own $285,000 assertion is $6,000 a month higher.

At page 10 the opinion asserts that husband and the trial court were wrong and the hearing officer was right in deciding net income. Yet, the trial court affirmed the hearing officers report and recommendation. Page 9 refers to treatment of deductions taken by husband for corporate tax and accounting fees. This is the first and only reference to corporate taxes and the reference to that obligation signals the question of whether the business reports on an accrual or cash basis.

Judicial opinions are provided with the hope that they will teach the judiciary, the bar and the public how to treat legal issues. This opinion creates more confusion than clarity. It says the trial court and the appellant were wrong but affirms the result. What is most concerning is that courts are giving serious consideration to an appeal where the appellant did not provide a tax return that was due four months before the hearing began. This only encourages the self-employed to play games to manipulate a child support result. The Supreme Court rules are explicit. Each party is to bring a tax return and pay information to the proceedings where support is decided. Pa.R.C.P. 1910.27.

Post script: Curiosity got the better of me so I ran 2024 taxes for a self-employed individual reporting gross income of $285,000. Filing as a head of household with the standard deduction I got a monthly net of $15,630. The court had concluded $15,044. Of course this all assumes husband’s $285,000 gross was accurate or at least appeared on a Form 1040.

The case: J-S17045-26m – 106908748372267972.pdf