In Smith v. Smith, 18 Va. App. 427, 434, 444 S.E.2d 269, 274 (1994), the Court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in failing to include capital gains in the gross income computation where the realization of the capital gains was not contemporaneous with the support hearing and "no income realized from the capital gains remained as a liquid asset from which support could be paid." The Court also noted that the gains were "used to reduce marital debt or enhance the marital estate and presumably were taken into account" in the concomitant equitable distribution proceeding. Id. Smith makes clear that contemporaneous capital gains should be included in the gross income computation. Determining what income is contemporaneous is an issue for the trier of fact, depending on the circumstances of each case, subject to the appropriate standard of review on appeal.