In In re Marriage of Calcaterra & Badakhsh (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 28, the court of appeal held, in a case involving modification of a child support order, that "where the trial court recognizes deception, it may draw adverse factual inferences and even refer the matter for perjury prosecution." (Calcaterra, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at p. 31.) In Calcaterra, the father appealed from an order increasing his child support obligation from $ 350 per month to $ 1789 per month, arguing (among other things) that the evidence was insufficient to support the trial court's determination of his income. The trial court had expressly found that the father (and the mother) committed perjury, intentionally misrepresenting their incomes and expenses. (Id. at p. 33.) The father testified that his gross income for the year was $ 30,483 and his tax returns showed similar amounts. The trial court found he had monthly income of almost $ 28,000 (id. at p. 34), relying on information in a loan application made by the father on one of his properties. The court of appeal concluded that "the presumption of correctness of recent tax returns may be rebutted by a statement of income on a loan application where, as here, the parent owns his own business." (Id. at pp. 34-35 "in view of the huge discrepancy between the tax returns, the ... loan applications, his income and expense declaration, and testimony, the trial court was not required to accept the statement of income on the tax returns".) In In re Marriage of Calcaterra & Badakhsh (2005) where the court found intentional misrepresentations of income and expenses by both father and mother, there was evidence of the father's actual income in a loan application he apparently signed. (Calcaterra, supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 33, 34-35.) Meanwhile, the mother testified that her income was $ 2,600 per month, but the court found her annual income was $ 72,000 based on her average monthly bank deposits of $ 6,000. (Id. at p. 33.) (The evidence showed the mother had two teaching credentials and a doctorate in clinical psychology. (Ibid.)) The trial court rejected the father's contention that the court should have imputed monthly income to mother of $ 9,000 based on earning capacity, rather than $ 6,000 based on the monthly bank deposits. (Id. at p. 37.) The court of appeal stated that the trial court had imputed income based on earning capacity (id. at p. 37) and held that based on the bank deposits, it did not abuse its discretion in doing so. The mother had testified that she was on complete disability, could not work full time, was not a licensed clinical psychologist, and could not get a job as a registered psychologist assistant because of the absence of jobs.) (Id. at pp. 37-38.)