Kelly v. Kelly

In Kelly v. Kelly (Conn.Super.Ct., Dec. 18, 2003, No. FA920111299), a state statute provided that for purposes of determining child support "gross income is defined to include 'employment perquisites and in-kind compensation (any basic maintenance or special need such as food, shelter or transportation provided on a recurrent basis in lieu or in addition to salary or wages)'; and 'military personnel fringe benefit payments.' " (Id. at p. 5.) The court held the wife did not meet her burden of showing BAS payments qualified as a "perk" or a "military fringe benefit." (Id. at pp. 8- 9.) The court explained, "A common theme consistent with determinations that include the value of an employer reimbursement as income, is that the payment of the 'perk' is for a non-business related expense." (Id. at p. 7.) Without contrary evidence, the court concluded the BAS was "a direct expense associated with the husband's responsibilities and duties necessary to the performance of his employment." (Id. at p. 8.) The court also explained that a " 'fringe benefit' implies the receipt of a 'free benefit, such as health insurance or a pension received by an employee.' " (Id. at p. 9.)