25-320.02. Self-employed parent; tax practitioner; definition
A. On request of either parent or on the court's own motion, before the court enters an order for child support pursuant to section 25-320, the court may order both parents to meet with a federally authorized tax practitioner if at least one of the parents is self-employed. The federally authorized tax practitioner shall review the accuracy of the self-employed parent's records and submit a written report to the court to help it determine the child support obligation.
B. Each parent may submit to the court the names of not more than two federally authorized tax practitioners. If the parents cannot agree on a federally authorized tax practitioner to conduct the review, the court shall make this choice from a list of names submitted by the parents.
C. The court shall determine which parent shall pay for the cost of the federally authorized tax practitioner or determine each parent's share of this cost.
D. For the purposes of this section, "federally authorized tax practitioner" has the same meaning prescribed in section 42-2069.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
3
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case:
Lovejoy v. Lovejoy (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
Lovejoy v. Lovejoy (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “” A.R.S. § 25-320.02(C). Wife has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Don Bays’ expense “should be borne equally.”
Shano v. Shano (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “¶8 Mother argues Adelson did not meet statutory requirements for a “federally authorized tax practitioner” within the meaning of A.R.S. §§ 25-320.02(D) and 42-2069(D). She did not, however, raise this argument in a timely fashion in the superior court and has thus waived it for…”
Emeofa v. Emeofa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“”) Section 25-320.02(A). ¶4 After much delay, the superior court held a three-hour trial in June 2024.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-320.02(A) — 1 case
Emeofa v. Emeofa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2025).
“”) Section 25-320.02(A). ¶4 After much delay, the superior court held a three-hour trial in June 2024.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-320.02(C) — 1 case
Lovejoy v. Lovejoy (Ariz. Ct. App. 2018).
“” A.R.S. § 25-320.02(C). Wife has not shown that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that Don Bays’ expense “should be borne equally.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-320.02(D) — 1 case
Shano v. Shano (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
“¶8 Mother argues Adelson did not meet statutory requirements for a “federally authorized tax practitioner” within the meaning of A.R.S. §§ 25-320.02(D) and 42-2069(D). She did not, however, raise this argument in a timely fashion in the superior court and has thus waived it for…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.