Appeal, No. 206, Oct. T., 1956, from order of Court of Quarter Sessions of Delaware County, Sept. T., 1955, No. F-2-94, in case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ex rel. Nora Mooney v. Thomas Mooney. Order affirmed.
Charles F. Mayer, for appellant.
Norman Snyder, with him Snyder & Snyder, for appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Carr, JJ. (hirt, J., absent).
[ 183 Pa. Super. Page 108]
This appeal is from an order of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Delaware County dismissing a husband's petition to reduce the amount of a support order.
This couple first separated on June 21, 1955, and on August 24, 1955 entered into an agreement and stipulation for the entry by the court of a support order in the amount of $50.00 per week. Some time later in 1955 they resumed cohabitation and separated again on February 29, 1956. His petition for a reduction of the amount of the order was refused after a hearing on April 13, 1956.
At the hearing the evidence disclosed that the appellant is the owner and operator of a taproom in a building owned by him and his wife as tenants by the
[ 183 Pa. Super. Page 109]
entireties and that he lives in an apartment on the second floor of the building. The appellee is living with a married daughter.
The appellant's accountant testified that the gross income from the taproom business during the year 1955 was $30,551.00 and that after deducting the expenses of the business and taxes on the real estate, the actual dollar income from the business was $5,242.00. He also deducted $2,458.00 for depreciation of the real estate, and accordingly, the appellant contends that his real income was $2,784.00. Although such deduction may be proper in determining the net income for tax purposes, it does not reduce the actual dollar income of the taxpayer, and does not enter into a computation of a husband's total income upon which a support order may be based. Commonwealth ex rel. Rankin v. Rankin, 170 Pa. Superior Ct. 570, 87 A.2d 799.
The appellant and his accountant testified that the purchase price of the real estate held by the appellant and his wife as tenants by the entireties in which the taproom is located and above which there is an apartment occupied by the appellant was $44,000.00 upon which there is a mortgage of about $15,000.00. ...