home and town, and that Jerald used the pickup truck for transportation between home and work. She also testified that the family used the Suburban for personal use. The court disallowed the entire deduction for the Suburban, but allowed the deduction for the pickup. On this record, we believe the superior court did not abuse its discretion in disallowing some, but not all, of the claimed automobile deductions. See Alaska R.Civ.P. 90.3, Commentary III.B. 7 . Jerald does not argue that he should be allowed to deduct accelerated depreciation: he seeks only to receive the benefit of imputed taxation on the accelerated portion of depreciation which is determined to be income for Rule 90.3 purposes. 8 . See Alaska Const., art. IV, § 15; Bradner v. Hammond, 553 P.2d 1, 5 (Alaska 1976) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Fitzgerald held the Guidelines in
recognizing doctrine recognizing that the judicial rewriting of a statute would violate the separation of powers doctrine recognizing a referendum on a court judgment would violate separation of powers recognizing separation of powers doctrine holding rfra is inconsistent with smith and violates the separation of powers doctrine