was testimony taken under oath as to the arrearage questions, the ruling of the trial court at the September 14, 2009 | shearing was erroneous because there was no evidentiary foundation for the judgment. We additionally find that Mr. Mason did not meet his burden of proving that the state and federal income tax deductions would substantially benefit him without substantially harming Ms. Martin. Mr. Mason presented neither sworn testimony nor introduced exhibits such as his 2007 and 2008 tax returns and those of Ms. Martin. We therefore cannot discern from the record whether the tax deductions would substantially benefit Mr. Mason or whether the tax deductions would substantially harm Ms. Martin. Compare Warlick v. Warlick, 27,389 (La.App. 2 Cir. 9/29/95), 661 So.2d 706, 712 (<HOLDING>); Folse v. Folse, 2001-0946 (La.App. 1 Cir.
holding that the trial court did not err in awarding deductions to nondomiciliary parent who paid substantial child support was in higher tax bracket than domiciliary parent and would need dependency deductions to maintain her paying ability holding noncustodial parent not entitled to an automatic credit and court could order child support in addition to social security disability dependency benefits holding that evidence that parent is victim of spousal abuse and that parent is unemployed living in crowded conditions and had multiple visits to mental hospital was no evidence that awarding custody to parent would significantly impair child holding that trial court did not err holding when real estate is conveyed to a child and consideration is paid by the parent the parent has the burden of proving a gift was not intended