income. Id. at 307 (quotations omitted). “It is for the trial judge to determine whether claimed expenses meet those criteria.” Id. Consequently, the trial court should “scrutinize the self-employed parent’s financial situation closely, and . . . exclude as a business expense any expenditure which the court in its discretion finds will personally benefit the parent.” Merrill v. Merrill, 587 N.E.2d 188, 190 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992). We note that “[i]n situations where the individual with the support obligation is able to control the retention and disbursement of funds by the [S-corporation], he or she will bear the burden of proving that such actions were necessary to maintain or preserve the business.” In re Marriage of Brand, 44 P.3d 321, 327 (Kan. 2002); cf. Hampers, 166 N.H. at 442 (<HOLDING>). Because the respondent has raised the issue
recognizing that same principle applies where defendant is general partner of limited partnership which in turn is general partner of limited partnership with contacts with state holding that the party asserting notice error has the burden of demonstrating prejudice holding that limited partner has burden of demonstrating deductibility of partnerships expenses because partner has ability to obtain information to establish propriety of partnerships actions holding that the prisoner has the burden of demonstrating he has exhausted his administrative remedies in his complaint holding claimant has burden of demonstrating a good faith work search