Tithing and Alimony in Utah: Does Religious Giving Count as a Living Expense?
By Jeff D. Rifleman, Rifleman Law & Mediation
A couple pays tithing throughout a long marriage. After separation, both submit financial declarations. One spouse includes the same religious giving in the monthly budget. The other argues that donations are optional and should disappear from the alimony calculation. That dispute is about more than a line on a spreadsheet. Depending on the numbers, excluding the expense can change the recipient’s claimed need, the payor’s ability to pay, or both.
Utah law requires a more careful analysis than simply deciding whether a judge, attorney, or former spouse considers the expense necessary. The marital standard of living matters. So do actual financial resources, reliable documentation, and the purposes of alimony. For a person seeking or defending alimony in a Utah divorce, the useful question is what the evidence supports and how the proposed budget fits the law.
Alimony Starts with the Financial Picture of the Marriage
Utah Code § 81-4-502 requires consideration of the marital standard of living, the recipient’s financial condition and needs, earning capacity, the payor’s ability to provide support, tax consequences, and other listed factors. The statute permits the recipient to demonstrate needs through expenses present during the marriage rather than only expenses incurred after the petition. That distinction can matter when separation forces a spouse to postpone ordinary spending.
A budget prepared after separation may show what someone can currently afford, rather than the standard the marriage actually supported. A spouse who stops buying needed clothing or postpones an ordinary recurring expense has not necessarily demonstrated that the expense never existed. Conversely, a new expense appearing for the first time during litigation does not automatically become part of the marital lifestyle. The records and explanation matter in both directions.
Our article on how Utah courts decide alimony discusses the broader analysis. Tithing belongs inside that analysis. It should not be automatically excluded because it is a donation, and it should not automatically be accepted merely because the person listing it describes it as a religious obligation.
What Knowles v. Knowles Says About Tithing
In Knowles v. Knowles, 2022 UT App 47, ¶¶ 51–57 & n.8, the Utah Court of Appeals rejected a trial court’s exclusion of tithing based on a judgment that it was not a necessary living expense. The proper inquiry concerned the parties’ marital standard of living and the evidence of their historical spending. The court directed reconsideration of the expense within that framework.
The opinion also rejected a rigid rule automatically including every charitable contribution. Inclusion remains fact dependent and subject to equitable considerations. Where supported historical expenses exceed available resources, the resulting shortfall must be addressed fairly. The case therefore supports careful treatment of religious giving, rather than either a categorical prohibition or an unlimited religious-expense allowance.
The Practical Lesson Is to Prove the Expense
A person asking for recognition of tithing should be prepared to explain the history. How regularly did the family contribute? From which accounts? Were payments monthly, annual, or tied to bonuses? Did both spouses understand the practice? Were unusually large donations connected to a one-time event? Those questions help distinguish a consistent marital expense from a temporary increase that happened to occur during divorce litigation.
The opposing party should address the same evidence rather than relying on a personal objection to religion. A legitimate challenge might concern the amount, the time period used, duplicate entries, or whether the claimed payment ever occurred. Those are financial questions. An argument that people should not give money to a church is less useful when the legal task is to evaluate how this particular couple actually lived.
The Recipient’s Needs and the Payor’s Ability to Pay Are Separate Calculations
Tithing can appear on either side of the analysis. If the recipient historically paid supported donations, the expense may affect the claimed budget. If the payor historically paid them, the expense may affect the amount available after meeting the payor’s own supported needs. The court must examine both sides consistently. It should not assume that a familiar expense is legitimate for one spouse but inherently frivolous for the other.
Consistency does not require identical dollar amounts. The spouses may have different incomes, different historical practices, or different current financial circumstances. A percentage-based practice can produce different amounts for each household. The important point is to explain the method and the evidence. A worksheet that quietly changes the assumptions for one spouse can make a support proposal look more balanced than it is.
It is also necessary to avoid treating every disputed dollar as an automatic dollar of alimony. The recipient’s supported shortfall and the payor’s resources interact. If the payor already has enough available income to cover the established need, changing one expense may not change the resulting award. Financial analysis should explain the actual effect instead of assuming that any adjustment produces the same change in support.
A Simple Example Shows Why the Whole Budget Matters
Consider a hypothetical payor with $7,000 in monthly net income and $4,500 in supported monthly expenses, including $500 in historically consistent donations. The remaining amount is $2,500 before alimony. Assume the recipient has $2,500 in net income and $4,300 in supported expenses, including $200 in donations. The recipient’s shortfall is $1,800. These are illustrative figures, not a prediction or a substitute for applying the statutory factors.
If the payor’s $500 donation were removed, apparent available funds would increase to $3,000. That does not necessarily make the recipient’s demonstrated need exceed $1,800. If the recipient’s $200 donation were removed, apparent need would decline to $1,600. The example shows why the court must identify whose expense is disputed and how the adjustment affects the analysis.
Now suppose both households have supported needs that exceed their combined resources. The dispute becomes one of allocating a real shortfall. Calling one spouse’s budget unrealistic without examining the other household does not resolve that problem. The goal is to present transparent calculations so the court can see which assumptions produce the requested result and which expenses cannot be fully funded.
What Records Help Establish Historical Religious Giving?
Begin with the financial records already available. Bank statements, credit-card records, contribution summaries, and ordinary household budgets can help show the amounts and frequency. Match the entries to the time period used to establish the marital standard of living. An annual statement may confirm the total, while the bank records explain whether the payments were regular or concentrated around a particular event.
Keep the records complete enough to be understandable. A cropped screenshot showing one payment says less than a series of statements demonstrating a consistent practice. If the donation was made from a business account, explain how it was recorded and whether it has already been accounted for elsewhere. If a payment included contributions on behalf of other family members, separate those amounts rather than assuming the entire entry belongs to one spouse’s personal budget.
A properly supported Utah financial declaration should allow the other side and the court to trace the claimed expense. The purpose is not to create an impressive stack of paper. It is to make the amount verifiable and the explanation credible.
Monthly Averages Should Reflect the Actual Practice
Some families contribute every paycheck. Others make an annual payment, contribute when commissions arrive, or reconcile their giving near the end of the year. Converting those practices into a monthly figure requires an honest method. Dividing a representative annual total by twelve may be useful. Using the largest month of several years as the recurring monthly amount usually requires a much stronger explanation.
Variable income adds another complication. A spouse paid through commissions may have contributed more during a strong year and less during a weak one. Compare income and contributions over the same period. Otherwise, a budget may combine the highest historical donation with a much lower current income and conceal the assumption that the old contribution level will continue regardless of available resources.
Explain exceptional years separately. A one-time gift funded by an inheritance, sale of an asset, or unusual bonus may not establish the recurring monthly pattern. It may still be relevant context, but the court should know what it represents. The quality of the explanation matters more than how confidently a party insists that the number belongs in the budget.
Gross-Income and Net-Income Practices Need Clear Definitions
Parents and spouses sometimes use the word tithing as though it identifies a single accounting method. It does not tell the court which income base this family used. Was the contribution calculated before taxes, after taxes, after business expenses, or by another approach? Did the couple treat gifts, bonuses, reimbursements, or retirement withdrawals differently? Those are factual questions about the household’s practice.
The court does not need to adjudicate a religious doctrine to understand an expense calculation. It needs a clear description of the method asserted and the records supporting it. If the spouses used different methods during the marriage, identify that disagreement instead of presenting a uniform history that did not exist. Financial credibility is strengthened by precision, including acknowledgment of facts that complicate one’s preferred position.
A Change in Religious Practice Does Not Erase the Need for Evidence
One spouse may stop attending church after separation. Another may increase religious participation. Those changes can raise questions about whether a claimed expense will continue and how the historical standard should be evaluated. The answer should not be assumed merely from a statement about religious identity. Someone may continue giving after changing attendance, or may temporarily stop because the household cannot meet basic bills.
The budget should identify the relevant history and present circumstances. If the requested amount differs from the historical practice, explain why. If the dispute is whether a contribution is genuinely expected, identify the evidence supporting that position. Neither spouse should have to stage a display of religious devotion to prove a financial claim, and neither should be permitted to avoid ordinary scrutiny by labeling a contested amount sacred.
Separate Religious Giving from Child Expenses and Other Donations
A financial declaration may contain several categories that sound similar but cover different things. Tithing, youth activity fees, charitable fundraising, school donations, and money paid for another person’s expenses should not be combined without explanation. Some may be individual expenses; some may involve the children; some may already be addressed by another provision of the proposed order. Keeping them separate makes duplication easier to identify.
For example, a parent should not include the same youth-program fee in a personal religious-giving category and again in a request for shared child expenses. Likewise, an annual charitable event should not be counted as both a monthly donation and a separate extraordinary expense. These are ordinary accounting problems, but they can materially affect support when repeated across several budget categories.
Our Lehi child support resources address a distinct support system. Child support and alimony should not be treated as interchangeable pools of money. A careful presentation explains which obligation addresses which expense and prevents the same financial need from being used twice to justify different awards.
Tax Treatment and Alimony Treatment Are Different Questions
A contribution’s tax treatment does not by itself determine whether it belongs in an alimony budget. The family court’s inquiry concerns the governing support law and the evidence. Any proposed tax effect should be supported by a calculation appropriate to the party’s actual circumstances, rather than an assumption that a charitable payment always produces a particular tax saving.
Likewise, the financial declaration should not subtract an estimated tax benefit twice. If net income already reflects a tax calculation incorporating relevant deductions, a second adjustment for the same item can distort ability to pay. When tax issues are material, a qualified tax professional can explain the assumptions. Counsel can then connect that evidence to the court’s alimony analysis without asking the judge to accept an unexplained number.
Temporary Orders Deserve the Same Attention to Accurate Numbers
Temporary support can remain in place while a case proceeds through discovery, mediation, and trial preparation. A rough budget submitted early may have significant practical consequences. Mark estimates clearly, distinguish available records from information still being obtained, and correct material errors promptly. The fact that an order is temporary does not make inaccurate accounting harmless.
Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26.1 governs financial disclosures in covered domestic-relations cases. Read its current requirements and provide the required supporting information. If a commissioner makes an unsupported determination, evaluate the appropriate response under Rule 108. A useful objection identifies the amount, the record supporting it, the legal error, and the requested correction.
The article on challenging unsupported income findings in a Utah divorce discusses the importance of a developed record. The same discipline applies to expenses. It is difficult to correct a number that was never explained, and a later hearing should not be treated as a substitute for preparing the first presentation properly.
Long Marriages Require Attention to the Current Statute
The current alimony statute includes a rebuttable equalization provision for certain marriages of at least ten years where an agreed caregiving arrangement significantly diminished the recipient’s workplace experience. It also contains an applicability limitation concerning petitions filed before May 1, 2024. See Utah Code § 81-4-502(4). A long marriage alone does not answer every element of that provision.
For the tithing dispute, the practical point is to examine the entire statutory framework before calculating the effect of a single expense. Length of marriage, employment history, caregiving, available resources, and the applicable dates may affect the overall analysis. A spreadsheet should implement the legal conclusions supported by the case; it should not silently choose those conclusions for the court.
Questions to Ask Before Agreeing to an Alimony Figure
Ask whether the proposed budgets use the same time period, whether recurring expenses have been documented, and whether unusual items have been separated. Determine whether the income figures are gross or net and whether taxes have been treated consistently. Confirm that claimed donations have not been counted twice or combined with expenses already paid directly by the other spouse.
Then ask what the proposed order actually resolves. Does the settlement establish a fixed amount after considering the disputed budgets? Does it contain a special adjustment provision? Is anyone assuming that a future change in giving will automatically change support? An assumption that is important to the agreement should be discussed before signing. Ambiguity about future changes can produce another expensive dispute.
Future Changes Usually Require More Than Editing a Personal Budget
A person cannot ordinarily change an existing support order simply by deciding to spend more or less on a listed expense. Utah Code § 81-4-504 governs modification of alimony and requires analysis of a substantial material change and the terms and findings underlying the decree. A change in religious giving may be part of the evidence, but its legal significance must be assessed in context.
Keep the original financial analysis and supporting documents. If a later dispute arises, those records help explain what the court or parties assumed when support was established. A decree that states the relevant findings clearly is easier to evaluate than one that announces a single amount without explaining the underlying needs and resources. Good drafting protects both the paying and receiving spouse.
Keep the Argument Financial and the Presentation Credible
A tithing dispute can become personal quickly. One spouse may hear a challenge to the expense as a challenge to faith. The other may believe religious giving is being used to shift costs unfairly. Counsel’s job is to bring the issue back to facts: the established practice, the claimed amount, available resources, and the governing law.
A sound presentation can acknowledge the importance of an expense while recognizing that two households may not be able to maintain every feature of the former household’s spending. It can also insist that a supported expense receive fair consideration without promising that the court will fund it in full. That approach is more useful than presenting the case as a contest between religious commitment and financial responsibility.
What If the Contribution Records Are Incomplete?
Incomplete records do not justify inventing a monthly figure. Start with the reliable documents that exist and identify the gaps. A bank statement may show a recurring payment without explaining its purpose. A contribution summary may identify the recipient and annual amount without showing which household account funded it. Used together, those records may provide a clearer explanation than either one alone.
Where cash payments are claimed, identify available corroboration and explain the limits honestly. A remembered estimate should be labeled as an estimate. Do not create a reconstructed ledger that looks like a contemporaneous record unless its origin is clearly disclosed. Credibility can be damaged more by disguising uncertainty than by acknowledging that an older transaction cannot be documented completely.
Lawful discovery may help obtain relevant information. The request should focus on the financial issue and the applicable period. A dispute over charitable spending is not a reason to seek unrelated private religious communications or to involve a congregation in the parties’ broader marital conflict. Counsel should evaluate relevance, proportionality, and the appropriate method of obtaining the needed records.
Compare Settlement Proposals Using the Same Assumptions
Two alimony proposals may appear close while resting on very different assumptions. One might use an annual average of income and donations. Another might use a single strong income month and a single low-expense month. Before negotiating the difference between the proposed awards, place both calculations on the same basis and identify the assumptions that remain disputed.
It can help to prepare a small set of clearly labeled alternatives. One calculation may include the documented contribution amount. A second may show the financial effect of the other spouse’s proposed adjustment. These alternatives are tools for understanding the dispute, not representations that either result is legally required. Each should preserve the same treatment of taxes, other expenses, and income unless the difference is expressly explained.
Discuss cash flow as well as the monthly average. An annual donation funded by a bonus may not create the same month-to-month payment pattern as a contribution made from every paycheck. The order and settlement should account for the agreed support schedule without assuming that either household can bridge every seasonal shortfall. A clear payment obligation is easier to follow than an arrangement that depends on recurring informal exceptions.
Finally, make sure the written settlement reflects the terms actually negotiated. If the parties resolved a disputed expense by agreeing on an overall amount, say what the agreement establishes and have counsel explain the effect of any modification language. A later disagreement should not depend on competing memories of a spreadsheet that never became part of the final agreement.
Get an Alimony Analysis That Accounts for the Actual Marriage
Rifleman Law & Mediation represents clients in Saratoga Springs divorce cases and Lehi family-law matters. If you need a Saratoga Springs alimony lawyer, an American Fork spousal support attorney, or an Orem alimony lawyer, the starting point is the same: a supported financial record and a clear application of Utah law.
Contact Rifleman Law & Mediation to discuss your circumstances. Whether you seek alimony or are being asked to pay it, the calculation should reflect evidence rather than assumptions about how either spouse ought to live. Religious giving deserves the same disciplined attention as the rest of the financial declaration.
