Appellants' Reply Brief - Washington State Courts

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW OF DEPARTMENT'S REPLY BRIEF ...................... 1
11. THE BOARD AND DEPARTMENT CORRECTLY
INVOKED SUBSECTION (4) OF RCW 5 1.08.178 TO
"FAIRLY AND REASONABLY DETERMINE[]" A
WAGE-EQUIVALENT FOR MALANG FROM HER
ACTIVITIES IN SELF EMPLOYMENT ......................................... 3
A. Contrary To Malang's Contention, The Word "Wages" Is
Not Defined In RCW 5 1.08.178, And Therefore The
Department Must Translate Malang's Earning From Self-
Employment Into A "Wage-equivalent" .................................... 3
B. Contrary To Malang's Contention, The Department Is
Not Raising A New Theory In Arguing That The Board
"Fairly And Reasonably Determined" Malang's Wageequivalent
Under RCW 5 1.08.178(4) ....................................... .6
C. Contrary to Malang's Contention, In Which She Relies
On An Inapplicable Department Policy (No. 4.41), The
Department's Long-Established Policy (No. 4.42) Guided
The Department's Efforts To Translate Malang's Self-
Employment Gross Business Income Into Wages ..................... 9
D. Malang's Reliance On The Black Real Estate Case Is
Misplaced Because That Case Had Nothing To Do With
How To Determine The Wage Rate Of A Self-Employed
Person ....................................................................................... 11
E. The Department Is Realistic In Its Argument That
Malang's Gross Income Theory Yields Absurd Results.. ....... .I5
1. Malang's position that gross receipts = gross income
= gross earnings = wages yields a hyper-inflated
wage rate that disproportionately favors selfemployed
individuals over employees who work for
wages ............................................................................... .15
F. Washington's Child Support Statute Provides The Court
With Insight Regarding The Common Sense Way To