With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Order Number 10, § 111(c). Here, there is no history of bonus income, and the trial court acknoivledged the uncertainty of whether [Dr. Kelly] would even qualify for a, bonus in the foreseeable future given the business-expense calculation that would be required. We therefore reverse and remand for entry of an order consistent with this opinion. Id. (emphasis added). The Kelly case is the only precedent cited by the parties dealing with the treatment of bonuses in calculating child support. But see In re Marriage of Ostler & Smith, 223 Cal.App.3d 33, 272 Cal.Rptr. 560, 572 (1990)(finding that, under California law, if guidelines are used to calculate child support, bonuses must be included in parent’s gross income); Thompson v. Thompson, 696 N.E.2d 80, 84 (Ind.Ct.App.1998)(<HOLDING>). Kelly is clearly distinguishable from the

A: holding that trial judge has discretion to not include bonuses as part of gross income if he or she determines that the bonus income is not dependable or would place a hardship on a parent
B: holding in part that a change in the mothers income that occurred after the trial was new evidence and that when a party has new evidence related to his or her income he or she may be entitled to a modification of a childsupport obligation if he or she files a petition to modify however because the mother had filed a postjudgment motion rather than a petition to modify her childsupport obligation her request to modify child support was not properly before the trial court
C: holding that gross income can include interest or dividends accruing to fathers ira
D: recognizing as a substantial factor that the state in that case included dividends from the subsidiaries to the parent in its calculation of the parents apportionable taxable income but did not include the underlying income of the subsidiaries themselves
A.