A trial court's award of alimony will not be disturbed unless there is an indication that the court did not consider the tax consequences attributable to alimony in fixing the award. Meyer v. Meyer, 371 So.2d 1304 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979). Finding ample evidence that the trial court did in fact consider the tax consequences arising in this case, we find no merit to appellant's first assignment of error.

A trial judge's order of child support is entitled to great weight and will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of this considerable discretion. See Meyer v. Meyer, 371 So.2d 1304, 1305-06 (La.App. 4th Cir.), writ denied, 373 So.2d 546 (La. 1979); see also Pearce v. Pearce, 348 So.2d 75, 78 (La. 1977). It is not disputed that the combined adjusted gross income of the parties exceeds the highest level specified in the schedule.

Such determinations will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Meyer v. Meyer, 371 So.2d 1304 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979), writ denied, 373 So.2d 546 (La. 1979). Finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that good cause existed for not making the child support award retroactive, we decline to alter the effective date of the award.

Such determinations will not be disturbed unless there is a clear abuse of discretion. Meyer v. Meyer, 371 So.2d 1304 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979), writ denied, 373 So.2d 546 (La. 1979). We find no abuse of discretion and accordingly, decline to alter the awards.

In Vorisek v. Vorisek, 1982, 423 So.2d 758, this Court found gross salary was the proper basis for figuring support payments. Also, Penney v. Penney, 357 So.2d 53 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1978), writ denied, 359 So.2d 197 (La. 1978); See: Airhart v. Airhart, 372 So.2d 595 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979); See: Meyer v. Meyer, 371 So.2d 1304 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979), writ denied, 373 So.2d 546 (La. 1979). Secondly, the $1200 net income figure given by Mr. Firstley is factually in dispute.

"Even if the reviewing court considers the award to be low (as we do in this case) the award should not be disturbed unless it is so low as to constitute an abuse of discretion." Meyer v. Meyer, 371 So.2d 1304, 1305 (La.App. 4th Cir., 1979). In Meyer, this court upheld an award of alimony pendente lite of $200.00 per month plus the house note of $147.36, or $347.36 (plus $400.00 child support) where the husband's net income was $1,450.00.

The jurisprudence has construed this to be net income, thus requiring a court to take a party defendant's tax situation into consideration. Meyer v. Meyer, 371 So.2d 1304 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979), writ denied 373 So.2d 546 (1979): Phillpott v. Phillpott, 321 So.2d 797 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1975). Non cash income may be taken into consideration when alimony is fixed.

All of the circumstances of the financial situation of the parties must be considered, and gross income is one of the circumstances. See Meyer v. Meyer, 371 So.2d 1304 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979). In this case, evidence as to both the gross and net income of Mr. Hamilton was before the Court, as well as the living expenses claimed by each party. Considering all of these factors, we cannot find that the trial judge abused the broad discretion accorded him in such matters.

The determinative issue is the award's adequacy in light of all the circumstances. A trial court has wide discretion and, even if the reviewing court considers the award to be low, the award will not be disturbed unless it is so low as to constitute an abuse of discretion. Meyer v. Meyer, 371 So.2d 1304 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979), writ denied 373 So.2d 546 (1979); Gray v. Champagne, 367 So.2d 1309 (La.App. 4th Cir. 1979). There was no abuse of discretion in the present case.