The court will know that she has incentive in this process to provide you with ALL the proof of expenses, and teh fact that she refused to do so makes you golden here. But it does mean you've got to re-calculate her income for her because it's clear that she was not being completely honest with the IRS. Heck, she has incentive to provide this stuff to the IRS to keep from getting charged for back taxes & penalties... but she has MORE incentive to provide the proof of her deductions to YOU... as her proof will result in a $50K a year savings if she DOES have $200K worth of legitimate deductions.

If you walk in, showing that you have done her basic accounting for her because she is trying to minimize it without proof for the IRS, and showing that she was not being forthright in disclosing to the court... you will not only show her to be a person who tries to cheat on her own taxes, but you will show that you've taken her documentaiton and done with is a much more fair job than you had to do... if her income now shows 200K in gross, with $50K worth of prove-able deductiong, then use the $150K as her bottom line of income and ask for a reduction of 100% of the alimony, given that she's now making more than the ZERO per month that she claimed she was making, and in fact that she's more than making up for the $50K in her own income.

You might also want so suggest that if she is unable to make ends meet working so much that she not only collects but also spends $200K a year, it seems that she is taking time away form your son for nothing. ZERO value to her, ro him, to her lifestyle... and that all this activity is proof that she, indeed, CAN work at the same time as taking care of your son, so it is clear the circumstances have changed, the judge should no longer allow her to engage in this very expensive "hobby" but rather shoudl require her to get out & get a real job, since she obviously has plenty of time on her hands to engage in real work. It's NOT your best argument, but it would be worth pointing it out to the judge that clearly the premise upon which the initial stipulation was based, no longer exists... she can't any longer claim that she can NOT work, if she is earning and spending $200K a year in her own business (And THAT is if you take her own claims of zero net as true... it only gets worse for her if you realize that she was minimizing her net & not having proof of the true net).

Good luck & let us know how ti turns out.