¶1with whom CARPENETI, Justice, joins, dissenting in part.
¶2The court reasons that the superior court erred in assuming that appellant Shepherd would pay no income taxes.
¶3I respectfully dissent from the part of the court's opinion that remands for that determination. Appellant's lawyers have not argued any such error on appeal and the pro se appellee has not addressed the topic. The court concludes that appellant Shepherd adequately raised the income tax question on appeal,
¶4It may seem hypertechnical to require an appellant to argue an issue explicitly. After all, the appellant here probably raised the issue in the superior court, and this court apparently considers the issue to be so clear that its merits can be resolved with only four lines of discussion
¶5*651Our appellate rules specify how litigants must present issues and we have applied those standards in treating as waived issues that were not adequately briefed. Thus, Appellate Rule 212(c), labeled "Substantive Requirements," specifies that the appellant's brief "shall contain," among other items, a statement of issues presented for review, a statement of the case describing the procedural history and relevant facts, an argument section, and a "short" conclusion stating the "precise relief sought." Appellate Rule 212(c)(1)(I) provides that the argument seetion "shall contain the contentions of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, and the reasons therefor, with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on." (Emphasis added.) We do not treat the argument requirement lightly. We have held that "[where a point is not given more than a cursory statement in the argument portion of a brief, the point will not be considered on appeal."
¶6We adopted Rule 212 not to satisfy an esthetic interest in the cosmetic appearance of briefs, but to make sure that the issues we decide are truly in controversy, that we do not overlook issues the parties have raised, and that we have the benefit of the parties' thoughts about the facts and law bearing on issues we are deciding. Some elemental rig- or in describing the issues for decision also helps with the doctrines of law of the case and res judicata.
¶7Due process is the ultimate foundation for the preservation requirement. Ruling against an appellee on an issue the appellant has not raised deprives the appellee of notice and an opportunity to be heard. Doing so can be especially prejudicial to pro se appel-lees, who lose both the opportunity to decide whether to hire counsel to address the (un-raised) issue and the opportunity to address the issue themselves.
¶8There are various reasons why an appellant might not brief a particular issue. An appellant might decide to focus on particularly compelling contentions, and to ignore others. The primary, if not only, theme of Shepherd's appeal is that it was error to impute rental income to Shepherd. Appellant's Brief at 1, 18-14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 28, 24, 25. Counsel could have reasoned that this was a compelling theme, given undisputed evidence that Shepherd had been awarded only one rental property, that she sold in 2008. And evidence she sold only it because appellee failed to pay child support supported her assertion that she did not unreasonably or voluntarily forgo rental income, thus making imputation inappropriate. Appellant's Brief at 19-20, 28-24. There is good reason to think appellant's counsel chose not to argue the tax issue.
¶9Of course, a party might not raise an issue through simple oversight. But even if an appellant's lawyer is negligent in failing to brief a meritorious issue or a pro se appellant fails to discuss an issue, we regard it as unraised.
¶10This is a particularly unworthy case for considering an unraised issue and using it to grant relief to appellant. Two lawyers cosigned Shepherd's substantial opening and reply briefs, and her oral argument exceeded the usual time allotted. Haralovich, by comparison, filed only an eight-page pro se brief, much of which discusses matters of little relevance to the issues on appeal. He argued for only nine of his allotted fifteen minutes. Here Shepherd had the burden of going forward on appeal and demonstrating both legal error and prejudice. If, as I think, she did not raise the issue, the pro se appellee is being treated unjustly.
¶11Do Shepherd's briefs raise the issue? No. Not explicitly. Not implicitly. And certainly not adequately.
¶12The issue and argument parts of Shepherd's two briefs do not list, describe, or discuss any error in calculating the income tax deduction. It would therefore seem that prolonged review of the appellant's briefs is not needed to confirm that Shepherd has not asked us to reverse on the theory the superi- or court miscaleulated the income tax deduction in awarding child support. If Shepherd were asking us to do so, one would expect the argument part of her brief to clearly and directly assert that the superior court erred by failing to deduct Shepherd's tax liability and by assuming there was zero tax liability, and that reversal is therefore required. This argument can be easily made. It is factually and legally simple. Although she made no such argument on appeal she raised the issue in the superior court. The argument there could have been clearer, but she asserted that it was error to assume Shepherd had no income tax liability. This confirms that her lawyers, who co-signed her appellate briefs and also represented her in the superior court, knew how to raise the issue when they wanted to.
¶13The court's opinion reviews Shepherd's opening brief at some length and concludes that the issue was raised, at least implicitly.
¶14Considered part-by-part, appellant's opening brief does not brief the remand issue. All of the direct references to the "issue" are found in, and only in, the part of the opening brief discussing the transactional and procedural facts.
¶15Thus, the table of contents of the opening brief lists the argument section's main topic headings as follows: "The trial court erred by imputing any income to Ms. Shepherd, who is neither unemployed nor underemployed. ... The record does not support the trial court's calculation of imputed income." Appellant's Brief at ii. Neither heading mentions taxes; both headings refer to imputation of income.
¶16Part V of the brief lists the two issues presented for review as follows:
1. Did the trial court err by imputing income to appellant?
2. If the trial court did not err in imputing income to appellant, did the trial court err in determining the amount of income to impute to appellant?
¶17Appellant's Brief at 1. Both issues focus on the imputation of income. The first asks *653whether it was error to impute income to Shepherd; the second asks whether the court erroneously determined the amount of imputed income. Neither issue as set out mentions taxes or tax errors. No standalone computational issue is listed; the computational issue listed by Shepherd arises only if the superior court imputed income to Shepherd.
¶18The court correctly notes that Part VI of the brief, setting out the "statement of the case," does discuss the superior court's rulings on the income tax deduction and what the superior court assumed about Shepherd's annual income taxes.
¶19Part VIII is the briefs argument part. It contains three sections. The first section discusses "applicable case law." This section discusses only the legal standard for deciding whether to impute income. Appellant's Brief at 15-17. It does not discuss how any imputed amount should be calculated. It focuses on demonstrating that income may be imputed only if a parent is voluntarily and unreasonably unemployed or underemployed. Appellant's Brief at 17.
¶20The second and third sections of appellant's argument part both address imputed rental income. Both presuppose that the superior court imputed rental income to Shepherd. Both therefore state the issues in even more limited fashion than the two issues described in Part V, which lists the issues presented for review.
¶21Thus, the second argument section argues that it was error to impute rental income to Shepherd for property she no longer owns. Appellant's Brief at 21. Nothing in that section discusses income tax liability; it largely focuses on her contention that she acted reasonably and involuntarily in 2003 when she sold the only rental property she owned, and that the standard for imputing income was therefore not met.
¶22The third argument section argues that the record does not support imputing to Shepherd net rental income of $21,288. Appellant's Brief at 21. It also contains ancillary arguments, all relating to imputation of rental income. None of those arguments asserts that the superior court erred in basing the income calculation on the one-year experience of zero tax liability. Appellant's Brief at 22-28. None challenges "the correctness of the trial court's assumption in calculating child support that there would be no federal income tax liability," as this court describes the issue before deciding whether it was "raised and argued sufficiently so as to be properly before us on appeal."
¶23Part IV.B of the court's opinion concludes that Shepherd raised and sufficiently argued the issue of income tax liability.
¶24I do not think Shepherd has preserved the issue merely by unfavorably characterizing in the facts section of her brief the superior court's decision not to give her credit for any income tax deductions.
¶25I also do not think that the portion of Shepherd's argument section quoted at length on page 650 of the court's opinion refers, expressly or implicitly, to Shepherd's income tax liability. Shepherd argues in that passage only that if any rental income is to be imputed to her, it should be only the average of her rental income over two years, including a year in which she earned no rental income.
¶26The court reads passages in Shepherd's brief as discussing and raising the issue, at least implicitly.
¶27The issue perceived by the court is not "implicit" nor can it be characterized as having received even "minimal treatment."
¶28*655The topic did come up briefly at oral argument, but only because a member of this court asked Shepherd's counsel if the September order was in error because the superior court assumed that Shepherd's normal federal income tax liability was zero. Not surprisingly, counsel agreed, recognizing a slow pitch when he saw one, but nothing in appellant's briefs raised that question. And if a member of the court had not asked that question, the topic would not have been mentioned at argument. Parties may not raise new issues at oral argument.
¶29Finally, even if Shepherd's opening brief could be charitably read to have mentioned the issue, it was mentioned so indirectly and obscurely that we should hold the discussion was too cursory to have preserved the issue.
¶30We should therefore affirm every aspect of the superior court's final order denying reconsideration. I join in the court's opinion to the extent it affirms the superior court's order denying reconsideration.
¶31. Majority at 649, 650.
¶32. Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3(a)(1)(A)(i) (providing that income taxes are deductible from gross income).
¶33. Majority at 650.
¶34. Majority at 649-50.
¶35. Majority at 650.
¶36. Petersen v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 803 P.2d 406, 410 (Alaska 1990) (citations omitted).
¶37. Peterson v. Ek, 93 P.3d 458, 464 n. 9 (Alaska 2004) (stating that "[wle judge a pro se litigant's performance by a less demanding standard"); Gates v. City of Tenakee Springs, 822 P.2d 455, 460 (Alaska 1991) (treating as abandoned claims of pro se litigant raised below but only cursorily or not at all on appeal).
¶38. Shepherd's statement of points on appeal, filed when she commenced her appeal, included this appellate contention: "2. The trial court erred in failing to include mandatory deductions from gross income which appellant is entitled to receive pursuant to Alaska R. Civ. P. 90.3." Had this point been discussed in these terms in appellant's arguments, there is no question she would have preserved it. But because the other two points listed on her statement of points on appeal correspond exactly to the two arguments she does raise in Part VIII of her brief, it appears she intentionally chose not to brief this issue. Comparing the texi of the point with the text of her arguments also strongly suggests intentional waiver. See note 25 below.
¶39. Cf. State v. O'Neill Investigations, Inc., 609 P.2d 520, 528 (Alaska 1980) ("When, in the argument portion of a brief, a major point has been given no more than cursory statement, we will not *652consider it further. Failure to argue a point constitutes an abandonment of it.").
¶41. Majority at 649-50. The court refers only to appellant's opening brief. Nothing in appellant's reply brief can be read to raise the issue, although the reply brief does confirm how limited the appellate issues are. Thus, it asserts that "Many of appellee's assertions are simply not relevant to the matter properly before this Court: Did the trial court erroneously impute non-existent rental income from long-sold property to appellant?" Reply Brief at 1.
¶42. I use the word "issue" advisedly, without implying that the tax question is indeed an "appellate issue." The tax question was an issue in the superior court. It is an issue before this court only because this court says it is, not because the appellant says it is.
¶43. This is the part that, per Appellate Rule 212(c)(1)(G), "shall provide a brief description of the case and a concise statement of the course of proceedings in, and the decision of, the trial court. Appellant shall state the facts relevant to each issue, with references to the record as required by paragraph (c)(8), in this section or in the appropriate argument sections."
¶44. To impute employment income, a court must first find voluntary and unreasonable unemployment or underemployment. Majority at 647 (citing Alaska Civil Rule 90.3(a)(4)). Shepherd relies on the standard for imputing employment income, but she is actually contending that the superior court imputed rental, not employment, income to her. Appellant's Brief at 17, 19-21.
¶45. Majority at 648-49.
¶46. Majority at 649.
¶47. Majority at 649-50.
¶48. Majority at 649-50.
¶49. The distinction between the fact and argument sections of the brief may seem, at first glance, to be unduly harsh. It is not, for two reasons. First, Alaska Appellate Rule 212(c)(1)(I) and our case law both explicitly require that issues be preserved in the argument portion of the brief. Second, if we permit parties to treat negative characterizations of the superior court's decision as if they were legal arguments, we allow them to unfairly surprise their adversaries. Following this case, parties will be required to carefully parse the facts for any lurking legal issues, even if their opponent is represented by legal counsel. Moreover, parties often include a thorough discussion of the procedural history of a case, partly because our rules seem to encourage it, and perhaps also to give some indication whether any alleged error was harmless or prejudicial. Treating this history as argument, at least for represented appellants, can only lead to surprise and confusion.
¶50. Majority at 649-50.
¶51. Majority at 649-50.
¶52. Compare Majority at 650 with Shepherd's quoted passage.
¶53. Majority at 649-50.
¶54. Majority at 650 (citing Alaska Civil Rule 90.3(a)(1)(A)@)).
¶55. Comparing appellant's brief with the statement of points appellant filed when she commenced her appeal, see footnote 8, above, confirms that she has not argued the issue, even *655implicitly. The relevant words in her second point on appeal are "mandatory deductions," "gross income," and Civil Rule "90.3." "Mandatory," "deductions," "gross income," and "90.3" appear nowhere in the table of contents {and thus the argument headings), the list of issues, the standard of review, or the conclusion sections of appellant's brief. The words "mandatory," "deductions," and "gross income" appear nowhere in the three parts of appellant's argument section of her brief. And the references to Rule 90.3 in the argument section are never offered to support any contention that income taxes must be deducted from gross income, or that the superior court erred in calculating income tax liability or deductions due for income tax liability. The statement of points on appeal therefore implies that Shepherd's attorneys chose to waive the argument on appeal.
¶56. See Petersen v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 803 P.2d 406, 411 (Alaska 1990) (holding that when appellant's brief does not raise an argument, issue is waived).