- 10 -
719. We held the injury to the taxpayer’s heart was not the loss
of a body function and was not of the type envisaged by section
105(c)(1).
The facts of this case are materially distinguishable from
those in Hines, and we hold the impairment petitioner suffers in
his hands, legs, and feet due to polyneuropathy is tantamount to
the loss of a member or a body function within the meaning of
section 105(c). Unlike the taxpayer's heart in Hines,
petitioner's arms, legs, and feet have not functioned normally
since he began chemotherapy. Petitioner's hands and legs fail
him frequently and unexpectedly, and he can barely hold objects
or stand for any significant period of time. We find the
negative impact on petitioner's quality of life to be of such a
degree as rises to the level of severity contemplated by Congress
in section 105(c).6
Respondent argues petitioner has merely lost his ability to
function as a general surgeon and that loss of earning capacity
is not equivalent to loss of a body function. See Hines v.
Commissioner, supra; West v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-617.
While we agree with this legal proposition, we disagree with
6In Hines v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 715, 718-719 (1979), we
recognized the Congressional intent of sec. 105(c) "was to
provide a tax benefit to one who receives a severe physical
injury which permanently and significantly lessens the quality of
life which he had enjoyed prior to the injury."
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011