- 15 -
instituted legal action against the Portland School District for
reimbursement of the tuition at Eagle Hill and thereby secure
treatment for a child.
Petitioner's legal action against the Portland School
District was not an essential or integral part of Daniel's
medical treatment at Eagle Hill. Although residential care was
recommended for Daniel by a mental health professional, the
lawsuit was not commenced upon a doctor's recommendation as was
the case with the involuntary confinement proceeding in
Gerstacker v. Commissioner, supra. Respondent argues that
petitioner was financially motivated to initiate the legal
proceedings against the Portland School District and was not
motivated by medical necessity. We agree. The legal fees in
issue were incurred to obtain reimbursement for the costs of the
medical care that Daniel received and not to obtain the medical
care, as petitioner contends. This is so whether or not
petitioner reasonably believed that he would not be able to pay
for Daniel to attend Eagle Hill without contribution from the
school district. Although section 213 does contain an income-
based limitation on the deductibility of medical expenses, there
is nothing in the legislative history that indicates Congress
intended to base the deductibility of a particular type of
expense on the taxpayer's financial status. Petitioner incurred
the legal expenses to determine who would pay for his son's
treatment at Eagle Hill. The expenses were not necessary for
Daniel to attend Eagle Hill.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011