- 15 -
objective of converting petitioners’ residence into a showcase to
be used in her interior design activity, rather than “primarily
for the prevention or alleviation of a physical * * * illness” of
Ms. Mitic within the meaning of section 1.213-1(e)(1)(ii), Income
Tax Regs.
Moreover, removal of carpeting and installation of hardwood
flooring throughout petitioners’ residence and repainting of that
residence were not approved and recommended by Dr. Wolfe in the
June 27, 1980 letter, as Mr. Mitic contends, as expenditures that
would benefit medically Ms. Mitic. In fact, the June 27, 1980
letter, as typewritten, merely stated that Ms. Mitic “has been
found to be allergic to dust and would benefit from removal of
the carpet in the bedroom”.4 Furthermore, we find that Ms.
Mitic’s purchase in early February 1994 of a Chinese rug and a
Persian rug for $8,370, which were placed on the newly installed
hardwood flooring of petitioners’ residence, belies Mr. Mitic’s
contentions (1) that the carpeting was removed from, and hardwood
flooring was installed in, petitioners’ residence and the inte-
rior of that residence was repainted because Dr. Wolfe approved
and recommended that that work be done and (2) that the expendi-
4Although the June 27, 1980 letter is a typewritten letter,
the letter “s” was added by hand to the word “bedroom” in that
letter. We are not persuaded by the June 27, 1980 letter that
Dr. Wolfe, who did not testify at trial, stated in the June 27,
1980 letter that Ms. Mitic would benefit from removal of the
carpeting in bedrooms other than Ms. Mitic’s bedroom or in other
rooms in petitioners’ residence.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011