- 16 -
tures for that work were medically related to Ms. Mitic’s asth-
matic condition.
Based on our examination of the entire record in this case,
we find that Mr. Mitic has failed to prove that petitioners’
claimed medical expense deduction at issue for 1993 was for
expenses for medical care of Ms. Mitic under section 213 and the
regulations thereunder.5 We further find on that record that Mr.
Mitic has failed to show error in respondent’s determination
disallowing that deduction. Consequently, we sustain that
determination.
Claimed Casualty Loss Deduction
In the 1994 joint return, petitioners claimed a casualty
loss deduction of $40,500 with respect to Mr. Mitic’s Mercedes
5Assuming arguendo that we had found that petitioners’
claimed medical expense deduction at issue for 1993 as it relates
to petitioners’ expenditures for removing carpeting and install-
ing hardwood flooring throughout petitioners’ residence and
painting the interior of that residence was for expenses for
medical care under sec. 213 and the regulations thereunder, we
find on the instant record that petitioners nonetheless are not
entitled to deduct those expenditures under sec. 213. That is
because on the instant record we find that Mr. Mitic has failed
to establish that those expenditures, which we find to be capital
expenditures for the permanent improvement or betterment of
petitioners’ residence, satisfy the requirements of sec. 1.213-
1(e)(1)(iii), Income Tax Regs., relating to capital expenditures
otherwise qualifying as medical expenses under sec. 213 and the
regulations thereunder. In this connection, Mr. Mitic admitted
at trial that no appraisal was made of petitioners’ residence
either before or after petitioners had the carpeting removed
from, and hardwood flooring installed in, that residence and had
it repainted.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011