Brian P. Keeley and Mary G. Keeley - Page 12

                                       - 11 -                                         
          considering the individual’s education, training, and work                  
          experience.  Sec. 1.72-17A(f)(2), Income Tax Regs.  As an example           
          of a disability, the regulations list “Mental diseases (e.g.,               
          psychosis or severe psychoneurosis) requiring continued                     
          institutionalization or constant supervision of the individual”.            
          Sec. 1.72-17A(f)(2)(vi), Income Tax Regs.  The impairment,                  
          however, must be expected either to continue for a long and                 
          indefinite period or to result in death.  Sec. 1.72-17A(f)(3),              
          Income Tax Regs.  In this context, the term “indefinite” means              
          that it cannot reasonably be anticipated that the impairment                
          will, in the foreseeable future, be so diminished as no longer to           
          prevent substantial gainful activity.  Id.  However, an                     
          impairment that is remediable does not constitute a disability.             
          Sec. 1.72-17A(f)(4), Income Tax Regs.  More specifically, the               
          regulations provide that “An individual will not be deemed                  
          disabled if, with reasonable effort and safety to himself, the              
          impairment can be diminished to the extent that the individual              
          will not be prevented by the impairment from engaging in his                
          customary or any comparable substantial gainful activity.”  Id.             
               Based on the record, we assume arguendo that Mr. Keeley’s              
          depression affected his ability to engage in substantial gainful            
          activity during the years in issue.14  Nevertheless, we are                 

               14  We note that, during the examination of petitioners’               
          returns, respondent did not dispute Mr. Keeley’s contention that            
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011