- 12 -
constrained to sustain respondent’s determination for the reasons
below.
Petitioners assert that Mr. Keeley’s depression was expected
to last for a long and indefinite period. Although we are
sensitive to the severity of Mr. Keeley’s mental health problems
and the fact that he continues to take antidepressants and
receive psychological counseling, we conclude that his state of
depression does not qualify as a “mental disease”, as defined
under section 72(m)(7), requiring continued institutionalization
or constant supervision. See Dwyer v. Commissioner, 106 T.C.
337, 342 (1996) (The taxpayer suffered from severe depression for
which he had periodic consultations with a psychologist; the
Court held that periodic professional consultation alone does not
equate with the constant supervision envisioned by the
regulation). Further, based on the record, Mr. Keeley’s
psychological condition is not irremediable within the meaning of
section 1.72-17A(f)(2), Income Tax Regs. Therefore, we must
sustain respondent’s determination as to Mr. Keeley’s IRA
distributions.
In addition, the record demonstrates that Mrs. Keeley was
not disabled during the years in issue or that any exception to
14(...continued)
he was not able to perform substantial gainful activity.
However, we note further that Mr. Keeley began working at ATI in
December 1997 and in 1998 earned a gross salary of $44,352 from
ATI.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011