- 8 -
Regulations promulgated under section 213 caution that
medical expense deductions should be “confined strictly to
expenses incurred primarily for the prevention or alleviation of
a physical or mental defect or illness.” Sec. 1.213-1(e)(1)(ii),
Income Tax Regs. Caselaw interprets this stricture with the
similar pronouncement that the expenses for which a deduction is
sought “must be for goods or services directly or proximately
related to the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or
prevention of the disease or illness.” Jacobs v. Commissioner,
62 T.C. 813, 818 (1974); see also Gerstacker v. Commissioner, 414
F.2d 448, 450 (6th Cir. 1969), revg. and remanding 49 T.C. 522
(1968); Havey v. Commissioner, 12 T.C. 409, 412 (1949). An
incidental relationship to health, bodily condition, or medical
care is insufficient. Havey v. Commissioner, supra at 413.
This Court has established a two-pronged, “but for” test in
determining whether expenses were directly or proximately related
to treatment of a medical condition: The taxpayer must prove
that (1) the expenditures were an essential element of the
treatment for the condition, and (2) the expenditures would not
have otherwise been incurred for nonmedical reasons. Jacobs v.
2(...continued)
years beginning after Dec. 31, 1983. Tax Equity and Fiscal
Responsibility Act of 1982, Pub. L. 97-248, sec. 202(b)(3)(B),
(c)(2), 96 Stat. 421. Where appropriate based on the context in
which used, we shall treat references by petitioners to sec.
213(e) as references to current sec. 213(d).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011