- 10 -
when any cost exceeds that of a normal counterpart, and
that cost is solely for the mitigation or alleviation
of a disability and one that provides functionality to
the disabled, this above normal cost is deductible as a
medical expense confined to the limitation that its
primary function is not that of normal and ordinary to
and from work travel when the principles of this type
of deductibility cost are applied in this area. * * *
Based on this and similar statements, it appears to be
petitioners’ position that the “above normal” costs incurred by
disabled individuals to obtain a commensurate level of
functionality with those taxpayers unaffected by such a
disability should be characterized as directly and proximately
related to medical treatment within the meaning of section 213.
C. Analysis
1. Standard for Deduction
While the Court is sympathetic to petitioners’ cause, there
exist multiple difficulties with respect to the deductibility of
petitioners’ transportation expenses. As an initial matter, the
standard they suggest premised on “above normal” costs would
appear not to comport with existing precedent under section 213.
Courts have on several occasions considered the
deductibility under section 213 of costs incurred in getting to
and from work by taxpayers suffering from disabling medical
conditions. For instance, in the early case Donnelly v.
Commissioner, 262 F.2d at 412, the taxpayer, a victim of
infantile paralysis and abdominal cancer, could not use public
transportation and drove a specially designed automobile to work.
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