- 11 - The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that “the costs of operating an automobile to and from work cannot be contained in the statutory definition of ‘medical care’”. Id. at 413. As explained by the Court of Appeals, an indirect medical benefit did not make a personal expense deductible because the statute was limited to those expenses “primarily incurred for medical care.” Id. This Court’s decision below had likewise reasoned that the taxpayer’s costs were, “in essence, nothing more than commuter’s expenses which are personal in nature” and thus failed to qualify under the statute, as follows: [The taxpayer] argues that braces and crutches are deductible as medical expenses and therefore the costs of his special automobile should also be deductible because he uses the latter as a substitute for the former. The petitioner’s argument, however, ignores the fact that his automobile expenses, unlike the expense of braces and crutches, do not represent expenses incurred primarily for the alleviation of a physical defect or illness, which is a requirement for deductibility * * * [Donnelly v. Commissioner, 28 T.C. at 1279-1280.] This Court applied similar logic in Buck v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 113 (1966), and Goldaper v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1977- 343. The taxpayer in Buck v. Commissioner, supra at 116, was subject to epileptic seizures and advised by his physician not to drive. He hired a chauffeur to transport him to work. Id. The Court held that the employment of the chauffeur “to drive petitioner to and from his places of business was a matter of petitioner’s own personal choice, comfort, and convenience andPage: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011