- 12 -
was not ‘primarily for or essential to’ medical care”; rather,
the salary paid to the chauffeur was “in the nature of commuting
expenses” and was not deductible. Id. at 119. The analogous
scenario in Goldaper v. Commissioner, supra, involved a taxpayer
with vision problems, similar to Mr. Alderman, who could not
obtain a driver’s license and was advised by his doctor not to
use public transportation. We again held that the cost of hiring
a professional driver for transportation to and from work was
nondeductible under section 213 in that “the primary reason for
petitioner’s use of a professional driver was the personal reason
of commuting to and from work.” Id.
One further example is afforded by Ginsberg v. United
States, 237 F. Supp. 968, 969 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), where the taxpayer
suffered from chronic osteomyelitis of the leg. His physician
advised against prolonged walking or standing and in favor of
using an automobile to prevent future attacks or aggravation of
the condition. Id. On these facts, the court concluded that
“use of the vehicle will probably mitigate aggravation of the
taxpayer’s condition. Nevertheless, the expense of using an
automobile for commutation to work and pleasure is not primarily
incurred for medical care where the employment is not prescribed
as therapy.” Id. at 970.
In contrast, the only cases in which deduction under section
213 has been permitted for costs incurred for transportation to
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011