- 13 -
and from work are those where the employment itself is explicitly
prescribed as therapy to treat a medical condition. Weinzimer v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1958-137; Misfeldt v. Kelm, 44 AFTR
1033, 52-2 USTC par. 9495 (D. Minn. 1951).
Notably, the taxpayers in the majority of the above cases
involving denial of deductions likely could have argued that they
incurred costs in getting to work above those that would have
been required absent their disabling condition. They further
would probably have been in a position to assert that the effect
of the additional expenditures was to enable them to obtain a
level of functionality on par with that of unimpeded individuals.
Petitioners attempt to distinguish such cases with the statement
that “no specific facts [sic?] costs were incurred that either
were not an elected option by the taxpayer or costs that would
occur normally within the course of an ordinary commute.” Hence,
petitioners apparently argue that these taxpayers, unlike
themselves, incurred no legitimate “above normal” costs. We,
however, perceive no meaningful distinction.
Petitioners elected to convey Mr. Alderman to work by having
Mrs. Alderman drive him. This option was selected in lieu of
other potential options, such as having Mr. Alderman call a
taxicab, hire a driver, use public transportation, join a
carpool, etc. Many of these options would clearly have generated
costs nondeductible under the above judicial precedent. Some of
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