- 10 -
559, 560-561 (5th Cir. 1957). The Court does not question, as
petitioner claimed at trial, that the church helped him while he
was experiencing a host of personal problems. Because petitioner
failed to provide any reliable evidence of his claimed
contributions, the Court finds that there is no basis upon which
to estimate petitioner’s charitable contributions for 2002.
Accordingly, respondent is sustained on this issue.
As previously stated, petitioner claimed an itemized
deduction for medical and dental expenses of $3,866 in excess of
the 7.5-percent limitation under section 213(a).5 Respondent
disallowed the deduction in full for a lack of substantiation.
Section 213(a) allows as a deduction any expenses that are
paid during the taxable year for the medical care of the
taxpayer, his spouse, and dependents and that are not compensated
for by insurance or otherwise. Estate of Smith v. Commissioner,
79 T.C. 313, 318 (1982). The deduction is allowed only to the
extent that the amount exceeds 7.5 percent of adjusted gross
income. Sec. 213(a).
Petitioner admitted at trial that the amount claimed for
medical and dental expenses was not correct and that his medical
expenses were limited to the amount he spent for insurance and
prescription drugs. He admitted his medical expenses were “not
5The amount reported before the limitation imposed by sec.
213(a) was $6,970.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011