- 11 -
herself.14 See sec. 105(b). On that record, we further find
that petitioners have failed to carry their burden of establish-
ing that Mr. Eyler’s payment of those premiums constitutes a
contribution that Mr. Eyler, as Ms. Eyler’s employer, made to the
unwritten health plan. See sec. 106(a); sec. 1.106-1, Income Tax
Regs. On the record before us, we also find that petitioners
have failed to carry their burden of establishing that any
portion of the claimed health insurance premiums is an ordinary
and necessary expense paid or incurred by Mr. Eyler in carrying
on his tiling business. See sec. 162(a); sec. 1.162-10, Income
Tax Regs.15
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that petitioners have failed to carry their burden of
establishing that they are entitled under section 162(a) to the
$5,066 deduction for “Employee benefit programs” claimed in
14Petitioners’ reliance on Revenue Ruling 71-588, 1971-2
C.B. 91, is misplaced. That revenue ruling involved a taxpayer-
employer who operated a sole proprietorship with several full-
time employees, including his spouse, and who maintained an
accident and health plan for the benefit of those employees and
their families. In contrast to the instant case, pursuant to
that plan, the taxpayer-employer in Revenue Ruling 71-588 reim-
bursed each taxpayer-employer’s employees for expenses incurred
for the medical care of themselves, their spouses, and their
dependents. On such facts, Revenue Ruling 71-588 held that the
reimbursed amounts received by the employees are not includible
in their gross income pursuant to sec. 105(b) and that such
amounts are deductible by the taxpayer under sec. 162(a).
15See also Albers v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-144.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008