- 32 -
particular case, and that the acquiescence means acceptance of
the conclusion reached and does not necessarily mean acceptance
and approval of any or all of the reasons assigned by the Court
for its conclusions. Id. at 3.
In 1966, the Commissioner issued Rev. Rul. 66-28, 1966-1
C.B. 31, which concerns whether an individual qualified as the
taxpayer’s dependent under then section 152(a)(9). The ruling
addresses the question of whether the individual, who was
indefinitely confined to a nursing home because of an illness
requiring constant medical care, was to be considered temporarily
absent from her principal place of abode during such confinement.
The pertinent regulation, then and now, contains a provision
dealing with temporary absence due to special circumstances
similar to the temporary absence provision in section 1.2-
2(c)(1), Income Tax Regs. See section 1.152-1(b), Income Tax
Regs. The provisions are not identical, however, in that section
1.152-1(b), Income Tax Regs., unlike section 1.2-2(c)(1), Income
Tax Regs., does not include the reasonable-expectation-of-return
test.
Relying on the similarity of the two provisions and this
Court’s interpretation of the predecessor of section 1.2-2(c)(1),
Income Tax Regs., in Hein v. Commissioner, supra, the
Commissioner concluded that indefinite confinement to a nursing
home because of illness will likewise be considered a temporary
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011