- 9 -
the Commissioner’s determination denying the deduction for
medical and dental expenses. See Davis v. Commissioner, supra
(citing Hunter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-249, and
Nwachukwu v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-27).
Mrs. Sizelove testified that petitioners had other medical
and dental expenses, but she did not know why she failed to
provide evidence of the expenditures to respondent. Mrs.
Sizelove also testified that they “guesstimated” their medical
and dental expenses for the year using recurring expenditures
(i.e., amounts of copayments and medical supplies for her
diabetic husband).
Petitioners failed to provide any evidence showing that they
actually made payments of $5,909.38 for medical and dental
expenses in 2004. See sec. 213(a). Petitioners also have not
provided documentation that satisfies the additional requirements
imposed by section 1.213-1(h), Income Tax Regs. See Davis v.
Commissioner, supra; Cotton v. Commissioner, supra. Finally,
petitioners failed to provide sufficient evidence as to their
recurring expenditures, i.e., amounts of copayments and supplies,
for the Court to make a reasonable estimate. See Vanicek v.
Commissioner, supra. The Court finds that petitioners have not
substantiated the $5,909.38 in medical and dental expenses that
respondent has not conceded.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008