DocketNumber: Docket No. 279-80.
Citation Numbers: 42 T.C.M. 279, 1981 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 409, 1981 T.C. Memo. 337
Filed Date: 6/29/1981
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/20/2020
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
NIMS, *410
Year | Deficiency |
1977 | $ 101.00 |
The sole issue for decision is whether petitioner may take a section 213, 1 medical expense deduction for general home maintenance costs allocated to a business office in petitioner's home, used by petitioner to avoid aggravation of a severe allergy to tobacco smoke at petitioner's place of business.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated. The stipulation and the exhibits attached thereto are incorporated herein by this reference.
Frances R. Lipp (hereinafter "petitioner"), is an unmarried individual who resided in Fort Collins, Colorado, at the time she filed the petition herein. During the taxable year 1977, the petitioner was employed by Colorado State University as a full-time professor. Petitioner was provided with office space at the university and was neither required nor requested to maintain an office in her home.
Petitioner suffers from a severe*411 allergy to tobacco smoke. Immunotherapy injections and antihistamines administered by an allergy specialist proved ineffective in treating this condition. Petitioner's only recourse, therefore, in accordance with the specialist's recommendation, was to avoid exposure to tobacco smoke whenever possible.
Petitioner's university office was frequently and unavoidedly permeated by tobacco smoke. Therefore, petitioner worked at home about one-half of the time, and there completed such professional responsibilities as grading student work and preparing lectures. Although petitioner completed these responsibilities in a single room of her home, the use of the room was not limited exclusively to such activity. For instance, petitioner used the room to house her full personal library, as well as for other nonspecified use. The room is specially insulated against aeroallergens.
Petitioner concedes that she is not entitled to a section 280A 2 office-in-the-home deduction. However, petitioner claims a section 213(e)(1)(A) 3 medical expense deduction for the portion of general home maintenance costs she allocated to the home office. Petitioner calculated the deduction by apportioning*412 general home maintenance costs on the basis of proportional square footage, using the following equation:
office floor space / total floor space (1/8) X total home maintenance
costs ($ 3,105.00) = deduction ($ 388). 4 The home maintenance figure included expenses for taxes, interest, insurance, appreciation, utilities, trash hauling, cleaning bills, yardwork and such repairs and improvements as carpentry and electrical wiring. Respondent found a deficiency in the amount deducted for these general home maintenance expenses.
*413 OPINION
Petitioner suffers from a severe tobacco smoke allergy for which the only effective treatment is avoidance. Petitioner is a professor whose university office is frequently and unavoidably permeated by tobacco smoke. A significant percentage of petitioner's professional responsibilities such as grading student work and preparing lectures is as easily performed away from as at the university. Petitioner performs such responsibilities in a single room in her home which is used primarily, though not exclusively, for this purpose. The room is specially insulated against aeroallergens. The sole issue in this case is whether petitioner can apportion general home maintenance costs to the office and deduct such as section 213 medical expenses.
The issue engages a tension between section 213 and section 262, the latter a general proviso which disallows deductions for personal, living or family expenses. 5 The Supreme Court, in
Since
Petitioner has failed to meet her burden of proving an additional and incremental medical expense. Petitioner offers no evidence to indicate that her allergy condition increased the normal maintenance expense of the room. Instead, petitioner claims the full cost allocable to an office-in-the-home. Petitioner's reliance on section 213 for this deduction is a clear violation of
In order to avoid the clear mandate of
*418
1. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended and in effect during the year in issue, unless otherwise specifically indicated.↩
2. Section 280A provides as a general rule that no deduction is allowed "with respect to he use of a dwelling unit which is used by the taxpayer during the taxable year as a residence." ↩
3. Section 213(a) is the general provision for medical expense deduction. Section 213(e) defines "medical care"; section 213(e)(1)(A) provides that the deduction is available for amounts paid "for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body."↩
4. Petitioner borrowed this method of calculation from the method she previously used to compute office-in-the-home deductions.↩
5. Section 262 provides that: "Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, no deduction shall be allowed for personal, living, or family expenses."↩
6. Senate Report No. 94-938 "Reasons for Change," provides in part:
In many cases the application of the appropriate and helpful test would appear to result in treating personal living, and family expenses which are directly attributable to the home (and therefore not deductible) as ordinary and necessary business expenses, even though those expenses did not result in additional or incremental costs incurred as a result of the business use of the home. Thus, expenses otherwise considered nondeductible personal, living, and family expenses might be converted into deductible business expenses simply because, under the facts of the particular case, it was appropriate and helpful to perform some portion of the taxpayer's business in his personal residence.