McGrath v. Comm'r

T.C. Memo. 2009-126

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

CHRISTINA MARIE THOMPSON MCGRATH, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 3954-08. Filed June 3, 2009.

Christina Marie Thompson McGrath, pro se.

Erin R. Hines, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COHEN, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $4,891

in petitioner’s Federal income tax for 2005. The issue for

decision is whether petitioner is entitled to deduct medical

expenses her father paid on her behalf. Unless otherwise

indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue

Code.
 - 2 -

Background

All of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulated

facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference.

Petitioner was a resident of Virginia when she filed her

petition.

In 2005 petitioner and her husband entered into an agreement

for in vitro fertilization services. The agreement provided for

a full refund if the services were not successful. Petitioner’s

father paid $39,542 for the services as a wedding gift to

petitioner and her husband.

On Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, of their 2005 individual

income tax return, petitioner and her husband claimed a medical

expense deduction of $34,313, after reducing the amount paid for

the fertilization services by 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross

income as required under section 213(a).

In 2008 petitioner received a full refund of the amount paid

because the services were not successful.

Discussion

Section 213(a) allows “as a deduction the expenses paid

during the taxable year, not compensated for by insurance or

otherwise, for medical care of the taxpayer”. Respondent does

not dispute that the services petitioner obtained qualified as

medical expenses. Respondent’s position is that petitioner is

not entitled to deduct the amount paid because her father paid
 - 3 -

for the services on her behalf. Respondent relies on a series of

cases holding that taxpayers are not entitled to deduct medical

expenses which they did not pay or which were reimbursed by some

other source. See Morgan v. Commissioner, 55 T.C. 376 (1970);

Litchfield v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 967 (1963), affd. 330 F.2d

509 (1st Cir. 1964); Robertson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-

100, affd. 15 Fed. Appx. 467 (9th Cir. 2001); Hill v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1978-98; Doody v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 1973-126.

We do not know what petitioner’s position is because she

failed to file the pretrial memorandum or the brief ordered by

the Court. No error in respondent’s determination or analysis is

apparent. Alternative arguments made in respondent’s brief are

unnecessary to our conclusion.

Decision will be entered

for respondent.