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.