TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Victoria Malev
Docket Number: 1282-16S
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/01/2017
Pages: 8

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 PA VICTORIA MALEV, Petitioner, v. ) ) ) ) Docket No. 1282-16S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at New York, New York, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered under Rule 155. Dated: Washington, D.C. March 1, 2017 (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge SERVED Mar 01 2017 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 Bench Opinion by Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo February 16, 2017 3 Victoria Malev v. Commissioner 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Docket No. 1282-16S THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following represents the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion (bench opinion). Unless otherwise noted, section references in this bench opinion are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant periods, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by section 7459(b) and Rule 152. This proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency is a small tax case subject to the provisions of section 7463 and Rules 170 through 175. Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision entered in this case shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Lawrence A. Sannicandro appeared on behalf of Petitioner. Aaron M. Greenberg and Jonathan Bartolomei, specially recognized, appeared on behalf of Respondent. In a Notice of Deficiency dated October 26, 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 2015 (notice), Respondent determined a deficiency in, and imposed a section 6662(a) penalty with respect to, Petitioner's 2012 Federal income tax. After 4 written and oral concessions, the issue for decision 5 is whether Petitioner is entitled to deduct, as 6 medical expenses, amounts paid for treatments not 7 8 9 routinely or universally recognized. Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. At the time the petition was filed, 10 Petitioner lived in New York. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Petitioner suffers from at least one spinal disease. Apparently, she received only partial and temporary relief from the pain associated with the disease through chiropractic treatment. In a diagnosis dated November 25, 2016, which is after the year in issue, her medical doctor suggested surgery as a remedy, but advised her that the surgery "does not come with complete success, and carries the 19 possibility of worsening" Petitioner's condition. 20 Petitioner's medical doctor further "recommended" 21 "integrative medical care." According to Duke 22 University, "Integrative medicine is an approach to 23 24 care that puts the patient at the center and addresses the full range of physical, emotional, 25 mental, social, spiritual and environmental 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 influences that affect a person's health. Employing a personalized strategy that considers the patient's unique conditions, needs and circumstances, it uses the most appropriate interventions from an array of scientific disciplines to heal illness and disease and help people regain and maintain optimum health." The word "heal" in the above definition is critical here, as an expense paid by a taxpayer for "healing services" directed towards any structure of the body may be deducted as a medical expense. See sec. 1.213(e), Income Tax regs. That regulation is promulgated under section 213(a), which in relevant part, and subject to various limitations, allows "as a deduction the expenses paid during the taxable year, not compensated for by insurance or otherwise, for medical care of the taxpayer." The expenses underlying the deduction here in dispute were paid during 2012 and Petitioner was not compensated by insurance or otherwise, for those expenses. Under the circumstances of this case, we focus not only on what the above-referenced statute and regulation require to support a medical expense deduction, but on what is not required as well. 25 Nothing in the statute or the underlying regulation 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 requires that the treatments received by a taxpayer be furnished by an individual licensed to practice 3 medicine in any particular discipline, or that the 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 services or treatments be provided in person rather than remotely, or that the treatment be successful, or that the treatment be universally accepted as effective. See Tso v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1980- 399. As the following summary of the relevant facts will show, Petitioner's claim to the medical expense deduction here in dispute calls into play as much as what is not required by the statutory scheme as it does the literal language of section 213. Concerned that conventional treatments for her condition posed too much risk, or were or would be ineffective, Petitioner subscribed to various forms of treatment from four individuals, none of whom would be commonly recognized as a conventional 19 medical caregiver. And to be sure, none of the 20 methods utilized by these individuals would commonly 21 22 23 24 25 be recognized as a conventional medical treatment. The methods Petitioner subscribed to might be termed "alternative medicine" by the polite, but we expect the less tolerant would characterize the treatments in other than legitimate or complimentary terms. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 7 1 We are more persuaded by Petitioner's 2 belief as to the effectiveness of the treatments she 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 paid for than we are by our own impression as to those treatments. At trial, she testified that her condition had greatly improved as a result of the treatments. Had the November 25, 2016, diagnosis referenced above been given before 2012, this would be an easy case. After all, that diagnosis included a recommendation that Petitioner pursue "integrated 10 medical treatment," and that recommendation having 11 12 13 14 15 been made by a recognized medical professional would probably in and of itself support a deduction for expenses paid to seek such care. But the diagnosis came later, and it seems to speak in the time frame in which it was made, 16 which would undermine, at least to some extent, 17 Petitioner's claim to have been cured by the 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 treatments she was received several years earlier. The timing of that diagnosis provides us with no easy resolution to the issue before us. Under the circumstances, we are faced with a difficult task. Our resolution must take into account not only what is known but what is less understood as well; namely, the role that an individual's state of mind plays in the treatment of 866.488.DEPO www.Capita1ReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 the individual's disease. In reaching our conclusion we consider: (1) the literal language of section 213 and its underlying regulation, which speak in broad terms; (2) Petitioner's sincere belief that the expenses she paid for the treatments she received were directed to cure or mitigate the symptoms of her spinal disease; (3) the expenses incurred by Petitioner for the treatments she received were not of the type that an individual would routinely incur for non-medical reasons; (4) nothing in the record suggests that the relationship between Petitioner and any of the four individuals whom she paid for the services was other than professional; and (5) this Court's recognition that expenses paid for "alternative medical" treatments can be deducted as a medical expense under section 213. See Dickie v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-138; Crain v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1986-138; Tso v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1980-399. Taking all of the above into account, along 21 with the evidence introduced at trial but not 22 referenced in this bench opinion, we find that 23 Petitioner is entitled to the medical expense 24 25 deduction claimed on her 2012 return. Be that as it may, in closing we think it 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 9 appropriate to note that we fully appreciate the position taken by Respondent in this case, and consider that position to be more than justified. To reflect the foregoing, and the concessions of the parties, decision will be entered under Rule 155. This concludes this Court's bench opinion in this matter. (Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com