Case Name: James DONNELLY, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1959-01-19
Citations: 262 F.2d 411
Docket Number: No. 13, Docket 25023
Parties: James DONNELLY, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 262
Pages: 411–413

Head Matter:
James DONNELLY, Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee.
No. 13, Docket 25023.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued Oct. 16, 1958.
Decided Jan. 19, 1959.
James Donnelly, pro se.
Charles K. Rice, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Melva M. Graney, John J. Pajak, Attys., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
Before HAND, HINCKS and WATERMAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
WATERMAN, Circuit Judge.
Petitioner, a victim of infantile paralysis and abdominal cancer, seeks to reverse a Tax Court decision, 28 T.C. 1278, upholding a determination by the Commissioner of deficiencies in petitioner's income taxes for the years 1953 and 1954. During those years petitioner, as a practical matter, could not use public transportation. He drove to and from his work as a buffer and polisher of rough plastics in a specially designed automobile owned by him. On his job he wore aprons and strong work clothes. On his 1953 and 1954 income tax returns the petitioner deducted the sums he expended in operating his automobile to and from work and the expenses of his work clothes and aprons. The Commissioner disallowed these deductions in full. The Tax Court upheld the Commissioner.
We must affirm the Tax Court, but we think it not inapposite to state that we do so with reluctance. The petitioner's case excites our sympathy, but we are not permitted to make any exception in his favor.
The first question petitioner raises requires us to distinguish between an individual's personal expenses for which no deductions are allowed, 26 U.S. C. (I.R.C.1939) § 24(a)(1), 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.1954) § 262, and those .deductible expenses he incurs in seeking after profit, 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.1939) § 23(a) (1,2), 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.1954) § 162, 212. The courts and the Commissioner have consistently held that expenses incurred in commuting to.and from home and work are of a personal nature and hence nondeductible, Commissioner v. Flowers, 1946, 326 U.S. 465, 66 S.Ct. 250, 90 L.Ed. 203; Bruton v. Commissioner, 1947, 9 T.C. 882; Cashman v. Commissioner, 1947, 9 T.C. 761; Sullivan v. Commissioner, 1924, 1 B.T.A. 93; Treasury Regulations 118 § 39.23(a)-2(i), 39.23(a)-15(f) (1939 Code), and 1.212.1(f) (1954 Code). These decisions apply to the facts of this case. Bruton v. Commissioner, supra. We cannot say that the personal nature of petitioner's expense was changed because he expended more, perhaps, than the average commuter, or because he traveled to and from his job in an especially designed conveyance owned by him.
Similarly, a majority of the court hold that the expenses petitioner incurred for his work clothes are not deductible expenses. The Commissioner and the courts are in agreement that in order for the expenses of work clothes to be deductible the clothes must be of a type specifically required as a condition of employment, and they must not be adaptable to general usage as ordinary clothing. Mim. 6463, 1950-1 Cum.Bull. 29; Bercaw v. C. I. R., 4 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 521; C. I. R. v. Benson, 9 Cir., 1944, 146 F.2d 191; Roth v. Commissioner, 1952, 17 T.C. 1450; Roberts v. Commissioner, 1948, 10 T.C. 581; Drill v. Commissioner, 1947, 8 T.C. 902. The court below found that the aprons and the strong clothing were not required as a condition of employment, and that the clothing was of a type adaptable to general usage. The facts so found appear to be undisputed. We cannot say that the Tax Court erred in disallowing the claimed deductions. The line delimiting personal expenses is often a difficult one to draw, but as heretofore drawn in the area here involved it has received long acceptance and would appear not to have been defined unreasonably.
As a second contention petitioner seeks to deduct his automobile operating costs under the Code provisions permitting the deduction of expenses for medical care, 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C. 1939) § 23(x), 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.1954) § 213. We hold with the Tax Court that the costs of operating an automobile to and from work cannot be contained in the statutory definition of "medical care" — the "amounts paid for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease * 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.1939) § 23(x), 26 U.S.C. (I.R.C.1954) § 213(e). The fact that an indirect medical benefit may result from a personal expense does not make that personal expense deductible under the "medical care" provisions of the statute. Ochs v. C. I. R., 2 Cir., 1952, 195 F.2d 692, 37 A.L.R.2d 545, certiorari denied 1952, 344 U.S. 827, 73 S.Ct. 28, 97 L.Ed. 643. See Treasury Regulations 118, Sec. 39.23(x)-l(d) (1) (1939 Code); Treasury Regulations on Income Taxes, Sec. 1.213-1 (e)(1) (ii) (1954 Code). Under the language of the statute deductible expenses are limited to those primarily incurred for medical care. Hollander v. C. I. R., 3 Cir., 1955, 219 F.2d 934.
Affirmed.