Morgan Wilson

31 March 2015
Tax Research Problem
The tax issue I decided to research is medical expense deductions because I wanted to
learn more about the extent to which these deductions are allowable, specifically for dependents.
Im still covered under my parents health insurance plan, and also claimed as one of their
dependents. My intent was to analyze this topic in order to benefit my parents and ensure they
are optimally deducting these expenses on their income tax return.
In the federal tax case Charles R. Roberts v. Commissioner, the taxpayer was denied
dependency exemption for his father and, therefore, not entitled to deducting the expenses
relating to his fathers medical care. As generally defined in Section 152(a) of the Internal
Revenue Code, a dependent is an individual who receives over half of their support from the
taxpayer. The respondent argued that Mr. Roberts failed to meet the support requirements of
section 152(a), which was upheld after no proof was provided that he paid for more than 50% of
his fathers support. Since deducting medical expenses for his fathers care was contingent upon
his father qualifying as a dependent, such deductions were not allowed.
According to Section 213(a), I found that non-reimbursable medical expenses paid during
the taxable year for medical care of the taxpayer, their spouse, or a dependent exceeding 10%
(7.5% if taxpayer/spouse is at least 65 years old) of adjusted gross income are allowed as a
deduction. Based on Section 152, a dependent is a qualifying child or relative. In this case the
taxpayers father is a relative, and in order to be qualifying his fathers gross income would
have to be less than the exemption amount. It was stated that the fathers entire amount of
income from Social Security benefits and interest income was applied towards his nursing home

expenses. Additionally, the taxpayer wouldve had to provide more than one-half of his fathers
support. It was determined that Mr. Roberts claims that he paid a portion of his fathers nursing
home costs could not be verified. In conclusion, Mr. Roberts expenses from his fathers medical
care could not be deducted on his personal income tax return.
This case adequately incorporated the criteria of a dependent in terms of a qualifying
relative; however, my tax issue was more specific to a child. While the terms of the tax code are
very similar, some key differences remain, which in turn raise more questions for parents
deducting medical expenses pertaining to their child covered under their insurance. To be a
qualifying child, they must live with the taxpayer for more than one-half of the taxable year,
either be less than 19 years old, or a student less than 24, and mustnt provide more than 50% of
his or her own support. Contrarily, the terms for a childs coverage under their parents insurance
are quite different. The age limit is 26 years old not conditional on being a student and they
are not required to live with, or be financially dependent on their parents. The questions that
remain unanswered about my tax issue concern the extent to which parents can deduct medical
expenses for any children remaining on their insurance plan whom are no longer a qualifying
child. I believe Id need to further explore the potential for a qualifying child to transfer to a
qualifying relative to maintain a dependent status. Additional authority I would need to
comprehensively address this issue may consist of supplementary research through more
regulations and rulings, and possibly studying the laws in the applicable Internal Revenue Code
sections to obtain more detailed information.

Checkpoint | Document

3/31/15, 12:58 AM

Checkpoint Contents
Federal Library
Federal Source Materials
Federal Tax Decisions
Tax Court Memorandum Decisions
Tax Court & Board of Tax Appeals Memorandum Decisions (Prior Years)
1996
TC Memo 1996-483 - TC Memo 1996-444
Charles R. Roberts, TC Memo 1996-467, Code Sec(s). 1; 2; 152; 213, 10/17/1996

Tax Court & Board of Tax Appeals Memorandum Decisions

Charles R. Roberts v. Commissioner, TC Memo 1996-467

, Code Sec(s) 1; 2; 152; 213.
CHARLES R. ROBERTS.
Case Information:
[pg. 96-3411]
Code Sec(s):

1; 2; 152; 213

Docket:

Dkt. No. 5453-95.

Date Issued:

10/17/1996.

Judge:

Opinion by Dinan, J.

Tax Year(s):

Year 1992.

Disposition:

Decision for Commissioner.

Cites:

TC Memo 1996-467, RIA TC Memo P 96467, 72

CCH TCM 1034.

HEADNOTE
1. Dependency exemptionshead of household statussupport. Taxpayer was denied
https://checkpoint-riag-com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/app/view/toolItem?usid=11f29fv28d47a&feature=tcheckpoint&lastCpReqId=384125

Page 1 of 5

Checkpoint | Document

3/31/15, 12:58 AM

dependency exemption for his father, who lived in nursing home and whose entire Social
Security and interest income was applied against his nursing home costs: taxpayer's
unsupported testimony that he paid a portion of the nursing home costs didn't show he provided
over 1/2 father's support during year at issue. Also, taxpayer wasn't entitled to head of
household status or a deduction for his father's medical expenses where father wasn't a
dependent.
Reference(s): 15.04(30) ; 1525.09(7) ; 2135.02(5) Code Sec. 1;Code Sec. 2;Code Sec.
152;Code Sec. 213

Syllabus
Official Report
Counsel
Charles R. Roberts, pro se.
Elizabeth A. Owen, for respondent.
DINAN, Special Trial Judge:

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case was heard pursuant to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and
182.

Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's 1992 Federal income tax in the amount of
$2,462.
The issues for decision are: (1) Whether petitioner's father is his dependent; (2) whether
petitioner is entitled to claim an exemption deduction for his father; (3) whether petitioner is
entitled to claim head of household filing status, and (4) whether petitioner is entitled to a
deduction for his father's medical expenses.
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulations of fact and attached
exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in Leavenworth,
https://checkpoint-riag-com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/app/view/toolItem?usid=11f29fv28d47a&feature=tcheckpoint&lastCpReqId=384125

Page 2 of 5

Checkpoint | Document

3/31/15, 12:58 AM

Washington, on the date the petition was filed in this case.

Petitioner's father, Bert L. Roberts (Mr. Roberts), lived in two nursing homes during the entire
taxable year 1992. Mr. Roberts received Social Security benefits in the amount of $12,909 and
interest income in the amount of $647 in 1992. The entire amount of this income was applied
against Mr. Roberts' living and medical expenses at the nursing homes.
Petitioner claimed an additional exemption for Mr. Roberts as a dependent and filed as head of
household on his 1992 Federal income tax return. Petitioner also included all of Mr. Roberts'
1992 Federal income and Mr. Roberts' claims for medical expense deductions, on petitioner's
1992 Federal income tax return.
We begin by noting that petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent's determinations
are incorrect. Welch v. Helvering,

290 U.S. 111, 115 [12 AFTR 1456] (1933).

The first issue for decision is whether Mr. Roberts is petitioner's dependent as that term is
defined in section 152.
A dependent is generally defined as an individual who receives over half of his support from the
taxpayer in the calendar year in which the taxpayer's taxable year begins. Sec. 152(a).
Individuals listed under this general definition include, among others, the father of the taxpayer.
Sec. 152(a)(4). In computing the amount which is contributed for the support of an [pg. 96-3413]
individual, there must be included any amount which is contributed by such individual for his
own support, including income which is ordinarily excludable from gross income, such as Social
Security benefits.

Sec. 1.152-1(a)(2)(ii), Income Tax Regs.

Respondent argues that petitioner failed to meet the support requirements of section 152(a). We
agree. Petitioner has offered no evidence that he paid for more than half of the costs of
supporting his father during 1992. Petitioner conceded at trial that the entire amount of Mr.
Roberts' Social Security benefits and other income was applied against his nursing home costs.
Petitioner did not claim that his contributions exceeded the amount contributed by Mr. Roberts
for his own support. Petitioner's testimony that he paid a portion of the costs of the nursing home
was not documented by any bank records, canceled checks, or other receipts. More is required
by this Court than petitioner's unsubstantiated, unverified, and undocumented testimony. Wood
v. Commissioner,

338 F.2d 602, 605 [14 AFTR 2d 5951] (9th Cir. 1964), affg.

(1964); Niedringhaus v. Commissioner,

Commissioner,

41 T.C. 593

99 T.C. 202, 219-220 (1992); Tokarski v.

87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986). Since petitioner did not prove that he paid for more

https://checkpoint-riag-com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/app/view/toolItem?usid=11f29fv28d47a&feature=tcheckpoint&lastCpReqId=384125

Page 3 of 5

Checkpoint | Document

3/31/15, 12:58 AM

than half of his father's support in 1992, we hold that Mr. Roberts was not petitioner's dependent
in that year.
We now turn to the remaining issues which were contingent upon our holding that Mr. Roberts
was not petitioner's dependent in 1992.
The second issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to claim his father as an
exemption. An individual is allowed as a deduction in computing taxable income an additional
exemption for each dependent as defined in section 152. Sec. 151(c)(1). Since we have held
that Mr. Roberts is not petitioner's dependent under section 152, we further hold that petitioner
may not claim his father as an exemption because he does not meet the threshold requirements
under section 151(c)(1) for the deduction.
The third issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to claim head of household filing
status for 1992. Head of household is defined, in pertinent part, as an unmarried individual who
maintains a household which constitutes the principal place of abode of the father or mother of
the taxpayer, if the taxpayer is entitled to a deduction for such parent under section 151. Sec.
2(b)(1)(B). We hold that petitioner may not claim head of household status because, as we have
held above, he is not entitled to a deduction for Mr. Roberts under section 151 and thus does not
meet the definition of head of household.
The final issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to a deduction for his father's medical
expenses. Section 213(a) allows as a deduction the expenses paid during the taxable year for
medical care of the taxpayer's dependent as defined in section 152. Again, since we have
already held that Mr. Roberts is not petitioner's dependent under section 152, we further hold
that petitioner is not entitled to a deduction for Mr. Roberts' medical expenses because the
requirements of section 213(a) are not met.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for respondent.

Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in

effect for the taxable year in issue. All Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure.

https://checkpoint-riag-com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/app/view/toolItem?usid=11f29fv28d47a&feature=tcheckpoint&lastCpReqId=384125

Page 4 of 5

Checkpoint | Document

3/31/15, 12:58 AM

END OF DOCUMENT 2015 Thomson Reuters/Tax & Accounting. All Rights Reserved.

https://checkpoint-riag-com.prox.lib.ncsu.edu/app/view/toolItem?usid=11f29fv28d47a&feature=tcheckpoint&lastCpReqId=384125

Page 5 of 5