Ripple v. Commissioner

54 T.C. 1442, 1970 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 100
CourtUnited States Tax Court
DecidedJune 30, 1970
DocketDocket No. 2663-68
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 54 T.C. 1442 (Ripple v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ripple v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 1442, 1970 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 100 (tax 1970).

Opinion

OPINION

Section 213 of the Code allows a deduction for amounts paid for medical care for the treatment of a dependent suffering from a disease.3

David Nipple possessed the mental ability to read but had problems reading. His lack of reading proficiency was caused, at least to some extent, by his emotional difficulties. Expenditures made by the petitioners to treat their son’s emotional difficulties would fall within the definition of medical care. See C. Fink Fischer, 50 T.C. 164 (1968); Hobart J. Hendrick, 35 T.C. 1223 (1961).

The petitioners contend that the entire amount of the tuition paid Matthews School along with the amounts paid for room and board are deductible as expenses for medical care. They base their contention on the regulations relating to institutionalized care which provide that for educational costs and meals and lodging to be treated as medical expenses the individual must attend a “special school” with resources for alleviating a given mental or physical handicap, and these resources must be a principal reason for the individual’s presence there.4

An institution will be considered a “special school” within the meaning of the regulations where education is only “incidental” to medical care. See O. Fink Fischer, supra; Arnold P. Grunwald, 51 T.C. 108 (1968). During the period of David Nipple’s attendance, the Matthews School provided an academic program with emphasis upon corrective and remedial reading. The school was described by its founder and director as providing for the educational problems of children who had both educational and emotional problems.5 At the Matthews School, the training in remedial reading, which the petitioners tacitly recognize to be an educational rather than a medical service, was not incidental to medical care. Education was the primary function. The Matthews School was not a “special school” within the meaning of the regulations. Accordingly, the expenses of the meals and lodging were not for medical care but were nondeductible personal expenses.

In addition, the petitioners paid tuition to the Matthews School in calendar 1964 and 1965 in the respective amounts of $3,450 and $2,050. Only if, and to the extent that, such fees were for the mitigation or treatment of David Nipple’s emotional problems, would those fees be deductible expenses for medical care. See C. Fink Fischer, supra; Hobart J. Hendrick, supra.

Whether a service constitutes medical care depends upon its therapeutic nature to the individual involved. See C. Fink Fischer, supra; Nev. Nul. 67-339, 1967-2 C.B. 126. There must be a proximate relationship between the medical deficiency of the individual and the service he received. Arnold P. Grunwald, supra. It must be established that the tuition was paid for services provided by the Matthews School which with respect to David were primarily medical in nature rather than educational.

The petitioners do not argue that the remedial reading classroom instruction in itself mitigated or treated their son’s disease. They apparently view this instruction along with any education that their son may have received as being incidental to a therapeutic program designed in conjunction with the individual psychotherapy supplied by Dr. Abrams to break down their son’s inhibitions to learning. The petitioners do claim that the efforts of the Matthews School were devoted to overcoming their son’s psychological impediment to learning. They argue that their son received classroom therapy at the Matthews School that supported the individual therapy that he received from Dr. Abrams. The record in this case does not support the petitioners’ contentions.

No evidence was introduced as to the actual nature of the classroom instruction or how that instruction was designed to deal with David Nipple’s emotional problems, as well as his academic deficiencies. Miss Matthews, who was the director of the school, for all but 1 month of the approximately 1½ years that David Nipple was enrolled, stated that the classroom instruction was directed towards the correction of reading deficiencies. She did not indicate that the classroom instruction was designed to be therapeutic.

The report issued by the Neading Clinic of the Department of Psychology at Temple University recommended psychiatric help to overcome David Nipple’s inability to learn and reading help such as that offered by the Matthews School. The report called for separate approaches to solve David Nipple’s emotional and academic problems.

David Nipple attended the Matthews School and contemporaneously received psychiatric services from 'Dr. Abrams. While Dr. Abrams discussed David Nipple’s condition with his teachers, there was no evidence that they provided supportive therapy or modified their remedial reading program to overcome David Nipple’s emotional problems.

The petitioners failed to show that classroom services provided by the Matthews School had a direct or proximate therapeutic effect on their son’s disease. Compare C. Fink Fischer, supra.

On the record in the instant case, we must conclude that no part of the amount paid to the Matthews School was for medical care.

Decision will be entered for the respondent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pazos v. Commissioner
1987 T.C. Memo. 131 (U.S. Tax Court, 1987)
Walton v. Commissioner
1982 T.C. Memo. 648 (U.S. Tax Court, 1982)
Fay v. Commissioner
76 T.C. 408 (U.S. Tax Court, 1981)
Van Kirk v. Commissioner
1980 T.C. Memo. 572 (U.S. Tax Court, 1980)
Sims v. Commissioner
1979 T.C. Memo. 499 (U.S. Tax Court, 1979)
Pfeifer v. Commissioner
1978 T.C. Memo. 189 (U.S. Tax Court, 1978)
Reiff v. Commissioner
1974 T.C. Memo. 20 (U.S. Tax Court, 1974)
Shidler v. Commissioner
1971 T.C. Memo. 126 (U.S. Tax Court, 1971)
Greisdorf v. Commissioner
54 T.C. 1684 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)
Ripple v. Commissioner
54 T.C. 1442 (U.S. Tax Court, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
54 T.C. 1442, 1970 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ripple-v-commissioner-tax-1970.