Collins H. Ferris and Bonnie Bach Ferris v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue
582 F.2d 1112, 42 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5674, 1978 U.S. App. LEXIS 9533 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a capital expenditure for medical care creates additional costs due to personal motivations like architectural or aesthetic compatibility, those additional costs are not deductible as medical expenses. A medical expense deduction for a capital improvement is limited to the minimum reasonable cost of a functionally adequate facility that directly relates to medical care, reduced by any increase in the property's value.
Facts:
- Mrs. Bonnie Ferris suffered from a degenerative spinal disorder, causing her significant difficulty in walking or sitting.
- In 1970, Mrs. Ferris's physician recommended that she install a swimming pool at her residence and use it twice daily for the rest of her life to prevent permanent paralysis.
- Collins and Bonnie Ferris lived in a two and one-half story English Tudor luxury residence in Maple Bluff, Wisconsin, valued at approximately $275,000.
- The Ferrises retained an architect to design an addition to their home to enclose a 20 by 40 foot swimming pool, specifying that the design and materials should be architecturally compatible and of the same high quality as the main residence.
- In 1971, the Ferrises spent $194,660 to construct the swimming pool addition, which included expensive materials like hand-cut stone, an expensive roof, exposed cedar paneling, a cathedral ceiling, and a ceramic tile pool deck.
- The addition also incorporated non-medical recreational and entertainment facilities such as a bar, cooking area, sauna bath, open terrace, raised dining area, indoor sunning area, and two dressing rooms.
- An expert appraiser estimated that the swimming pool addition increased the market value of the Ferris residence by $97,330.
Procedural Posture:
- Collins and Bonnie Ferris filed their 1971 joint federal tax return, claiming $172,160 of the pool addition's cost as a medical expense deduction under 26 U.S.C. § 213.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue determined that the entire cost of the building housing the pool was not incurred primarily for medical purposes and allowed only a $6,500 deduction, roughly half the cost of the pool itself.
- The Ferrises petitioned the U.S. Tax Court to challenge the Commissioner's deficiency determination.
- The Tax Court found that a large portion of the cost was for architectural and aesthetic compatibility (a personal motivation) but rejected the Commissioner's argument to reduce the medical expense deduction on this basis, stating taxpayers are not limited to the 'cheapest form of treatment.'
- The Tax Court did reduce the taxpayers' claimed medical expense by $4,000 to account for the enlarged size of the building due to nonessential features.
- The Tax Court alternatively reasoned that a hypothetical $70,000 addition (plus $10,000 for omitted necessities) would have added nothing to the residence's value, yielding a similar result.
- The Commissioner of Internal Revenue appealed the Tax Court's decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Internal Revenue Code § 213 allow taxpayers to deduct the portion of a capital medical expenditure attributable to architectural or aesthetic compatibility with their luxury home, beyond the minimum reasonable cost of a functionally adequate medical facility?
Opinions:
Majority - PELL, Circuit Judge
No, Internal Revenue Code § 213 does not allow taxpayers to deduct the portion of a capital medical expenditure attributable to architectural or aesthetic compatibility with their luxury home, beyond the minimum reasonable cost of a functionally adequate medical facility. The court held that while capital expenditures for medical care may be deductible to the extent they exceed the increase in property value, such deductions must be "confined strictly to expenses incurred primarily for the prevention or alleviation of a physical or mental defect or illness" and "related directly to medical care." Citing 26 C.F.R. § 1.213-l(e)(l)(ii) and (iii), the court reasoned that where a capital expenditure qualifies as "for medical care" but incurs additional costs due to personal motivations like architectural or aesthetic compatibility, these additional costs are not for medical care. The legislative history of § 213, particularly the removal of ceiling limitations, counsels against a loose construction of the statute, reinforcing a strict interpretation. The court clarified that while taxpayers are not limited to the cheapest form of treatment (e.g., a more expensive physician), costs for facilities must be limited to those directly related to medical care, distinguishing between the quality of medical personnel/services and the luxury of a capital asset. The Tax Court erred in rejecting this distinction. The court emphasized that the task is to determine the "minimum reasonable cost of a functionally adequate pool and housing structure" for medical purposes.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of medical expense deductions for capital improvements under IRC § 213, particularly for luxury amenities. It establishes that "medical care" does not encompass costs driven by personal preferences for aesthetic compatibility or luxurious design beyond functional necessity. This ruling guides taxpayers and the IRS in determining the deductible portion of such expenditures, preventing abuse of a generous tax provision intended to alleviate hardship from extraordinary medical costs, not to subsidize opulent home improvements. Future cases will need to distinguish between medically necessary features and those that are merely a matter of taste or comfort, impacting how capital expenditures for health-related home modifications are valued for tax purposes.
