Gerard v. Commissioner
1962 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 202, 37 T.C. 826 (1962)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A capital expenditure that qualifies as a medical expense is deductible to the extent that the expenditure exceeds the increase in the value of the related property.
Facts:
- Petitioners, Raymon Gerard and his wife, had a daughter with cystic fibrosis, a disease that caused severe pulmonary and respiratory issues.
- The daughter's condition made it dangerous for her to be exposed to dry, dusty air and put her at risk of 'salt depletion' in hot weather.
- Upon the advice of a leading specialist, Dr. Harry Shwachman, petitioners were advised to install an air-conditioning unit to control the temperature and humidity in their home to mitigate the daughter's symptoms.
- Petitioners had previously tried a room air-conditioning unit, but it was unsatisfactory as it restricted the child to a single room.
- In 1958, petitioners installed a central air-conditioning unit in their home at a total cost of $1,300.
- The installation of the central air-conditioning unit increased the fair market value of their home by $800.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioners filed their 1958 income tax return, claiming a $1,300 medical expense deduction for the installation of a central air-conditioning unit.
- The Respondent, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, disallowed the deduction and determined a tax deficiency of $333.45.
- Petitioners challenged the Commissioner's determination in the Tax Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the cost of a medically necessary capital improvement to a home deductible as a medical expense under Section 213 to the extent that the cost exceeds the resulting increase in the home's value?
Opinions:
Majority - Mulroney, Judge
Yes, the cost is deductible to the extent it exceeds the increase in the property's value. While Section 263(a)(1) generally disallows deductions for capital improvements that increase a property's value, an exception exists for medically necessary expenditures. Citing precedent where a deduction was allowed for an elevator that added no value to a home, the court reasoned that the true medical expense is the amount that does not enhance the property's value. When an expenditure serves both a medical purpose and as a capital improvement, the deductible medical expense is the portion of the cost that is not recovered through the increase in the property's value. Here, the $1,300 expenditure less the $800 increase in home value results in a deductible medical expense of $500.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant and clear rule for reconciling the conflict between the tax code's allowance for medical expense deductions (Section 213) and its disallowance of deductions for capital improvements (Section 263). By creating a simple formula—cost of improvement minus the increase in property value—the court provided a practical pathway for taxpayers to deduct portions of major, medically necessary home modifications. This precedent directly impacts future cases involving expenditures like elevators, ramps, and specialized environmental control systems, allowing for partial deductions where the improvements also add capital value to a residence.
