To: Diane M. Comi, J.D., LL.M.
From: Sam Smith
Date: September 14, 2014
Re: Medical Expense Deduction under IRC 213 for Swimming Pool

FACTS
The taxpayer, Susan, suffers from severe osteoarthritis in both knees and has a hard time living comfortably. Susan has taken many precautions to better her health including: cortisone injections, painkillers, physical therapy, and arthroscopic surgery. Being that this is a hereditary disease, the doctors predict that it’s only going to get worse. The key to alleviate the pain is to keep moving, thus it is extremely painful for Susan to remain active. Swimming maintains good cardio with little to no impact; therefore her doctor prescribed her to swim daily. She is hesitant to go to the city pool …show more content…

The exercises caused too much strain on his body that he was not able to cope with and the community pools didn’t accommodate his busy schedule. If he didn’t swim while away on business, his medical symptoms worsened extremely quickly. The taxpayer needed his own pool to provide himself the medical care he desperately needed. He installed a pool in a newly purchased lot which was primarily used to treat his condition and was rarely used for recreational purposes. The pool didn’t require special medical equipment, yet it was still deductible per the court because it was primarily used for medical purposes. Cherry provides further support for the deductibility of Susan’s swimming pool.
Reg § 1.213-1(e)(1)(iii) states that “a capital expenditure for permanent improvement or betterment of property which would not ordinarily be for the purpose of medical care may, nevertheless, qualify as a medical expense to the extent that the expenditure exceeds the increase in value of the related property, if the particular expenditure is related directly to medical care. Therefore, Susan’s deductibility must take into account the value of her home. Given that the value of her home appreciates once the pool is installed, she can only deduct the amount in excess of the fair value increase.
Contrary to the supporting authority above, Carl F. Worden, Jr., TC Memo 1981-366 is a dissenting case in Susan’s matter. The