Mattes v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Petitioner, who suffered from premature baldness, underwent a hair transplantation operation. Held, the cost of the hair transplant qualifies as amounts paid for medical care under sec. 213(e), I.R.C. 1954.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Wilbur, Judge:
Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax for 1976 in the amount of $408.70. The sole issue for our decision is whether the expense of a surgical hair transplant performed by a physician qualifies as a deductible medical expense under section 213.1
This case was submitted for our decision under Rule 122, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. .
Petitioner William W. Mattes, Jr., resided in Bel Air, Md., at the time he filed his petition in the instant case. He filed his individual…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Commissioner v. BilderSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Irving A. Adler v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1964
- Randolph v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1976
- Van Pelt v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1943
- Brown v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1974
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- O'Donnabhain v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2010
- Mattes v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1981
- O'Donnabhain v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 2010