Havey v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
12 T.C. 409 (1949)
Facts
Jane Reed Havey, the wife of Edward Havey (plaintiff), fell ill in October 1943 with a coronary occlusion and lung infarction. Jane was hospitalized for several weeks and remained heavily restricted in her activities upon release. The cardiologist who treated Jane advised that she leave her Pittsburgh home to spend the humid months of July and August at the seashore. The cardiologist also advised Jane to spend the winter months in Arizona. The Haveys took three trips in 1945. First, the Haveys traveled to Spring Lake, New Jersey, and remained there from June 25 through July 23, incurring over $700 in expenses. Second, the Haveys traveled to Atlantic City, New Jersey, and remained there from October 8 through October 18, incurring over $200 in expenses. Third, the Haveys traveled to Arizona and remained there from November 20 through December 31, incurring over $1,000 in expenses. Previously, the Haveys had traveled for pleasure to Atlantic City multiple times and to Arizona on at least four occasions. On his 1945 income tax return, Edward deducted over $3,000 of purported medical expenses, including expenditures for the three trips, of which the commissioner of internal revenue (defendant) disallowed the majority. Edward petitioned the tax court for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Van Fossan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 710,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
