(a) In General.-Section 214 (relating to expenses for care of certain dependents) is amended to read as follows:James H. Bozarth, Atty., Dept.
At that time Moritz was a resident of Denver and was a single man who had never married. (a) General rule.-There shall be allowed as a deduction expenses paid during the taxable year by a taxpayer who is a woman or widower, or is a husband whose wife is incapacitated or is institutionalized, for the care of one or more dependents (as defined in subsection (d) (1)), but only if such care is for the purpose of enabling the taxpayer to be gainfully employed. Throughout 1968 he was a full time employee of Lea & Febiger, a publishing firm of Philadelphia, serving as editor of its western division. R. R., 240 U.S. 1 (1916). 1972) (a) General rule.-There shall be allowed as a deduction expenses paid during the taxable year by a taxpayer who is a woman or widower, or is a husband whose wife is incapacitated or is institutionalized, for the care of one or more dependents (as defined in subsection (d) (1)), but only if such care is for the purpose of enabling the taxpayer to be gainfully employed.""Sec. It is agreed that this amount paid her in 1968 a sum in excess of $600, was properly allocable for the primary purpose of assuring Mrs. Moritz's well-being. A male taxpayer, not married, was not entitled to a deduction for expenses for care of dependent invalid mother.
Nov. 22, 1972. 7852. 71-1127.
Expenses for Household and Dependent Care Services Necessary for Gainful Employment. Moreover, the sevices performed by Miss Stewart, as detailed in the record, were in the nature of general care and not specialized medical attention which Moritz could not give. Moritz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 469 F.2d 466 (10th Cir. 214. See Welsh v. United States, supra 398 U.S. at 361-367, 90 S. Ct. 1792 (Harlan, J., concurring). 113. It says that the deduction provisions are a matter of legislative grace, and that classifications per se are not unlawful. The Government argues that the stipulation did not establish that the taxpayer was qualified or able to furnish the type of care required; that his supplying the care himself was not a realistic alternative to his being employed; and that proof was lacking that he would have been able to supply and would have supplied the required care had he given up his employment. In sum, the petitioner was an unmarried male who was responsible for the care of his elderly mother. 1972) Facts: 1. 2d 91. The tax year in issue is 1968. 214 is arbitrary or unlawful. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Johnnie M. Walters, Asst.
(2) Widower.-The term 'widower' includes an unmarried individual who is legally separated from his spouse under a decree of divorce or of separate maintenance. 1970). However, giving the classification the favorable consideration which is proper, we are not persuaded that it is valid. It is agreed that she was physically and mentally incapable of caring for herself.
The Tax Court sustained the Government's position, holding that the deduction was not available to Moritz as a man who has never married and rejecting the contention that the denial of the deduction to him by Sec. ""'(a) Allowance of Deduction.-In the case of an individual who maintains a household which includes as a member one or more qualifying individuals (as defined in subsection (b) (1), there shall be allowed as a deduction the employment-related expenses (as defined in subsection (b) (2)) paid by him during the taxable year."' 7852(a) provides as follows:When he was in Colorado he made almost daily visits to schools of medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine and the like within the State. 214 requires. (a) Separability clause.-If any provision of this title, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the title, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby. 1972); Harper Oil Company v. United States, 425 F.2d 1335 (10th Cir. Charles E. Moritz, Petitioner-appellant, v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Respondent-appellee, 469 F.2d 466 (10th Cir.
See Shinder v. Commissioner, 395 F.2d 222 (C.A.
We disagree with this holding and the Government's position.We feel our disposition is preferable to the disruption which the invalidation of the entire section on such deductions would bring about, and do not favor the result suggested by Kirk v. Commissioner, 138 U.S.App.D.C.