Bus. Expense - Hearing Aid for Physician

[JohnH]

Sometimes I'm tempted to buy a hearing aid for some of my CLIENTS, which I think would be an ordinary and necessary expense. Maybe then I'd at least know they HEARD my adivice, although I'm still not sure they'd follow it.

[Uncle Sam]

Hearing Aid

NYEA - can you provide me the link to that case - so I can printout? Thanks.

[gkaiseril]

Ask the Dr if he would break the law and his ethics for you? Would he prescribe a drug that was not approved by the FDA because you think it would benefit you?

How many doctors prescribe antibiotics for a cold, caused by a virus, just to bill the patient and get them out of the office and the public health be ****ed?

[New York Enrolled Agent]

NYEA - can you provide me the link to that case - so I can printout? Thanks.

I used RIA so I don't know if a google search will produce it. The case was in 1955 but the precedent is still here. The IRS has referenced it in Rev Rulings,PLRs and Chief Counsel memos. I'm pasting the bulk of the opinion for you. There was a second issue not relevant to this conversation. Note the code references are to the 1939 version of the code. Note the lawyer had the same scenario as your doctor - no benefit if taken as a medical deduction.

[start]In the first issue petitioner maintains that the expense of his hearing aid is an ordinary and necessary business expense. Respondent has disallowed the deduction as a business expense under the theory that it is a personal expense under section 24 (a) (1). Respondent admits on brief that "any expense incurred in the maintenance of a hearing aid would be a deductible medical expense." If petitioner had taken the expense of the hearing aid as a medical deduction he would not have had any tax benefit for the expense was not in excess of 5 per cent of his adjusted gross income. See sec. 23 (x), I.R.C., 1939.

The crux of this question is whether these expenses are personal or business within the meaning of the tax law. Admittedly, a hearing aid is a personal thing, but by a particular use can it acquire a business aspect? We do not believe that a hearing aid is different in principle from eye glasses or false teeth. One would hardly consider that eye glasses were a deductible business expense; the courts have ruled on the deductibility of the cost of dentures.

In Reginald Denny, 33 B. T. A. 738, a motion picture actor was allowed as a business expense the cost of a dental bridge to replace teeth which had been knocked out in a prizefight picture. TheDenny case was held to be analogous to Charles Hutchison, 13 B. T. A. 1187, where a stunt actor was allowed to deduct the cost of clothing destroyed in performing the feats required in his work.

However, in Sparkman v. Commissioner, 112 F. 2d 774, affirming a Tax Court Memorandum Opinion entered March 13, 1939, a motion picture actor purchased artificial teeth to eliminate a hiss which had developed in his speech. The dental work restored perfect enunciation[pg. 805] which was required in his profession. Here the Court found that the taxpayer did not prove that the teeth were used for business purposes only, and therefore the expense was personal and not a deductible business expense.

Like the situation in the Sparkman case, the evidence in the present case does not warrant a finding that the hearing aid was used or intended to be used for business purposes only. In fact there is evidence to the contrary that the hearing aid was used in petitioner's purely personal activities. The personal use militates against the petitioner's position and under the rule of the Sparkman case, we must sustain the respondent's determination.

However, there is something more fundamental than whether petitioner gave sufficient evidence to support his position. Section 24 (a) (1) denies a deduction in any case, excepting extraordinary medical expense, for personal expense. We believe that a hearing aid is so personal as to come within the meaning of section 24 (a)(1). Even if it is used in petitioner's business, in fact even if it is necessary for his successful law practice, the device is so personal as to preclude it from being a business expense. A businessman's suit, a saleslady's dress, the accountant's glasses are necessary for their business but the necessity does not overcome the personal nature of these items and make them a deductible business expense. The same must be said of the hearing aid. The respondent must be sustained on this first issue. [end]

[taxxcpa]

Hearing aid

A stethoscope would be an example of a hearing device that would be deductible for a doctor. Unlike an ordinary hearing aid or eye glasses, it would be a device used only in connection with his medical practice and have no other purpose.
A microscope, unlike ordiinary eye glasses, would also be in the same category.