                        T.C. Memo. 2010-195



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



        ANTHONY & MICHELLE A. CICCIARELLA, Petitioners v.
           COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 2810-09.              Filed September 7, 2010.



     Anthony and Michelle A. Cicciarella, pro sese.

     William C. Bogardus, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     COHEN, Judge:   Respondent determined a deficiency of $3,059

in petitioners’ Federal income tax for 2006.    After concessions

by respondent, the issue for decision is whether petitioners

incurred $33,787 of deductible medical expenses in 2006 or any

amount exceeding the standard deduction allowed in the statutory
                                - 2 -

notice.   All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code

in effect for 2006.

                          FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been deemed stipulated, and the

stipulated facts are incorporated in our findings by this

reference.   Petitioners resided in New York at the time the

petition was filed.

     Petitioners’ young son has a serious medical condition that

was the subject of reports and recommendations by various

specialists in 2006.   Among the recommendations were substantial

modifications to petitioners’ residence, special food and vitamin

supplements, and special educational programs.

     On their Federal income tax return for 2006, petitioners

claimed $33,787 in medical expenses, reduced to $30,116 as the

amount exceeding 7.5 percent of their adjusted gross income.    In

the amended petition filed March 25, 2009, they identified items

claimed totaling $38,100, including approximately $8,000 for a

sauna; $16,000 for an “alternative room in the home”; $5,000 for

“education learning”; and $4,000 for “supplements,

homotoxicology”.   In a statement dated January 21, 2009, attached

to the amended petition, petitioner Anthony Cicciarella indicated

that he would provide further information in the “next couple of

days”.    Petitioners did not substantiate the claimed expenditures

in the year between the amended petition and trial, during trial,
                               - 3 -

or in the time provided after trial of this case as set forth

below, except for one $266 item conceded by respondent.

     In the notice of deficiency, petitioners were allowed the

$10,300 standard deduction for 2006 in lieu of the itemized

deductions claimed.   Respondent subsequently conceded that

petitioners are entitled to deduct $2,322 for State and local

taxes paid in 2006.

                              OPINION

     Section 213(a) provides a deduction for expenses paid during

the taxable year, not compensated by insurance or otherwise, for

medical care of the taxpayer, his spouse, or a dependent, to the

extent that such expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross

income.   Improvements to a home may in some circumstances qualify

as medical expenses, but deduction of the cost of such

improvements is limited to the portion of the cost that exceeds

the amount by which the improvements increase the value of the

home, and the particular expenditure must be related directly to

medical care.   See sec. 1.213-1(e)(1)(iii), Income Tax Regs.

     There is no dispute that petitioners’ son had serious

medical issues.   Respondent contends, however, that petitioners

have not provided any documents to show that items recommended by

medical consultants were ever purchased, that procedures were

actually implemented, that none of the claimed expenditures were

covered by insurance, and that the claimed improvements did not
                                - 4 -

increase the value of petitioners’ residence.    Petitioners were

notified of what they needed to prove in respondent’s pretrial

memorandum served over 2 weeks before trial.

     Petitioners testified at trial, but their testimony was not

corroborated or reliable.    They claimed that records were

destroyed in a flood that occurred before some expenses were

allegedly incurred.    Their testimony was vague or inconsistent

about the year in which certain expenses were incurred.    They

gave confusing and unpersuasive testimony about the source of

funds used to make payments exceeding $33,000 from reported

income of less than $49,000 in 2006 and other funds not received

until 2007.    Mr. Cicciarella claimed implausibly that he thought

he needed to produce records for 2005 and had therefore not

“researched” 2006, although 2006 was the year repeatedly

mentioned in the petition and in every other document filed in

this case.    Nonetheless, petitioners were allowed time after

trial to produce documents for 2006 and subsequently to report to

the Court.    Respondent filed a report to the Court indicating

that no persuasive documents had been produced, and petitioners

did not file a report.

     Giving petitioners one last opportunity to address the

issues, the Court ordered on May 26, 2010, that petitioners by

June 25, 2010, “serve on respondent and file with the Court a

memorandum setting forth any additional arguments that
                                 - 5 -

petitioners wish to make in response to the Pretrial Memorandum

For Respondent.”   The order reminded petitioners of the elements

that they needed to establish.    Petitioners failed to take

advantage of that opportunity and apparently have abandoned this

case.

     Because they have failed to present any reliable evidence of

expenses incurred in 2006, petitioners are not entitled to any

additional deductions for medical expenses that year.     Because

the amounts conceded by respondent are less than the standard

deduction allowed in the statutory notice,


                                         Decision will be entered

                                   for respondent.
