Radvany v. Commissioner

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

TANNENWALD, Judge: Respondent determined a deficiency of $831.39 in petitioners' income tax for the taxable year 1972. The sole issue is whether petitioners are entitled to a deduction for child care expenses under section 214. ¹

Petitioners, husband and wife, resided in New York, N.Y., at the time the petition herein was filed. During the taxable year 1972, they had adjusted gross income of $45,522.22 and paid $1,779.00 for employment-related expenses.

Section 214 provides for a deduction of such expenses, and respondent does not question petitioners' right to the deduction on any ground other than their failure to satisfy the requirement of subsection (d) of that section which specifies that the deduction be reduced by one half of the excess of petitioners' adjusted gross income over $18,000. ² Petitioners' sole defense rests upon the proposition that under the instructions contained in Internal Revenue Publication*232 17, "Your Federal Income Tax 1973 Edition" for use in preparing 1972 returns, the foregoing limitation does not apply to employment-related expenses incurred for services rendered outside the household ³ as contrasted with those incurred for services rendered in the household.

Petitioners' contention must be rejected. In the first place, we think that a proper reading of respondent's publication indicates that there is no such distinction as petitioners seek to draw and that the $18,000 limitation applies across the board. In the second place, even if petitioners' interpretation of respondent's publication were correct, the statute itself makes no such distinction and accordingly neither we nor respondent would be bound to accept petitioners' contention. See Carpenter v. United States,495 F.2d 175, 184 (5th Cir. 1974);*233 Thomas J. Green, Jr.,59 T.C. 456, 458 (1972), and cases cited therein.

Decision will be entered for respondent.