This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P and his wife made three round trips to the Mayo Clinic from their legal residence in Kentucky. Each of these trips was for medical purposes and D concedes that although the latter two trips were for the medical treatment of P's wife, P's accompaniment of his wife was required for medical reasons. P and his wife made their first round trip by automobile and incurred certain itemized expenses, during their transportation, for food and lodging. P's wife traveled by train, Pullman accommodations, and bus to the Mayo Clinic for an operation; and P traveled by automobile to the Clinic after the operation and accompanied his convalescing wife on her return home. P's wife made a final trip by plane to the Mayo Clinic where she was hospitalized. At the time of her discharge from the Clinic, P again traveled by automobile to bring her home. During these various trips, P and his wife incurred a total expense for meals and lodging between Lawrenceburg and Rochester of $162.39. D denied the expenses contending that money paid for food and lodging en route to a place of medication are 'traveling' expenses in excess of the mere cost of 'transporting' the person and baggage of the taxpayers to their place of destination. D maintains that the use of the more narrow phrase 'expenses for transportation,' indicates a plain intention to deny the deductibility of in-transit expenses for food and lodging.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.