Rev. Rul. 58-339

The taxpayer's wife was afflicted with a disease for many years and was under the care of several doctors. The doctors advised that someone be obtained to stay in the home to care for the home and small children in order to relieve the wife's mind and enable her to have complete rest. Part of the recognized treatment for the disease is rest, and the patient is making satisfactory recuperative progress; however, any overexertion of the patient may cause a severe relapse and recurrence of the disease. Held , the expense incurred by the taxpayer for domestic help to care for his home and children in order that his wife might have complete rest, as prescribed by physicians in order to prevent a recurrence of her disease, does not qualify as an amount paid for `prevention of disease' within the intendment of section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Such expense is a personal or family expense the deduction of which is prohibited by section 262 of the Code. However, any portion of the expense of the domestic servant attributable to services rendered directly to the wife, and which are of a type which would be rendered by a nurse, does qualify as a medical expense. See Samual Ochs v. Commissioner , 195 Fed.(2d) 692; certiorari denied 344 U.S. 827; Revenue Ruling 55-261, C.B. 1955-1, 307; Estate of Jacob Hentz, Jr. v. Commissioner , Tax Court Memorandum Opinion, entered April 6, 1953.