Christina Marie Thompson McGrath, Petitioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COHEN, Judge :, Respondent determined a deficiency of $4,89 1 in petitioner's Federal income tax for 2005 . The issue for decision is whether petitioner is entitled to deduct medical expenses her father paid on her behalf . Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenu e Code .

SERVED Jun 03 2009 Background All of the facts have been stipulated, and the stipulate d 1- tt facts are incorporated in our findings by this reference .

`Petitioner was a resident of Virginia when she filed her petition .

-In 2005 petitioner and her husband entered into an agreemen t ~., 'for in .viitro fertilization services .

The agreement provided fo r a full refund if the services were not successful . Petitioner' s father paid $39,542 for the services as a wedding gift t petitioner and her husband .

On Schedule A, Itemized Deductions, of their 2005 individual income tax return, petitioner and her husband claimed a medical expense'deduction of $34,313, after reducing the amount paid for the fertilization services by 7 .5 percent of their adjusted gross income as required under section 213(a) .

In 2008 petitioner received a full refund of the amount paid because the services were not successful .

Discussion Section 213(a) allows "as a deduction the expenses paid during the taxable year, not compensated for by insurance or otherwise, for medical care of the taxpayer" . Respondent does not dispute that the services petitioner obtained qualified as medical expenses . Respondent's position is that petitioner is not entitled to deduct the amount paid because her father paid for the services on her behalf . Respondent relies on a series of cases holding that taxpayers are not entitled to deduct medical expenses which they did not .pay or which were reimbursed by som e other source . See Morgan v . Commissioner , 55 T .C . 376 (1970) ; Litchfield v . Commissioner , 40 T .C . 967 (1963), affd . 330 F .2 d 509 (1st Cir . 1964) ; Robertson v . Commissioner , .T .C . Memo . 2000- 100, affd . 15 Fed . Appx . 467 (9th Cir . 2001) ; Hill v .

Commissioner , T .C . Memo . 1978-98 ; Doody v . Commissioner , T .C .

Memo . 1973-126 .

We do not know what petitioner's position . is because she failed to file the pretrial memorandum or the brief ordered by the Court . No error in respondent's determination or analysis i s apparent . Alternative arguments made in respondent's brief ar e unnecessary to our conclusion .

Decision will be entere d for respondent .