Section 105 Court Cases:  Here are the most relevant U.S. Tax Court and appellate cases involving Section 105 HRAs / Medical Reimbursement Plans (especially the classic “employee-spouse” strategy). I’ll break the Section 105 HRA Court Cases down into key cases, outcomes, and practical takeaways—this is what practitioners actually rely on.

Disclosure:  None of these Section 105 HRA Court Cases involved any Core Documents’ Section 105 HRA clients.

Key Section 105 HRA Court Cases

1. Speltz v. Commissioner (T.C. Summary Opinion 2006-25)

Outcome: Taxpayer WON

Facts

• Sole proprietor (daycare) employed her husband
• Husband’s only compensation = Section 105 reimbursements
• IRS challenged legitimacy of:

• • Employment relationship
  • “Ordinary and necessary” expense
  • Reasonableness of compensation

Court Holding

• The court upheld the Section 105 plan
• Confirmed:

• • A spouse can be a legitimate employee
  • Medical reimbursements can be valid compensation
  • Proper documentation is critical

Why it matters

• This is one of the strongest pro-taxpayer cases validating Section 105 spouse strategies
• Section 105 HRA Court Cases

2. Shellito v. Commissioner (10th Cir. & Tax Court remand)

Outcome: Taxpayer WON (after appeal)

Facts

• Farmer used a Section 105 plan to deduct family medical expenses
• IRS disallowed the deductions

Court History

• Tax Court initially ruled against taxpayer
• 10th Circuit reversed and remanded
• Tax Court ultimately ruled for taxpayer

Key Takeaways

• Courts confirmed:

• • Properly structured Section 105 plans create valid business deductions
  • Following plan formalities is essential

Why it matters

• Considered a landmark case supporting Section 105 deduction strategies
• Section 105 HRA Court Cases

3. Albers v. Commissioner

Outcome: Taxpayer LOST

Facts

• Taxpayer attempted Section 105 reimbursements through spouse
• Claimed ~$8,200 in deductions

Court Issue

• Poor execution:

• • Weak documentation
  • Lack of proper plan structure

Court Holding

• Entire deduction disallowed

Why it matters

• Shows that technical mistakes kill Section 105 plans
• IRS wins when:

• • No formal plan
  • No real employment relationship
  • Sloppy records

4. Knowles (Tax Court case – “sloppy plan survives partially”) in Section 105 HRA Court Cases

Outcome: Partial win/loss

Facts

• Section 105 plan existed but had defects

Result

• Some elements upheld, others denied

Why it matters

• Demonstrates:

• • Courts may salvage parts of a plan
  • But improper structure reduces benefits

5. Unnamed “Who Paid the Bills” Case (Tax Court)

Outcome: Taxpayer LOST

Key Issue

• Could not prove:

• • Who actually paid medical expenses
  • Proper reimbursement flow

Court Holding

• Deduction denied

Why it matters

• Reinforces:

• • Audit trail is critical
  • Reimbursements must be clearly documented
  • Section 105 HRA Court Cases

6. “Lack of Time Sheets” in Cases

Outcome: Taxpayer LOST

Key Issue

• No proof spouse actually worked

Court Holding

• No legitimate employee → no Section 105 plan

Why it matters

• You must prove:

• • Real work performed
  • Reasonable duties
  • Time tracking

Core Legal Principles Established by These Cases

Across all Section 105 litigation, courts consistently focus on substance over form:

1. Legitimate Employment Relationship

• Spouse must be a real employee
• Must perform actual work
• Compensation must be reasonable

2. Written Plan Requirement

• Formal written Section 105 plan is mandatory
• Must define:

• • Benefits
  • Limits
  • Eligibility

3. Proper Reimbursement Mechanics

• Employer must:

• • Reimburse AFTER expenses are incurred
  • Keep receipts and substantiation
• No “cash-out” option allowed (or plan becomes taxable)

4. Documentation Wins Section 105 HRA Court Cases

Winning cases (like Speltz and Shellito) had:

• Written plan documents
• Employment agreements
• Clean accounting separation
• Proof of services

Losing cases lacked these.

5. “Ordinary and Necessary” Standard

• Reimbursements must qualify as:

• • Legitimate business expenses
• Courts often accept medical reimbursements as compensation if structured properly

Section 105 HRA Court Case sources:

Tax Reduction Letter – Section 105 medical plan

Section 105 Plans: A Tax-Smart Spousal Strategy — Fulling Management & Accounting

Section 105 One-Person HRA from $199 one-time fee Core Documents

16 Tax-Free Employee Benefits Explained in 16 Minutes – Video | Core Documents