From today's Washington Post:
NEW YORK -- After years of painful soul searching, Rhiannon O'Donnabhain -- a former construction engineer from a devout Irish Catholic family in Boston -- decided to surgically change his sex to female in 2001. The struggle was equally tough financially -- hormone treatments and medical procedures set her back $25,000, a burden she felt could be partially offset by taking a $5,000 tax deduction for medical costs.
When she sent in her tax claims after the surgery, the Internal Revenue Service initially issued the 64-year-old former Coast Guard reservist a refund check for $5,000. But soon after, she was audited and ordered to return the refund because the IRS had determined that her surgery had been merely "cosmetic" -- and therefore not tax deductible.
Rather than return the money, O'Donnabhain opted to sue the IRS. The result has been a riveting case -- the first of its kind in normally staid U.S. Tax Court -- in which lawyers have just concluded oral arguments and are set to present a new round of written briefs next month. The core question is this: Should changing your sex be tax deductible?
One can but hope the IRS has bitten off more than they can chew with this bit of stupidity. *grin*
See the complete article here.
Comments
Is plastic surgery deductible?
If a woman gets her breasts done or her face lifted would that be deductible? I assume plastic surgery done to repair things would be deductible, right? Interesting case..will SRS been determined as medically necessary or cosmetic. If medically necessary would any surgery related to feminizing, like the face or shaving the adam's apple be considered necessary or cosmetic? Is there a line to be drawn?
Big can of worms there :)
Huggles!!
Alexis
Exotic dancers
Reportedly, some strippers have taken breast enhancement surgery off their taxes as business expense. :)
- Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
lol...
I like that kind of aggressiveness! But hopefully they won't get audited...lol.
Jodie
xoxo
Unfortunately girls...
The burden is on the taxpayer to prove he or she is entitled to the deduction--and the IRS has some of the biggest guns in the public sector. It doesn't look good.
Of course, Congress and the prez can revise the Internal Revenue Code to specify that SRS and/or breast augmentation procedures are tax deductible. I'm going to take a wild guess and say that the public isn't quite ready for that. One can only hope...
Jodie
xoxo
Actually ...
... the way it looks from here (after reading the entire article) is that the IRS would have to specifically EXCLUDE SRS. It's not an elective or cosmetic procedure -- it is a medical procedure that addresses a specific physical and/or mental problem.
According to the article, it quotes an IRS publication listing what medical procedures are deductible:
Since the physical defect is being born in the wrong body, SRS meets that criteria -- even if it is not specifically listed in the publication. So I'm hoping that medical professionals going head to head with the IRS will emerge victorious. No matter how "unbeatable" they seem to be, they can be beaten once in a while -- especially when their own published rules can be used against them. *smile*
Optimism is a survival trait, so let's think positive!
Randalynn
Optimism is good...but
you really have to know what you're getting into BEFORE you claim a deduction. The burden is still on the taxpayer to demonstrate that they were entitled to the deduction. In this case, the taxpayer would have to prove that she was entitled to the deduction because it was a medical necessity. In order to do that, you have to have the facts on your side, AND be able to convince the judge/jury that your experts are better than the IRS's.
Not impossible--but very, very difficult.
Believe me, I'm on her side. I'm in transition and would love to deduct all of my expenses from my taxes. I'm just not going to take that gamble because I know the risks.
Jodie
xoxo
This Thread Makes Me Angry
It is my understanding that the woman could not have had this surgery unless she "proved" her need through an exhaustive medical regimen. I assume, and have read in other places, that the woman presented documentation from her physicians to the IRS which clearly moved this surgery from cosmetic to a necessity.
Why is THIS community so eager to allow our government off the hook, a government (Deme and Reps) who have been aggressively anti-gay and anti-transgendered.
Some of you are acting as if the government has a valid position here. They do not.
The decision to trasitioon is not an elective for some. . . . If we don't know that is a valid statement in THIS community what chance in hell is there for the general population to get it?
WAKE UP . . . being transgendered isn't all about the prurient pleasures!
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Go, Jill, Go
There used to be a saying about government "for the people", all the people. It's not heard, or remembered, much anymore. Meanwhile, two comments down on the list is a comment about a suicide hot line for members of this community!
Hugs; Jan
Law 101
Currently the law is ambiguous. That's why the case is where it is. What you're fogetting, I assume, is that Congress and the President have the power to change all of this by making a CLEAR provision in the law saying that SRS is tax-deductible--provided that an M.D. signs off. End of story.
It's really that simple. Unfortunately, that hasn't been done.
BTW - I do plenty of grass roots advocating for and pro bono legal work for TG people, so I don't need to be told to WAKE UP.
Jodie
xoxo
Revisionist Law 101
The law is quite clear right now. This case is clearly the the result of an "over zealous" IRS enforcement agent and lower court trying to create new law that fly in the face of what was intended.
Ambiguity is in the eyes of the beholder. Ambiguity is also decided in MOST law by the legislative intent. Was it the intent of the law to discriminate against transgendered? I clearly doubt such an argument will be made.
And --- despite what you do in RL -- when you post a message here that makes light of a situation that is a hate-mongering attack on the TG lifestyle, you do need to be told to WAKE UP.
There is a time for levity and a time for outrage. If the BC community can't summon moral outrage over a court case that assumes SRS is "cosmetic surgery" when will we stand up for our rights?
It is clearly held by the psychological community that much of the "harm" caused by "gender dysphoria" is attributable to the guilt and shame we feel and their consequences.
When our government denigrates the purposes of SRS to the level of botox, the very foundation of who we are in this community is under direct attack.
We are a group of people who by and large suffer from the belief that our bodies don't match our true selves. Our society would have us believe that "feeling" is a problem and not a fact. They would ask that we simply "get control" of our urges" and get on with life.
When physicians and psychiatrists tell the government the surgery is "necessary" -- as they did in this case -- what right does the government have to say it isn't?
From what I have read this is simply one more example of our fearless leaders pandering to the religious??? right.
I was just watching Bill Moyers. He had guests discussing the evangelists. One of his guest said only about a third of the evangelists are into this kind of close-minded thinking. They were specifically discussing Iran/Isreal/End of Days. He said the majority are into the loving - compassionate side of the Bible. That guest predicted political people of both parties, who have been using the religious right, are daily losing ground trying to unite them as a voting block over issues that run contrary to love and compassion.
I hope that guest was right.
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Angela Rasch (Jill M I)
Wow. That was way out of line.
First of all, the law is not clear: that's the reason why the case is in court. I don't expect you to understand law--especially if you don't practice it--but it's entirely uncalled for to make such terrible judgments about comments when you don't understand them. You accused me of a "Hate mongering attack on the TG lifestyle." That's a pretty ignorant thing to say to a transgendered person who's also a legal advocate for TG people--espcially when the post is based on whether or not to take a tax deduction.
If I were Czarina for a day, I'd certainly make the law clear. I'd actually make SRS surgery a tax credit, not just a deduction. But if you still want to be angry with me, go for it. But it's misplaced aggression...
Jodie
Never stopped it before
I'm not really wanting to make anyone angry, as both sides here seem to have valid points. A law being clear never stopped it from being challenged in court before, so I don't see how the argument that since it's in court, well it must be unclear is valid in the least. And I don't believe she was accusing you of hate mongering, I think she was referring to the fact that the IRS agent that made the decision to push this was doing so.
Edeyn Hannah Blackeney
Wasn't it Jim Henson who said, "Without faith, I am nothing," after all? Wait, no, that was God. Sorry, common mistake...
Jodie
Read what Jill said again. While she may have come on strong, she did not accuse YOU of what you read into it. That accusation was directed at the IRS.
This looks to be one of those threads where people talk past each other and things blow up, so I'm turning comments off on this blog.
- Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
Taxes and CPAs
I did taxes and tax programming for about ten years. Most CPAs that I have known would recommend making the deduction and fighting for it. It's not just TGs the IRS tries this crap on, it's simple bullying and they're good at it. They keep their record in court looking good because they frequently back down before it goes to tax court.
Going through transition and contemplating a fight in tax court is enough to make anyone say, Do I need this? Still somebody has to fight them on this and I'm glad that someone had the cojones (even if now in a jar :)) to do so.
Hugs,
Erin
= Give everyone the benefit of the doubt because certainty is a fragile thing that can be shattered by one overlooked fact.
I agree to an extent.
As long as people know the risks, go for it. In law, all I can do for my clients is tell them the risks and let them make their decisions.
Jodie
xoxo