GenderLife Forum: The Information Exchange

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but a friend brought this article to my attention a few days ago.

"In a closely-watched case, the United States Tax Court overwhelmingly ruled on Tuesday in O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue that a transgender woman's medical expenses for hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery were medically necessary and therefore tax-deductible under Federal law."

http://archive.constantcontact.com/fs010/1100409733839/archive/1102995301378.html

Another article, with more quotes:
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9731645

I'm very interested to see what changes will follow this ruling...perhaps someday FFS will fall under the same guidelines?

If this ruling holds up then that would likey be the same for FFS. Which would be a great victory for TS women. An unlikey ally in the Internal Revenue service.

It is not obvious whether the IRS will, or will not, appeal; they have not exhausted all their appeal options.

The thrust of the IRS argument is or was:-

The medical evidence laid before us says that GID is a disease of the mind to be diagnosed by psychiatrists, not a disease of the body to be diagnosed by internal medicine doctors,
and
genital surgery treats the body, not the mind.
Therefore SRS is not a treatment for GID, but is something else.

Some will accept that argument, others will reject it, but that is their argument.
Some will say the petitioner set forth evidence that GID is mental illness in bad faith and despite a belief that it is not.

Of course, what IRS is really afraid of is that if the principle is established that surgery can be medically necessary as a result of psychiatric diagnosis then that category will expand exponentially to include most surgery that is today regarded as cosmetic.

Dunno eh; there would have to be some criteria for who needs FFS, otherwise you create a slippery slope whereby anyone (cis or trans) can get facial surgery if they think they're a bit fugly.

I sincerely doubt the IRS will allow FFS costs to be deducted. In this case the litigant won the right to deduct the costs of SRS, hormones, etc. but the court ruled that her breast augmentation costs were for cosmetic reasons and not deductible. I believe the latter part of the decision would apply to FFS.

Do you have a legal theory as to how and why the distinction should be drawn?

The refusal of the BA deduction was responsive to evidence of her before-surgery cup size (B).

It would require extensive testing with multiple subjects, male and female, cis and trans, to try and determine facial ratios that make a person appear male. Anthropologist would be ideal helpers for this task, since they can identify the sex of a skull from the bone markers.
After this extensive study into ratios, the claimants face would be measured, x-rayed and categorised on a scale of say, 0 to 50 as to how male their facial markers are. Anyone with a score of over 40 on the fm scale (arbitrary number) would qualify for FFS.
Anyone under 40 would not.

I deducted srs, ffs, hrt, even electrolysis over a decade ago with no problem at all.

Well of course everyone has been. It is only the poor schlub who has been audited who has had to deal with the bigoted wrath of the heretofore bigoted IRS.