The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: thundley4 on October 14, 2009, 04:32:13 PM
-
It’s somehow appropriate that the IRS would release a private letter ruling regarding a double mastectomy in October (in case you’re not aware, it’s Breast Cancer Awareness month). Here are the facts:
Taxpayer had a double mastectomy. She later gave birth to a healthy baby. As a result of the mastectomy, she was not able to breastfeed her baby. To meet her baby’s nutritional needs, taxpayer bought infant formula. She then requested a ruling from the IRS to classify infant formula as a deductible medical expense on her tax return.
It’s worth noting that infant formula can be a significant expense. Estimates are all over the place but seem to settle in at about $40 per week for formula – or just over $2000 per year. If you require a special formula, such as Alimentum, you can easily double that estimate.
Generally, infant formula is not deductible as a medical expense. It’s nutrition and as far as the IRS is concerned, it’s no different than, say, an apple. That’s spelled out at section 262 of the Code which bars deductions for mere personal or living expenses.
However, section 213(d)(1)(A) of the Code allows you to claim an expense for “medical care†for amounts paid:
(A) for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body
http://www.taxgirl.com/infant-formula-not-a-medical-expense/
I never thought about it before, but assumed that formula would be deductible. However, in this case, it really should be as it is a medical necessity for the health of the baby.
-
I wonder if women who do not sufficiently lactate (vs those who just want to keep their tits looking noce) could get a Dr's note for the write-off?