Boob jobs still don't qualify, however.

But I'm working on it!
-Nancy Pelosi

I forgot the "for" in the title - sick baby (ear infection), sick wife (strep throat), and no cofee makes for a a very sleep deprived and braindead husband/father/worker. I hate this term but I really mean it today: thank God it's Friday.

I'm sure it's no fun with the sick baby and wife but why can't you have a cup of coffee??
BTW, I'm glad it's Friday too because I took the day off.

but why can't you have a cup of coffee??

Just got to work and didn't have chance to go get any (although I just downed my first cup) and I didn't have time to make any this morning.

They should get a depreciation allowance, too.

If getting rid of pricks is tax deductible, then so should donating money to get Democrats out of office.

#7 | Posted by rightisright at 2010-02-05 02:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I thought you thought both parties were pathetic? For a second there I was thinking you weren't a partisan hack, but that's what I get for thinking.

I think that is a little ridiculous. I do not see how it is going to help them "recover" by changing their sexual orientation. Surely they do not have to do that to accept their situation. They need mental adjustment not physical adjustment.

It is kind of sad tat people have to pay for this, and now I am sure that TPS is going to become more rampant with those that simply don't want to be what they are anymore.

I don't care. I doubt there will be that much use of this deduction and certainly I don't think it will be "abused"

I thought you thought both parties were pathetic? For a second there I was thinking you weren't a partisan hack, but that's what I get for thinking.

#8 | Posted by taxman
* * * *

It was a joke, Tax. Godalmighty.

"Anyone know a good accountant?"

--Corky

It was a joke, Tax. Godalmighty

My bad. As noted above, I am out of it today.

Anyway, I am wondering if the IRS will challenge this decision. I think the judges did a pretty good job of narrowing this down to sex changes and not applying it to real cosmetic surgeries like breast augmentation or implants.

Don't forget folks, every deduction granted to one taxpayer is money out of your pocket.

It makes for a silly headline, but if the majority of experts and literature consider this to be treatment of a disease, the court can't just ignore that.

"I am wondering if the IRS will challenge this decision. "

Who the fuck allows them to do that? I remember some tax court decision years ago about deductible mileage, and the IRS's response was 'we're not going to adhere to that'. WTF???

Who the fuck allows them to do that? I remember some tax court decision years ago about deductible mileage, and the IRS's response was 'we're not going to adhere to that'

Well they can always appeal. They are appealing just about every Son of Boss case that they are losing at the tax court level on the statute of limitations issue.

Secondly, they can nonacquiesse - meaning they will go with the tax court decision in that circumstance for that tax period, but won't follow it for anyother taxpayer or tax period.

It makes for a silly headline, but if the majority of experts and literature consider this to be treatment of a disease, the court can't just ignore that.

It's not really the courts you have to worry about. I can see the IRS issuing regs on this. If they feel that this is going to open the door to the deductibility of cosmetic surgery, they are going to fight it to the death.

If they feel that this is going to open the door to the deductibility of cosmetic surgery, they are going to fight it to the death.

that's the issue.

"but won't follow it for anyother taxpayer or tax period."

So much for equal treatment under the law.

they can nonacquiesse - meaning they will go with the tax court decision in that circumstance for that tax period, but won't follow it for anyother taxpayer or tax period.

That's what I have a problem with. If a court has reviewed the facts and told the IRS to take a walk, they should be bound by that ruling until the legislature says otherwise, just like any other case.

That's what I have a problem with.

As do many other taxpayers. The IRS especially loves to nonacquiesse when there is a split in the circuits on an issue (and what even more annoying is when they take two cases with different fact but a slightly similar issue and try to say there is a split in the circuits). Generally, the Service takes a beating on these nonacquiessance issues as they move up through the Federal courts, but that doesn't mean they can't harass taxpayers in the meantime.

"I do not see how it is going to help them "recover" by changing their sexual orientation. Surely they do not have to do that to accept their situation. They need mental adjustment not physical adjustment."

So - does this mean you have the capacity to learn to be happy about taking it up the ass?

When will people learn that other orientations and identities are as hard-wired as their own?

Well Mary

1. You don't need to have sex to be happy
2. If it is a mental "disease", I doubt that fixing the physical is really going to solve the problem.
3. It will probably be worse for their recovery in the long run knowing that they are not really what they are now. Things come back around, and after this decision is made, and they change their minds, what then? It's been recorded.
4. I don't have to "learn to be happy about taking it up the ass?" as you state in your false analogy. I can learn to be happy with who I am, rather than who I want to be.
5. People who constantly get plastic surgery, liposuction, etc do so much of the time because they are not "happy" with who they are and their physical attributes. They should get a tax deduction just because they don't like themselves and want to "improve" themselves?
6. People know that already, but we think that those who are so "hardwired" would have been male or female if they were supposed to be, obviously it is a problem with the software, not the hardware. They have been wired correctly, but the software is committing a fatal blue screen error making them think that they should be something different than what they are.

24 | Posted by ExpsRedemption

Well said---people that have all kinds of cosmetic surgery are basically unhappy and insecure--they should pay out of pocket and the rest of us should not have to subsidize them---healthcare reform should cover people for catastrophic issues and that's it---you want to cut healthcare cost the aforementioned is one of the first steps.

Dear Redemption:

I have a good, hot hunch you are never going to live up to your handle here. Enjoy your ignorance, and I hope you'll always have Matsop the Backstop agreeing with you.

Well said---people that have all kinds of cosmetic surgery are basically unhappy and insecure--they should pay out of pocket and the rest of us should not have to subsidize them---healthcare reform should cover people for catastrophic issues and that's it---you want to cut healthcare cost the aforementioned is one of the first steps."

First, you have no idea whatever how difficult these people's lives are due to their gender disorders. Secondly though, this person wasn't even trying to get the insurance to pay for the surgery, she only wanted to take a tax deduction for a necessary medical procedure and it is mind bogglingly arrogant for you to pretend you know if it was or not. Good God, it's a tax deduction, you'd think she was trying to make you pay for her surgery. GEt over your bigotry and you'll be happier and so will those you you harm with it.

Boob jobs still don't qualify, however.

#1 | Posted by taxman at 2010-02-05 09:18 AM

One can depreciate a boob job.

#28 | POSTED BY HELPMEJEBUS
"One can depreciate a boob job."

But I rarely APPreciate them.

3-4 yrs ago I needed a replacement driver's license for the one I'd misplaced.

On the registry's ONE-PAGE form, along with questions like "Have you changed your name", and "Have you changed your address" since your last license was issued? --- was the following (I swear on my mother's grave that I am NOT making this up!):
"Have you changed your sex since your last license...?"

"Are you freaking kidding me?"... I asked the government payroll hack at the window. She was in a stupor of course, and was completely oblivious to the implications

Here's an idea - How about a question like.. "Have you been convicted of DUI?"

What a freaking joke!

JM

"She was in a stupor of course, and was completely oblivious to the implications "

It seems you were the oblivious one. DLs have gender listed, and sometimes people change genders. The question obviously didn't arise in a vacuum; there was probably a request from either taxpayers, or, more likely, law enforcement.

..."Have you changed your name", and "Have you changed your address" since your last license was issued? --- was the following (I swear on my mother's grave that I am NOT making this up!): "Have you changed your sex since your last license...?"

Posted by dockj at 2010-02-06 02:42 PM

And your answer was?

So is AmericanUnity going to change her name?

Just got to work and didn't have chance to go get any (although I just downed my first cup) and I didn't have time to make any this morning.

#5 | Posted by taxman at 2010-02-05 09:39 AM |

But you have time to blog. Priorities.

I don't care. I doubt there will be that much use of this deduction and certainly I don't think it will be "abused"

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2010-02-05 02:50 PM |

That's right. Keeping Doc Frankenstein in business is what's important.

I'm in a clinical trial and one of the questions was what was your sex at birth. Much like the DL one however it being a private nurse we had a good laugh over it.

Washboard the court made it pretty clear cosmetic was still not included so we are only talking about a small percentage of the population. We are also only talking about a tax deduction not a credit or any kind of payment. Would you have been willing to have the deduction for a psychatrist? If so then you accept that medicaly something needed to be done your just pissed about the solution this person chose.

So alcoholism is a disease--do people get to take any kind of treatment costs off their taxes??

As for judges deciding what is a disease--they listened to the experts--and we all know how that goes most of the time...

They did try to narrow the meaning --but there are many people with mental diseases that they then take out on their bodies.

There's that barbie chick with 42 surgeries....

There was Michael Jackson and his affliction with his nose...

There is soon to be a disease that our tits are too small or too big disease....

Murphy too big is a medical condition it can cause back and neck problems, skin conditions and potential skeletal problems. The cost of breast reduction is much less than the life time costs of all those problems. Don't be too quick to judge what is a disease and what is not.

I agree Tao--some gal had them down to her knees--literally.

I was being fecitious.

As for the gender identity disease--they are treating the 'disease' with bandaids and not the 'disease' itself.

And getting a (partial) tax deduction.

Danforth #31,
You are right. The Q didn't arise out of a vacuum. It arose out of far left idiocy and the pandering of liberals to the lunatic fringe.

What? -- there is such a deluge of sex changes that it rises to the level of importance such that it should be included on a ONE-PAGE FORM?? 100-page form - maybe.

Why not ask whether you've lost a leg, or have residual dysfunction from a sprained ankle, or use a cell phone while driving, or play the radio at excessive volume, are hard of hearing, or any of a hundred questions more relevant than that one?

If some dude has had his unit sliced off to become a freaking dudette (what would that be - 1 per million??) - then inform the desk person about it and get the special gender reassignment sheet (if you can imagine something so ridiculous). Don't insult my intelligence by putting that ludicrous question on the form as if it's as normal as asking my eye color.

#32 CalChris -
That was actually a pretty funny post. Got a chuckle :))

JM

I see what people posted in response to what I said, and what Matsop said, but i don't really see anything that is taking away from what was said.

Maybe we should not have any tax deductions, and no tax credits. The taxes are the taxes. You live here, you agree to it, you should pay it.

I am not against such a change. I do not understand why it is necessary for such individuals to change their physical sex when it is a mental disease.

Should they not fix the mental? I would have less of a problem with a tax deduction for the Psychiatrist than for the sex change surgery, even though I don't like either tax deduction.

And Mary, I don't know why you have such a hot hunch here. I understand their issue, but going and basically mutilating your body that you were hardwired with, does not render the thought that the individual that has done so, is "better."

When people mutilate their bodies, they are usually suffereing from severe issues that are increasing rather than decreasing. Plus it is not necessary. Since it is not necessary, they can do it themselves, but they should not be subsidized in any way for it.

"Plus it is not necessary."

If you'd ever met a single transgendered person, you'd know that was bunk.

"Why not ask whether you've lost a leg, or have residual dysfunction from a sprained ankle, or use a cell phone while driving, or play the radio at excessive volume, are hard of hearing, or any of a hundred questions more relevant than that one?"

Because none of that info is on your driver's license. Your gender is. That's what makes it more relevant than all your smokescreen questions.

"It arose out of far left idiocy and the pandering of liberals to the lunatic fringe."

So what's your answer, other than intolerance? What do you do with a male who is now a female...pretend otherwise?