Comments on: Infant Formula Not a Medical Expense

By: JBruce

JBruce — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 05:04:54 +0000

One way or another, the baby has to be fed. If a healthy mother breastfeeds, the baby doesn’t eat “for free” — as Marc points out in the modern world it costs money to breastfeed, and we’re not even counting the food the mother eats. If she’s supplying nutrition to the baby, the she has to get more nutrition too. My ex-wife didn’t breast feed, so I don’t know the ins and outs of a nursing mother’s diet needs, but I’ll bet it adds expense to her otherwise “normal” diet. So, in spite of my great sympathy for the woman in this case (whether or not she had a baby) I’d say the formula shouldn’t be deductible.

By: Marc

Marc — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:04:10 +0000

TxBoy, the amputee example is not analogous. In the case of the of the amputee, a normal car is not suitable so the car must be made special to accommodate the amputee, justifying the deduction. In the case of the infant, regular over the counter formula is sufficient so there is nothing special required for the nutrition of the baby. The only way to make the scenarios analogous is if the infant needed a doctor-prescribed special formula that wasn’t available at your local Wal-Mart.

On the flip side of all of this, breastfeeding is not without is expenses. A working mother will require a good breast pump, lots & lots of bottles & storage containers, coolers & freezer packs, a new chest freezer to store milk (as in our case), etc. I estimate we spent somewhere upwards of $700-$800 for breastfeeding activities and equipment for a year. A couple of times we had to upgrade our hotel room to get a refrigerator — so the cost is far from zero.

If a medical deduction is allowed for regular formula, then every mom in the county would get their doctor to justify why their milk production is insufficient.

By: jpe

jpe — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:38:56 +0000

So . . . what should she do? Starve the kid until the State steps in, rules that she is an unfit mother, and places the child in foster care (at State expense)?

Yeah, just how I stopped eating because food isn’t deductible.

By: jpe

jpe — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:37:18 +0000

An infant incapable of getting nutrition from her mother is medically dependent on formula, it is not optional.

As an adult, I’m “medically dependent” on food; that doesn’t make it deductible.

By: Peter B

Peter B — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 06:03:45 +0000

This raises interesting questions:
•Would it have changed things for the baby’s doctor to prescribe formula?
•Would the services of a wet nurse have been deductible if breast milk were prescribed for the baby?
•Clearly, the baby must be fed. What if one were to establish a dollar value for breastfeeding and claim a deduction for the difference between that amount and the cost of prescribed formula?
Are these questions any more absurd than the fairly common situation in which the same item may be both available over the counter from the retail side of a pharmacy with no physician involvement and then, by virtue of paperwork to transfer a tube of it into the prescription inventory of the pharmacy, become available only by prescription?

By: TxBoy

TxBoy — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:58:20 +0000

Again – the analogy to an amputee. If the amputee didn’t have his arm removed, he could have driven a perfectly usable car. Why should he be allowed to deduct the cost of modifying a perfectly drivable car? The focus should be on mitigating the defect, not for any collateral benefit/harm to a third party (i.e., the baby). A woman who has given birth is “supposed” to be able to produce breast milk. A woman with a mastectomy cannot produce breast milk. The cost of a reconstructive surgery is clearly deductible as a medical expense – but that is clearly cosmetic, but goes to significant issues of self-esteem and psychology. Why shouldn’t the cost of infant formula be similarly deductible?

By: AC

AC — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:37:53 +0000

So . . . what should she do? Starve the kid until the State steps in, rules that she is an unfit mother, and places the child in foster care (at State expense)?

WTF?

By: Robert

Robert — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:43:22 +0000

As much as I disagree with some IRS decisions, I have to say that I think that they made the right decision here. If we assume that the mother had not had the surgery and was able to produce milk for her child she would not be able to deduct the cost of the food that her body used to produce her milk. So why should she be able to deduct the cost of the formula?

By: TxBoy

TxBoy — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:05:37 +0000

The ruling says:
Section 1.213-1(e)(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Regulations provides that the
deduction for medical care expenses will be confined strictly to expenses incurred primarily for the prevention or alleviation of a physical or mental defect or illness.

Mom has a defect – she has had a double mastectomy and cannot produce breast milk as a result. Formula helps replace that defect. If you were an amputee and paid to modify a perfectly usable auto to be able to drive in your condition, that is tax deductible. I’m not comparing a baby to a car, but the car is fine and yet the expense qualifies as a medical expense. There are plenty of questionable expenses that the IRS finds deductible for medical reasons – clarinet lessons are tax deductible if you have an overbite – so I’m not sure why this doesn’t fall in.

There is now H.R. 3445 that has been introduced in Congress by Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. It seems like she agrees that the IRS should allow formula to be deductible under these circumstances.

By: mjaybee

mjaybee — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 17:35:08 +0000

Looking forward to my government run health plan….