Comments on: Infant Formula Not a Medical Expense

By: Deduct This: The History of the Medical Expenses Deduction - Kelly Phillips Erb - Taxgirl - Forbes

Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:56:49 +0000

[...] surgery may be deductible and IRS guidance such as the private letter ruling indicating that infant formula would not be treated as a medical expense, Congress has made some effort to clarify which expenses might be deductible. The cost of getting [...]

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 17:24:22 +0000

If breastfeeding is tax deductible, then formula feeding that is the direct result of a medical condition (such as a mastectomy) should also be granted.

If the fear is that “every mother under the sun will want formula feeding deductions” well why should that be more of an issue than every breastfeeding mother?

Frankly, why should the rationale behind the decision to breastfeed or formula feed at all be a criteria that needs to be justified to anyone? I think the IRS needs to allow or not allow rather than saying it’s ok for one group but not another.

Not all tax deductions require a hardship to be valid so I have no idea where margins is making a reasonable argument.

I also doubt that whether or not it’s tax deductible is actually affecting the decision of a parent to feed their infant, regardless of whether that is breastfeeding or formula-feeding. A baby has to eat and leaving it to starve is simply not an option most sane mothers AND fathers would tolerate.

By: IRS Okays Breastfeeding Supplies as Medical Expenses (but won’t agree that breast is best) | taxgirl

Sat, 12 Feb 2011 03:25:53 +0000

[...] despite our current climate. They’re being guarded for a reason: as recently as last year, they classified infant formula as food and therefore, not a medical expense. Clearly, then, they’re not going to rule that breast [...]

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?