storyparadox3
Susie King Taylor 360x1000
Brendan Beehan 360x1000
1transcendentalist
6albion
Stormy Daniels 360x1000
399
Maria Popova 360x1000
Betty Friedan 360x1000
1theleasofus
299
7albion
1paradide
6confidencegames
Margaret Fuller 360x1000
14albion
Thomas Piketty1 360x1000
lifeinmiddlemarch1
499
1jesusandjohnwayne
2falsewitness
1trap
James Gould Cozzens 360x1000
1lauber
2trap
199
Ruth Bader Ginsburg 360x1000
George F Wil...360x1000
11albion
2transadentilist
3paradise
George M Cohan and Lerarned Hand 360x1000
Adam Gopnik 360x1000
5confidencegames
1defense
Office of Chief Counsel 360x1000
Maurice B Foley 360x1000
10abion
Lafayette and Jefferson 360x1000
2confidencegames
Anthony McCann1 360x1000
2lookingforthegoodwar
3albion
Mark V Holmes 360x1000
3confidencegames
Edmund Burke 360x1000
Learned Hand 360x1000
Tad Friend 360x1000
8albion'
Samuel Johnson 360x1000
9albion
AlexRosenberg
12albion
4confidencegames
7confidencegames
1empireofpain
1falsewitness
Margaret Fuller1 360x1000
2albion
2defense
2lafayette
2paradise
LillianFaderman
storyparadox2
Anthony McCann2 360x1000
Thomas Piketty3 360x1000
Margaret Fuller5 360x1000
Gilgamesh 360x1000
3defense
3theleastofus
4albion
2gucci
Richard Posner 360x1000
5albion
Storyparadox1
1lafayette
1confidencegames
2theleastofus
1madoff
1lookingforthegoodwar
Margaret Fuller3 360x1000
Margaret Fuller 2 360x1000
13albion
lifeinmiddlemarch2
Margaret Fuller4 360x1000
Spottswood William Robinson 360x1000
2jesusandjohnwayne
11632
Thomas Piketty2 360x1000
Margaret Fuller2 360x1000
Susie King Taylor2 360x1000
Mary Ann Evans 360x1000
1gucci
1albion

Originally published on Passive Activities and Other Oxymorons on February 11, 2011.
____________________________________________________________________________
Announcement 2011-14

As yesterdays post compared with todays shows tax issues cover the gamut of human phenomena.  I don’t make this stuff up though.  There is obviously selection on my part, but I work with the material that is thrown at me.

Normally I don’t post on things that I pick up from other blogs.  I review original source material for items of interest either because of practical importance, humour or opportunity for reflection.  This particular item hit the news more quickly because a bunch of legislators are patting themselves on the back for persuading the IRS into reversing its position. To give credit where it is due, I first noticed this in Accounting and Tax Tips.  Although he didn’t give a citation.  I found that in Accounting Today along with a link to the full text.  This is one of those very rare occasions where something gets into the blogosphere before it gets into Checkpoint.

The announcement which I reproduce below indicates that breast pumps and related supplies are deductible as medical expenses. Possibly of more practical significance it also makes them reimbursable under flexible spending arrangements.

The Internal Revenue Service has concluded that breast pumps and supplies that assist lactation are medical care under § 213(d) of the Internal Revenue Code because, like obstetric care, they are for the purpose of affecting a structure or function of the body of the lactating woman. Therefore, if the remaining requirements of § 213(a) are met (for example, the taxpayer’s total medical expenses exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income), expenses paid for breast pumps and supplies that assist lactation are deductible medical expenses. Amounts reimbursed for these expenses under flexible spending arrangements, Archer medical savings accounts, health reimbursement arrangements, or health savings accounts are not income to the taxpayer.
The Service will revise Publication 502, Medical and Dental Expenses, to include this
information.


In INFO 2010-0173, the IRS had reached the opposite conclusion :

I am responding your letter of March 30, 2009, to Commissioner Douglas H. Schulman about the treatment of costs associated with breast pumps and related equipment. You recommend that the Service allow the costs of breast pumps and related equipment to be reimbursable under a tax favored health care flexible spending account (FSA).

In general, funds from an FSA are to be used for medical care. The Internal Revenue Code defines medical care to include the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease. Medical care includes medicine and drugs, but does not include goods or services that are merely beneficial to general health and do not mitigate or treat a disease. Under current law, therefore, the cost of purchasing or renting a breast pump and related equipment would not come within the definition of a medical care expense for FSA purposes, even though the mother’s usage of the breast pump may have the health benefits mentioned in your letter.

It is not within the authority of the Internal Revenue Service to classify breastfeeding equipment as medical care in contravention of current law. A change to the Internal Revenue Code must be made by Congress.

Since “everybody else” is writing about this, I would normally pass it by except that one of my earliest blog posts was on a lactation issue that I thought the IRS had gotten wrong.  It had a very clever title, so you should click the link just to find out.  The IRS had disallowed a deduction for infant formula by a woman who had had a double mastectomy.  So the tax geek response to the stories about this announcement is “Well does that mean the Service will revisit its holding in PLR 200941003 ?”