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

This was published on PAOO on January 11, 2010.

PLR 200941003

Somebody once told me about a tax attorney who was presented with a question that he found extremely interesting. His comment was “That is an extremely interesting question. I hope we will have a client situation that it bears on it so I will be able to research it.” For better or worse I lack that discipline and will go poking around at things that will be of little or no practical benefit. It happens that about the most, to me, intriguing ruling of 2009 falls into that category.

PLR 200941003 was about the deductibility of infant formula as a medical expense. Citing Revenue Ruling 55-261, the service held that the formula was not deductible; the reasoning was that the formula just provided for normal nutrition. I think the ruling is wrong and the basis that they used indicates that they missed the point of the ruling request. The ruling request was on the behalf of not, the presumably well-fed, infant, but rather on behalf of the mother, who as it happens, had had a double mastectomy.

The definition of a deductible medical expense is fairly broad. It includes not only diagnosis, treatment and prevention, but also mitigation. Included in the last, for example, would be the cost of a special school. PLR 200318017 allowed a deduction for the various expenses involved in arranging for an egg donation for a woman unable to conceive using her own eggs.

What I find really curious, though, is why the ruling was requested in the first place. I did some, admittedly cursory, research which leads me to believe that the dollars involved cannot possibly be substantial. The furthest out estimate for annual cost of infant formula that I found was around $3,000. $1,200 would be a more representative estimate. Regardless you are not talking much north of $1,000 in tax probably somewhat less. Furthermore, it is not as if the deal will rise or fall based on the tax answer. Conceivably you might scuttle a merger if you can’t get a favorable ruling, but it is pretty clear that deductible or not the formula will be purchased.
It would seem to be a little silly to pay for a ruling request that you might think was frivolous, so why not just take the deduction and disclose?

The only thing I could think of was to create some stir on the issue. I couldn’t find that the ruling generated much other interest though.