<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sex-Change Operations are Tax Deductible, Tax Court Says</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/02/03/sex-change-operations-are-tax-deductible-tax-court-says/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/02/03/sex-change-operations-are-tax-deductible-tax-court-says/</link>
	<description>tax, finance, politics, culture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 07:20:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/02/03/sex-change-operations-are-tax-deductible-tax-court-says/comment-page-1/#comment-4209</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 23:03:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=14191#comment-4209</guid>
		<description>DB,

Nice try.

May I suggest counseling combined with medication. Quickly, before you hurt someone, including your &lt;em&gt;selves&lt;/em&gt;.

I don&#039;t usually converse with the irrational, but I&#039;m feeling merciful today.

The &lt;em&gt;entire case&lt;/em&gt; is about relieving stress. Stress associated with a mental disorder. GID is a medical disorder that causes the sufferer severe stress. Having a sex-change operation relieves that stress, ergo, it is tax deductible.

Even GLAD recognized this:

&lt;blockquote&gt;
“I think what the court is saying is that surgery and hormone therapy for transgender people to alleviate the stress associated with gender identity disorder is legitimate medical care,’’ said Jennifer Levi, a GLAD attorney&lt;/blockquote&gt;

By the way, when you called me incompetent and a dunce I came very close to conceding the entire argument.

ROFL.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DB,</p>
<p>Nice try.</p>
<p>May I suggest counseling combined with medication. Quickly, before you hurt someone, including your <em>selves</em>.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t usually converse with the irrational, but I&#8217;m feeling merciful today.</p>
<p>The <em>entire case</em> is about relieving stress. Stress associated with a mental disorder. GID is a medical disorder that causes the sufferer severe stress. Having a sex-change operation relieves that stress, ergo, it is tax deductible.</p>
<p>Even GLAD recognized this:</p>
<blockquote><p>
“I think what the court is saying is that surgery and hormone therapy for transgender people to alleviate the stress associated with gender identity disorder is legitimate medical care,’’ said Jennifer Levi, a GLAD attorney</p></blockquote>
<p>By the way, when you called me incompetent and a dunce I came very close to conceding the entire argument.</p>
<p>ROFL.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Peter</title>
		<link>http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/02/03/sex-change-operations-are-tax-deductible-tax-court-says/comment-page-1/#comment-4208</link>
		<dc:creator>Peter</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:36:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=14191#comment-4208</guid>
		<description>Bev,

I read every page of the 139 page decision and understand it perfectly. 

I am afraid &lt;em&gt;you&lt;/em&gt; did not read &lt;em&gt;my&lt;/em&gt; post. If you had you would have noticed my conclusion (emphasis added):

&lt;blockquote&gt;Thus, the O’Donnalbhain standard might be narrowly stated as follows:

The costs of  legitimate medical procedures that are designed to relieve the mental suffering that is &lt;strong&gt;associated with a generally accepted mental disorder&lt;/strong&gt; ³ are tax deductible&lt;/blockquote&gt;

I clearly did not say that stress relief alone was the standard. Who&#039;s not reading things?

&lt;strong&gt;Re Denial of Breast augmentation deduction:&lt;/strong&gt;

So a man who wants to be a woman only wants &lt;em&gt;one&lt;/em&gt; part of womanhood? Come on! It&#039;s obvious the Court didn&#039;t want to open up Pandora&#039;s (no pun intended) box and allow all boob jobs to be deductible.

&lt;strong&gt;Re your statement re my statement &quot;about not doubting the petitioner suffers from &#039;some sort of disorder&#039; is offensive and demeaning&quot;&lt;/strong&gt;

Bev, the &quot;D&quot; in GID &lt;em&gt;stands&lt;/em&gt; for disorder, therefore, I must assume you were equally offended by Judge Gale&#039;s use of the word? Of course, that would be silly since the &lt;em&gt;entire justification&lt;/em&gt; for allowing a deduction for the costs of a sex-change rests on GID &lt;em&gt;being&lt;/em&gt; a disorder.

Anyway, you shouldn&#039;t be so sensitive. Remember the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, &quot;no one can hurt your feelings without your consent.&quot;

And &quot;transphobia?&quot; Good Lord! I don&#039;t &lt;em&gt;fear&lt;/em&gt; people who don&#039;t like the genitals with which they were born, I think they need help. And so, apparently, does the Tax Court.

</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bev,</p>
<p>I read every page of the 139 page decision and understand it perfectly. </p>
<p>I am afraid <em>you</em> did not read <em>my</em> post. If you had you would have noticed my conclusion (emphasis added):</p>
<blockquote><p>Thus, the O’Donnalbhain standard might be narrowly stated as follows:</p>
<p>The costs of  legitimate medical procedures that are designed to relieve the mental suffering that is <strong>associated with a generally accepted mental disorder</strong> ³ are tax deductible</p></blockquote>
<p>I clearly did not say that stress relief alone was the standard. Who&#8217;s not reading things?</p>
<p><strong>Re Denial of Breast augmentation deduction:</strong></p>
<p>So a man who wants to be a woman only wants <em>one</em> part of womanhood? Come on! It&#8217;s obvious the Court didn&#8217;t want to open up Pandora&#8217;s (no pun intended) box and allow all boob jobs to be deductible.</p>
<p><strong>Re your statement re my statement &#8220;about not doubting the petitioner suffers from &#8217;some sort of disorder&#8217; is offensive and demeaning&#8221;</strong></p>
<p>Bev, the &#8220;D&#8221; in GID <em>stands</em> for disorder, therefore, I must assume you were equally offended by Judge Gale&#8217;s use of the word? Of course, that would be silly since the <em>entire justification</em> for allowing a deduction for the costs of a sex-change rests on GID <em>being</em> a disorder.</p>
<p>Anyway, you shouldn&#8217;t be so sensitive. Remember the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, &#8220;no one can hurt your feelings without your consent.&#8221;</p>
<p>And &#8220;transphobia?&#8221; Good Lord! I don&#8217;t <em>fear</em> people who don&#8217;t like the genitals with which they were born, I think they need help. And so, apparently, does the Tax Court.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: XY to XX &#171; Accountants Directory</title>
		<link>http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/02/03/sex-change-operations-are-tax-deductible-tax-court-says/comment-page-1/#comment-4206</link>
		<dc:creator>XY to XX &#171; Accountants Directory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:02:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=14191#comment-4206</guid>
		<description>[...] on the Tax Court&#8217;s sex-change decision, from Peter Pappas. My coverage [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] on the Tax Court&#8217;s sex-change decision, from Peter Pappas. My coverage [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bev</title>
		<link>http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/02/03/sex-change-operations-are-tax-deductible-tax-court-says/comment-page-1/#comment-4205</link>
		<dc:creator>Bev</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:51:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=14191#comment-4205</guid>
		<description>Peter, you need to actually read the case.  The tax court didn&#039;t rule on a &quot;stress relief&quot; standard.  The court determined that gender identity disorder (GID) is a &quot;disease,&quot; and as such the treatment for the disease (hormone therapy and genital surgery) is a deductible medical expense under Section 213.  The court specifically held that the costs of breast augmentation were not deductible because the purpose was to improve appearance for the petitioner.

Additionally, your comment about not doubting the petitioner suffers from “some sort of disorder” is offensive and demeaning.  GID is a real disease, and the agreed upon treatment is hormone therapy and surgery.  This is different than the treatment of a person who suffers from depression.  A proper analogy under this case would be allowance of a tax deduction for the costs of antidepressants to the patient who is depressed from body image and low self esteem.  Most doctors would not prescribe a nose job for this to every patient who claims it causes them stress.  As the opinion details, most doctors would prescribe hormone therapy and genital surgery to those that suffer from GID.

I think the court came to the right decision by limiting the deductible costs to treatment of GID and limits the extension of the deduction to the elective cosmetic surgery portion which only improves appearance. This ruling prevents the slippery slope which you improperly say will now happen from the ruling in this case.  I think that as a tax attorney with a forum like this blog, you should at least read the case and give it a fair shake before sensationalizing an impossible slippery slope with this pro-transgender ruling.  There is no ‘bignoseaphobia’ in the DSM that is a diagnosable disease which warrants rhinoplasty as the primary treatment.  Depression, however, is in the DSM and the treatment is counseling and possibly medication.  Your interpretation of the ruling seems to be unjustly fueling the fire of transphobia.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Peter, you need to actually read the case.  The tax court didn&#8217;t rule on a &#8220;stress relief&#8221; standard.  The court determined that gender identity disorder (GID) is a &#8220;disease,&#8221; and as such the treatment for the disease (hormone therapy and genital surgery) is a deductible medical expense under Section 213.  The court specifically held that the costs of breast augmentation were not deductible because the purpose was to improve appearance for the petitioner.</p>
<p>Additionally, your comment about not doubting the petitioner suffers from “some sort of disorder” is offensive and demeaning.  GID is a real disease, and the agreed upon treatment is hormone therapy and surgery.  This is different than the treatment of a person who suffers from depression.  A proper analogy under this case would be allowance of a tax deduction for the costs of antidepressants to the patient who is depressed from body image and low self esteem.  Most doctors would not prescribe a nose job for this to every patient who claims it causes them stress.  As the opinion details, most doctors would prescribe hormone therapy and genital surgery to those that suffer from GID.</p>
<p>I think the court came to the right decision by limiting the deductible costs to treatment of GID and limits the extension of the deduction to the elective cosmetic surgery portion which only improves appearance. This ruling prevents the slippery slope which you improperly say will now happen from the ruling in this case.  I think that as a tax attorney with a forum like this blog, you should at least read the case and give it a fair shake before sensationalizing an impossible slippery slope with this pro-transgender ruling.  There is no ‘bignoseaphobia’ in the DSM that is a diagnosable disease which warrants rhinoplasty as the primary treatment.  Depression, however, is in the DSM and the treatment is counseling and possibly medication.  Your interpretation of the ruling seems to be unjustly fueling the fire of transphobia.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DB</title>
		<link>http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2010/02/03/sex-change-operations-are-tax-deductible-tax-court-says/comment-page-1/#comment-4203</link>
		<dc:creator>DB</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:14:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.pappastax.com/?p=14191#comment-4203</guid>
		<description>Obviously you are an incompetent lawyer. Even a dunce realizes that this is a disease under the DSM and not an &quot;anxiety&quot;. 

&quot;$25,000 he paid to become a woman,&quot;

&quot;He&quot; paid ? It has nothing to do with stress Einstein.  The air is invisible to you yet it is there. Fire is not &quot;magic &quot; ! You public idiots spewing your stupidity under the guise of information are a hoot.

Any time you want to open air debate I&#039;m up for it. You and your Jesus cult need to be dressed down in public. I can&#039;t wait for the &quot; So if I think I&#039;m a dog I can be a dog &quot; argument so many of you submorons spew. Hilarious.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obviously you are an incompetent lawyer. Even a dunce realizes that this is a disease under the DSM and not an &#8220;anxiety&#8221;. </p>
<p>&#8220;$25,000 he paid to become a woman,&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;He&#8221; paid ? It has nothing to do with stress Einstein.  The air is invisible to you yet it is there. Fire is not &#8220;magic &#8221; ! You public idiots spewing your stupidity under the guise of information are a hoot.</p>
<p>Any time you want to open air debate I&#8217;m up for it. You and your Jesus cult need to be dressed down in public. I can&#8217;t wait for the &#8221; So if I think I&#8217;m a dog I can be a dog &#8221; argument so many of you submorons spew. Hilarious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
