Taxman or Taxwoman, Part 2

This Blog's posting of 24 January 2006 commented on the Internal Revenue Service Office of Chief Counsel's Memorandum Number 200603025, which in turn opined on the deductibility as a medical expense of a taxpayer's gender reassignment surgery costs. Few of us tax cognoscenti doubted that the matter would eventually be brought to court by the taxpayer involved, and though Chief Counsel Memoranda and similar taxpayer-specific IRS pronouncement are always sanitized of taxpayer identification information, the taxpayer's identity was one very ill-kept secret amongst the tax practitioners and pundits.

Yesterday, the U.S. Tax Court released its opinion in the case captioned O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner. To synopsize this very lengthy opinion:

The taxpayer, born of the male gender and named Robert Donovan, decided to become a woman and, to that end, changed his name to Rhiannon G. O’Donnabhain and underwent so-called gender reassignment surgery. Donovan/O’Donnabhain claimed, as a medical expense deduction on his/her tax return, the not inconsequential health care bills associated with the latter. The IRS disallowed the deduction, Donovan/O’Donnabhain disputed the IRS's decision in the Tax Court, and the Tax Court ruled that the medical expenses for the "gender reassignment surgery" were deductible, but that the doctor bills and associated expenses for the breast augmentation were elective cosmetic surgery and thus not deductible.


My take on it:

The Court's ruling was correct and appropriate.

I personally believe that this so-called "gender identity disorder" diagnosis is, at best, a misguided politically-correct classification concocted by the medical profession.

And, it follows, that I am not too keen on having the taxpayers subsidize this so-called gender reassignment surgery (which is mutilation, plain and simple).

The failing in this case was with the medical profession, which went into the tank for certain sinister forces by treating a mental disorder as a physical one. This, in my view, is analogous to treating appendicitis not by removing the inflamed appendix, but by excision of the intestines which are inflaming the appendix. The American Medical Association's perversion of its craft sets dangerous precedent.


But the IRS should not be engaging in medical practice or medical diagnosis or the dispensation of medical advice. This means that the IRS should not issue blanket prohibitions as to what is or is not medically necessary for any given patient. This, I believe, is a far greater evil than this "gender identity disorder" hoax, which must be laid at the feet of the medical profession.

[The pro-homosexual lobby has already begun to claim this tax case as a victory for their abominable agenda. Take my word for it, or google it; I do not now wish to glorify their nefarious agenda by linking to any of their many postings on the case.].

As for Robert Donovan / Rhiannon O’Donnabhain, it is noted that he/she (a) seems to have been prompt and candid with discharging his/her tax return reporting and filing duties; (b) seems to be a reasonably well-functioning employee in the workplace, and seems to have been so even as he/she was transitioning from male self-identity to female self-identity; and (c) seems to have left no basis for any hint or suggestion that his/her past service in the U.S. Coast Guard was anything other than honorable. In the final analysis, Donovan/O’Donnabhain is more by far a victim than a wrongdoer.

What's in a Name?

The absurd cases that appear with some frequency in America's courtrooms never cease to amaze me.

The law in New York is that anyone has the right to use any name of his or her choosing, unless there is some motive for fraud or other nefarious purpose. In order to change one's name, one can take either or both of the following legal paths:

A. File a petition in the court to obtain a court order allowing the change of name; and/or

B. Simply adopting the new desired name (with or without the court order).


The Appellate Division, Third Department, has overturned a trial court's denial of a petition for a name change. The case is Matter of Earl William Golden III, ___ A.D.3d ___, ___ N.Y.S.2d ___, 2008 NY Slip Op 9333, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8983, N.Y.L.J., 12/9/2008, p. 30, col. 1 (3d Dept. 2008). The uncontested contentions in the petition are that the person who was born a baby boy and named Earl William Golden at birth now identifies with the female gender, and accordingly, seeks to change the birth name to Elisabeth Whitney Golden. The trial court noted the likelihood of confusion in the change of name from the male to female gender, but the Appellate Division panel found that this alone was not sufficient reason to deny the name change.

What is so absurd about this case? Apparently, "[i]ncluded in the submission was an affidavit from petitioner's spouse indicating that she supported the name change request and had no objection thereto."

So has Golden transitioned from a man to a lesbian? Is his "spouse" a real woman? A former woman? What's going on here?

The court can only go by the evidence before it. I cannot help but wonder, however, whether there might not actually be some sort of ulterior motive based in fraud or confusion. Either that, or this guy/gal is just plain wacko after all.

Not Their Boy/Girl

This Blog's posting of 31 July 2006, entitled "He's Not Our Boy," spotlighted attempts by various Jewish groups to distance themselves from convicted bribepayer Jack Abramoff, and by CAIR to distance itself from Seattle terrorist Naveed Afzal Haq.

Now, the Catholic League is doing similar with respect to Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, the the gender bender who now seeks an income tax deduction for the sex reversal surgery he/she paid for. The word on the street is that O'Donnabhain was the taxpayer to whom IRS Chief Counsel Memorandum 200603025 was addressed, as discussed in this Blog's post "Taxman or Taxwoman" (24 January 2006).

The Catholic League, to be sure, is a well-reputed Catholic civil rights organization which this posting does not purpose to trash. The CL in general, and its President, William A. Donohue, in particular, have earned a reputation for calling matters as they see them, and, indeed, they make some calls which need to be made.

As an example, the latest posting from the CL website throws a flag on Florida attorney Loring Spolter's motion for the recusal of U.S. District Judge William Zloch in a DUI case which Spolter is defending. Spolter's basis for the recusal motion is that Judge Zloch is overly biased towards Catholics and Catholicism, and his "proof" is that Zloch is a supporter of Ave Maria Law School, of which two of his clerks are alumni.

Though Ave Maria Law School is unabashedly a Catholic institution, it does accept students of all faiths, and does have a diverse faculty. Geography is the sole reason I have not applied for a faculty position there. If my own experience obtaining a degree from another Catholic institution is any indication, I don't see where Ave Maria's Catholic orientation would adversely affect its ability to impart a fine legal education to students of whatever religious background. And I do believe that Judge Zloch is perfectly capable of adjudicating the case without regard to any party's religious orientation. The Catholic League has, then, appropriately blown the whistle on Spolter.

Bill Donahue's hackles were raised by an article in Tax Notes which reported that Rhiannon O'Donnabhain was "born into an Irish-Catholic Boston family." Donahue did what he has been conditioned to do -- he wrote a letter to the Editor of Tax Notes, which Tax Notes published yesterday ["Catholic Group Questions Religious and Ethnic Identification in Article," Tax Notes, Aug. 20, 2007, p. 699, 2007 TNT 162-34 (Doc 2007-19017).]. In his letter Donahue implores "Can you tell me why the man's ancestry and the religion in which he was raised were identified in the piece? It does not seem as if the man's Irish-Catholic background is relevant to the story. Would Tax Notes Today mention if he were an Ashkenazi Jew or a Scottish Presbyterian?"

Tax Notes pointed out that O'Donnabhain's attorney publicly distributed literature mentioning O'Donnabhain's Irish Catholic upbringing, and that O'Donnabhain himself/herself mentioned this in his/her testimony at the trial. O'Donnabhain, then, has opened the door and made the matter relevant.

And so, the Catholic League now implicitly seeks to disclaim O'Donnabhain as one of their own, just as Jewish groups have tried to jettison Abramoff, and just as CAIR has tried to hide Haq under a burqa.