NCTE has links to the .pdf of the IRS announcement as well as the tax trial that set the precedent.

In a bid for a solution — and some publicity — the Clifton board borrowed a creative idea that alleviated tax woes in neighboring India: It hired a team of transgender tax collectors to go door-to-door to embarrass the rich until they pay.

Transgender people, known as TGs in Pakistan, carry a social stigma in the country, and their presence rattles the rich. For many of the TGs hired by the Clifton board, tax collecting is their first salaried job, and two of them still work as sex workers.

*sigh*

But before you criticize the women in question for doing this work, remember that otherwise they tend to do sex work and other crap, low-paid jobs.

More money on mascara means less money donated to politicians who can do you favors.
More money on pedicures means less money for the non-profits like shelters, crisis centers, and halfway houses.
More money on haircuts means less money for more education & training.
More money on moisturizers, face lifts and boob jobs means less money, less influence, and less power.

Period.

In a long-awaited decision, a fractured (8-5-3) Tax Court today ruled in O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. No. 4 (Feb. 2, 2010), that male-to-female gender reassignment surgery qualifies as a deductible medical expense under § 213, reversing the IRS’s position in Chief Counsel Advice 200603025.  The 8-judge majority held that:

• TP’s gender identity disorder is a “disease” within the meaning of  § 213(d)(1)(A) & (9)(B).
• TP’s hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery were for the treatment of disease within the meaning of  § 213(d)(1)(A) & (9)(B), and thus not “cosmetic surgery” excluded from the definition of deductible “medical care” by § 213(d)(9)(A).
• TP’s breast augmentation surgery was directed at improving her appearance did not meaningfully promote the proper function of her body or treat disease within the meaning of § 213(d)(9)(B), and thus was “cosmetic surgery” excluded from the definition of deductible “medical care” by § 213(d)(9)(A).

Judge Gale wrote the 69-page majority opinion, joined by Judges Cohen, Colvin. Marvel, Morrison, Paris, Thornton, and Wherry.  Judge Halperin (12 pages), Judge Holmes (joined by Judge Goeke) (23 pages), and Judge Goeke (joined by Judge Holmes) (6 pages) wrote separate concurring opinions.  Judge Foley (joined by Judges Gustafson, Kroupa, Vasquez, and Wells) (8 pages) and Judge Gustafson (joined by Judges Foley, Kroupa, Vasquez, and Wells) (21 pages) wrote separate opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part.

Amazing news. GLAD is having a community conference call with the attorneys who worked on the case, and NCTE is supporting the call. For more info on how to participate, check after the break.

If you are interested in hearing more about the case from the actual attorneys who worked on it, please join us for the call.

Toll Free Dial-In Number: 1-800-704-9804
Participant Code(s):   61898641#

Wednesday February 3
6:00 PM Eastern Time Zone
5:00 PM Central Time Zone
4:00 PM Mountain Time Zone
3:00 PM Pacific Time Zone