Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

A Non-Medicalized Medical Deduction?: O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner & the I.R.S.’s Understanding of Transgender Medical Care

28 Pages Posted: 28 Jul 2012  

Lauren Whitney Herman

affiliation not provided to SSRN

Date Written: 2012

Abstract

This Note will analyze the Tax Court decision in O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner, and raise questions about its implications. The issue before the court was in essence a medical question regarding the scope of the medical deduction, and the court followed the traditional course in transgender jurisprudence, relying on medical evidence and the diagnosis of a disease to permit O’Donnabhain’s deduction for her sex reassignment treatment. However, there is much debate within the transgender community about reliance on the medical model. Part I will provide a brief history of O’Donnabhain, her condition, the treatment she sought, and her struggle to defend her rights. Part II will explore in further detail the definitions and case law that formed the basis of the Tax Court’s decision. To conclude, Part III will explore how the Tax Court’s choices in statutory interpretation impact the transgender community and broader advocacy efforts. It will also raise the possibility that a future taxpayer could rely on the second prong of the definition of medical care for a deduction, thus expanding the legal recognition of transgender rights.

Keywords: transgender rights, medical deduction, I.R.S., tax code

Suggested Citation

Herman, Lauren Whitney, A Non-Medicalized Medical Deduction?: O’Donnabhain v. Commissioner & the I.R.S.’s Understanding of Transgender Medical Care (2012). Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, Vol. 35, No. 487, 2012. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2119026

Lauren Whitney Herman (Contact Author)

affiliation not provided to SSRN ( email )

Paper statistics

Downloads
72
Rank
277,284
Abstract Views
477