Talk:O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

LGBT studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles

Human rights

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

IRS's brief[edit]

I'm unable to find a copy of the IRS's brief in this case. If anyone has a copy, it'd be helpful. Fireplace (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fact from O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 January 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,113 times (disclaimer) (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that in O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner, the United States Tax Court is presented for the first time with the issue of whether sex reassignment surgery is tax deductible?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/January.

Wikipedia

so what was the outcome??[edit]

January 21 was seven months ago 68.2.35.62 (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SEX_CHANGE_TAXES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-02-02-18-19-55

She won.

Woman says sex-change tax battle also helps others

By DENISE LAVOIE AP Legal Affairs Writer Advertisement clear pixel Buy AP Photo Reprints Your Questions Answered Ask AP: Super Bowl rings, charging banks for risk

BOSTON (AP) -- A woman who battled the IRS over a tax deduction for the costs of her sex-change operation says she feels like she won a victory for all transgender people.

Rhiannon O'Donnabhain (oh-DON'-oh-vin), who was born a man, sued the Internal Revenue Service in 2007 after the agency rejected a $5,000 deduction for about $25,000 in medical expenses associated with the sex-change surgery, finding it was a cosmetic procedure and not medically necessary.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Tax Court ruled that O'Donnabhain should be allowed to deduct the costs of her treatment for gender-identity disorder, including sex-reassignment surgery and hormone treatments.

"The tax court has spoken for my community and has supported my community by saying that this is a proper medical deduction, much the same as an appendectomy or open heart surgery," O'Donnabhain said in an interview Wednesday.

"It was a proper medical deduction, and it certainly is not cosmetic surgery as the IRS contended," she said.

IRS spokeswoman Michelle Eldridge declined to comment on the ruling.

The legal group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which represented O'Donnabhain, said the decision could potentially affect thousands of people a year in the U.S. who undergo similar operations.

Lambda Legal, a national civil rights group for lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgender people, called the ruling "a case of the federal government catching up with medical standards."

"I think it's an important decision that could help educate and bring along transgender rights in other areas because it ratifies what the medical community has said clearly for years, which is for people with gender identity disorder, this type of surgery is frequently a medical necessity for their lives and for their health and for their well-being," said Hayley Gorenberg, deputy legal director at Lambda Legal.

The Tax Court voted 11-5 to grant the deduction.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge David Gustafson said he believes sex reassignment surgery falls within the "cosmetic surgery" category of the tax code and the expense is therefore not deductible.

Even if such surgery "is medically indicated ... it is an otherwise cosmetic procedure that does not 'treat' the mental disease," Gustafson wrote.

O'Donnabhain said she underwent sex-reassignment surgery at age 57, after a tormented existence as a father, husband, Coast Guardsman and construction worker.

An estimated 1,600 to 2,000 people a year undergo sex-change surgery in the United States, according to the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association.

© 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Learn more about our Privacy Policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.114.34 (talk) 16:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WHAT IS GOING ON IN THIS CASE!!!!![edit]

It is frustrating, because trying to search for an outcome of this case, it looks like in early 2008 the petitioner, the respondent, and the court have all fallen off the side of the earth! Searches on Google turn up lots of articles saying things like "The Tax Court in Boston is set to rule on..." the case, and those articles are dated to early 2008. Arguments should have concluded in late 2007--is the tax court having major issues in coming out with a decision or what? I request more information. Cornince (talk) 04:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if there was an out-of-court settlement. It might explain the sudden disappearance of the parties from the media, and the seeming lack of a decision. Rebecca (talk) 11:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Innuendo[edit]

To write "Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, born anatomically male" is to ignore the fact that the brain, and therefore the brain-mind continuum is also part of the anatomy. If would be accurate, perhaps, to say "Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, was assigned male upon birth". But "Rhiannon O'Donnabhain, born anatomically male" is stigmatizing, pejorative and speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.8.227.45 (talk) 06:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]