Posted on 04/17/2006 7:36:42 AM PDT by DBeers
Those who suspect that bias might have deprived "Brokeback Mountain" of the best picture Oscar and hobbled "Transamerica's" consideration might feel the same about the IRS' recent treatment of domestic partners and transgender people. So should everybody.
The two IRS rulings may not seem troublesome at first. The IRS ruled that, when filing individual returns, each registered domestic partner in California must report his or her own individual salary, rather than half of both partners' combined income (sometimes called income splitting). It also ruled that costs of gender reassignment surgery are not deductible medical expenses. What's the big deal?
When measured against the clear legal rules governing income splitting and deductible medical expenses, the reasoning of the IRS chief counsel's office is so tortured and weak, one must suspect that bigotry, rather than logic, was the impetus. Under a state law that became effective in 2005, same-sex couples who register with the California secretary of state have the same rights and responsibilities married spouses have, including community property rights. That means salary or other compensation income of either spouse or partner is owned by both from the instant it is earned.
<~snip~>
The IRS treated gender reassignment surgery as similar to voluntary cosmetic surgery, the purpose of which is to affect appearance rather than to change the function of part of the body. Left unexplained is how removal of the testicles and penis and their replacement with a vagina is more appearance -- than function -- related.
<~snip~>
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
The IRS is homophobic, bigoted, and theocratic!
/end sarcasm
I am not even sure why they allow 'income-splitting' for married couples.
The whole point of the income tax code is to play politics, and it has been since the very beginning. It's a rube-goldberg contraption of carrots and sticks, designed by politicians for social engineering purposes since the moment of its inception.
That this should come as a surprise to the DP (domestic partnership) lobby just shows they weren't paying attention.
"Left unexplained is how removal of the testicles and penis and their replacement with a vagina is more appearance -- than function -- related.
<~snip~>"
Is that snip s ound effect? :)
LOL
Gender reassignment surgery should not be covered as a deduction, but the costs of going to have a shrink find out that your mother or father or the goldfish did not love you enough when you grew up should be.
LOL - it signifies an excerpt from the original article...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.