Deduction of Nutritional Supplements/Aspirin on Physician's Recommendation?
njoracle
the cost of nutritional supplements unless they are recommended for
treatment for a specific medical condition diagnosed by a physician.
Because of a heart attack and the insertion of stents on two separate
occasions, my cardiologist recommends Omega fish oil and Cholest Off to
reduce my level of cholesterol in order to reduce the chances of a
future heart attack or a stroke.
Based on my reading of Pub 502, the cost of these should be deductible.
Is that correct?
I also take Plavix (prescription drug) and aspirin (non prescription) to
treat the same condition. Pub 502 specifically states that aspirin is
not deductible but I'm wondering if it is deductible under the same
conditions mentioned above.
Any thoughts?
--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
<< The foregoing was not intended or written to be used, >>
<< nor can it used, for the purpose of avoiding penalties >>
<< that may be imposed upon the taxpayer. >>
<< >>
<< The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting posts >>
<< to this newsgroup as well as our anti-spamming policy >>
<< are at www.asktax.org. >>
<< Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. >>
<< ------------------------------------------------------- >>
John Fisher
> << � � � � Copyright (2007) - All rights reserved. � � � � >>
> << ------------------------------------------------------- >>
Over the counter drugs are not deductible even with a doctor's
prescription. If your doctor gives you a prescription that must be
filled by a pharmacist, that medication would be deductible. However,
in the case of employer sponsored health care plans, both prescription
and non-prescription drugs may be reimbursed.
Salmon Egg
<cbd46d09-dbf8-43ea...@m13g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
John Fisher <TaxSe...@aol.com> wrote:
> Over the counter drugs are not deductible even with a doctor's
> prescription. If your doctor gives you a prescription that must be
> filled by a pharmacist, that medication would be deductible. However,
> in the case of employer sponsored health care plans, both prescription
> and non-prescription drugs may be reimbursed.
Many, many hears ago, I got a prescription for Ecotrin from a physician
that was filled by a pharmacist. At that time, I did not know that
Ecotrin was an enteric coated aspirin that was available OTC as branded
and generic products. The big surprise was how little the prescription
cost. All the pharmacist did was to get and OTC product and put the
pharmacy's label over the original label.
There still are many drugs available in both OTC and prescription
strength. For me the prices of the generic house brands are low enough
so that the record keeping is not worth the trivial tax saving.
Nevertheless, it may be possible to get your physician to prescribe the
higher dose and break the tablets into smaller pieces. I have made no
study to determine what my costs would be if I took such action.
I presume that under such circumstances, those drugs would be detectible.
Bill
--
An old man would be better off never having been born.
Russ in San Diego
> On Nov 27, 5:39 pm, njoracle <njora...@invalid.domain> wrote:
>
>
>
> > IRS publication 502 states that you cannot include in medical expenses
> > the cost of nutritional supplements unless they are recommended for
> > treatment for a specific medical condition diagnosed by a physician.
>
> > Because of a heart attack and the insertion of stents on two separate
> > occasions, my cardiologist recommends Omega fish oil and Cholest Off to
> > reduce my level of cholesterol in order to reduce the chances of a
> > future heart attack or a stroke.
>
> > Based on my reading of Pub 502, the cost of these should be deductible.
> > Is that correct?
>
> > I also take Plavix (prescription drug) and aspirin (non prescription) to
> > treat the same condition. Pub 502 specifically states that aspirin is
> > not deductible but I'm wondering if it is deductible under the same
> > conditions mentioned above.
> > Any thoughts?
>
> prescription. �If your doctor gives you a prescription that must be
> filled by a pharmacist, that medication would be deductible. �However,
> in the case of employer sponsored health care plans, both prescription
> and non-prescription drugs may be reimbursed.
That's ironic. You can spend Part 125 ("cafeteria") funds on over-the-
counter nutritional supplements if you have a doctor's orders.
Analgesics such as aspirin and ibuprofen can also be reimbursed from
those funds -- and no doctor's orders are required. Same for cold
remedies, etc.
njoracle
> On Nov 27, 5:39�pm, njoracle<njora...@invalid.domain> wrote:
>
> Over the counter drugs are not deductible even with a doctor's
> prescription. If your doctor gives you a prescription that must be
> filled by a pharmacist, that medication would be deductible. However,
> in the case of employer sponsored health care plans, both prescription
> and non-prescription drugs may be reimbursed.
>
deductible under certain conditions:
Quote from Pub 502
"You cannot include in medical expenses the cost of nutritional
supplements, vitamins, herbal supplements, “natural
medicines,” etc. unless they are recommended by a medical
practitioner as treatment for a specific medical condition
diagnosed by a physician. Otherwise, these items are
taken to maintain your ordinary good health, and are not
for medical care."
Does that not say that you can include as medical expenses the cost of
nutritional supplements if they are recommended as treatment for a
specific medical condition diagnosed by a physician?
Herb Smith
> John Fisher wrote:
>
> > Over the counter drugs are not deductible even with a doctor's
> > filled by a pharmacist, that medication would be deductible. �However,
> > in the case of employer sponsored health care plans, both prescription
> > and non-prescription drugs may be reimbursed.
>
> Seems to me that the following section of Pub 502 says they are
> deductible under certain conditions:
>
> Quote from Pub 502
>
> "You cannot include in medical expenses the cost of nutritional
> medicines,� etc. unless they are recommended by a medical
> practitioner as treatment for a specific medical condition
> diagnosed by a physician. Otherwise, these items are
> taken to maintain your ordinary good health, and are not
> for medical care."
>
> Does that not say that you can include as medical expenses the cost of
> nutritional supplements if they are recommended as treatment for a
> specific medical condition diagnosed by a physician?
The real question, which you appear to ignore, is what is the
"specific medical condition" these OTC supplements are intended to
"treat"? urely, not the heart attack.
njoracle
> On Nov 28, 1:36 am, njoracle<njora...@invalid.domain> wrote:
>> John Fisher wrote:
>>
>>> Over the counter drugs are not deductible even with a doctor's
>>> filled by a pharmacist, that medication would be deductible. However,
>>> in the case of employer sponsored health care plans, both prescription
>>> and non-prescription drugs may be reimbursed.
>>
>> Seems to me that the following section of Pub 502 says they are
>> deductible under certain conditions:
>>
>> Quote from Pub 502
>>
>> "You cannot include in medical expenses the cost of nutritional
>> supplements, vitamins, herbal supplements, �natural
>> medicines,� etc. unless they are recommended by a medical
>> practitioner as treatment for a specific medical condition
>> diagnosed by a physician. Otherwise, these items are
>> taken to maintain your ordinary good health, and are not
>> for medical care."
>>
>> Does that not say that you can include as medical expenses the cost of
>> nutritional supplements if they are recommended as treatment for a
>> specific medical condition diagnosed by a physician?
>
> The real question, which you appear to ignore, is what is the
> "specific medical condition" these OTC supplements are intended to
> "treat"? urely, not the heart attack.
>
cholosterol is too high and if I don't get it under control, it could
lead to another heart attack or stroke. He says that the supplements
will reduce the cholosterol. I guess the question is "too high
cholosterol" considered to be a "specific medical condition" or not?
dpb
...
> The real question, which you appear to ignore, is what is the
> "specific medical condition" these OTC supplements are intended to
> "treat"? urely, not the heart attack.
OP indicated treating physician recommended them for aiding in
controlling cholesterol levels...that not specific-enough?
--
Alan
> IRS publication 502 states that you cannot include in medical expenses
> the cost of nutritional supplements unless they are recommended for
> treatment for a specific medical condition diagnosed by a physician.
>
> Because of a heart attack and the insertion of stents on two separate
> occasions, my cardiologist recommends Omega fish oil and Cholest Off to
> reduce my level of cholesterol in order to reduce the chances of a
> future heart attack or a stroke.
>
> Based on my reading of Pub 502, the cost of these should be deductible.
> Is that correct?
>
> I also take Plavix (prescription drug) and aspirin (non prescription) to
> treat the same condition. Pub 502 specifically states that aspirin is
> not deductible but I'm wondering if it is deductible under the same
> conditions mentioned above.
> Any thoughts?
>
Pub 502. High cholesterol levels are not by itself a medical
condition. However, if one has had a heart attack and one's
licensed physician decides that you are at risk for another heart
attack unless you reduce your bad cholesterol and/or increase
your good cholesterol and prescribes any of the statins or
bile-acid resin drugs, those Rx drugs would be tax deductible. In
the same vein, if that physician decides that the prescription
drug is not necessary to accomplish the goal and prescribes that
you take a certain regimen of nutritional supplements that have
shown to accomplish the same outcome, the cost of those
supplements would also be tax deductible as they are being
prescribed to treat a diagnosed medical condition.
Reggie
"Alan" <sfcn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:heseqe$82f$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> njoracle wrote:
>> IRS publication 502 states that you cannot include in medical expenses
>> the cost of nutritional supplements unless they are recommended for
>> treatment for a specific medical condition diagnosed by a physician.
>>
>> Because of a heart attack and the insertion of stents on two separate
>> occasions, my cardiologist recommends Omega fish oil and Cholest Off to
>> reduce my level of cholesterol in order to reduce the chances of a future
>> heart attack or a stroke.
>>
>> Based on my reading of Pub 502, the cost of these should be deductible.
>> Is that correct?
>>
>> I also take Plavix (prescription drug) and aspirin (non prescription) to
>> treat the same condition. Pub 502 specifically states that aspirin is not
>> deductible but I'm wondering if it is deductible under the same
>> conditions mentioned above.
>> Any thoughts?
>>
> The definition of a medical expense is at the top of page 3 of Pub 502.
> High cholesterol levels are not by itself a medical condition. However, if
> one has had a heart attack and one's licensed physician decides that you
> are at risk for another heart attack unless you reduce your bad
> cholesterol and/or increase your good cholesterol and prescribes any of
> the statins or bile-acid resin drugs, those Rx drugs would be tax
> deductible.
I see nothing in Pub 502 that says you must first have a heart attack to
permit the deduction of supplies recommended by a physician to lower
cholesterol.
Ron Rosenfeld
>The definition of a medical expense is at the top of page 3 of
>Pub 502. High cholesterol levels are not by itself a medical
>condition.
I would disagree with that statement, but maybe the IRS uses different
criteria for "disease" than do physicians, researchers and insurance
companies?
I'm not a tax professional but I am a cardiologist (retired).
As you point out, Pub 502 allows medical expenses for "diagnosis, cure,
mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease"
The OP stated he has an elevated cholesterol diagnosed by a physician. This
is listed as a disease in the ICD9-CM (The International Classification of
Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification). It is a subset of 272 and
is included in 272.0 (Pure hypercholesterolemia) and 272.2 (mixed
hyperlipidemia).
ICD9-CM is used to classify diseases for the purpose of various studies, as
well as for Medicare and other insurance purposes, and is generally
accepted world wide, although soon will be replaced by ICD10-CM.
Does the IRS use a different source to determine what is or is not a
disease?
--ron
D. Stussy
news:hep59r$2u4$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> IRS publication 502 states that you cannot include in medical expenses
> the cost of nutritional supplements unless they are recommended for
> treatment for a specific medical condition diagnosed by a physician.
>
> Because of a heart attack and the insertion of stents on two separate
> occasions, my cardiologist recommends Omega fish oil and Cholest Off to
> reduce my level of cholesterol in order to reduce the chances of a
> future heart attack or a stroke.
>
> Based on my reading of Pub 502, the cost of these should be deductible.
> Is that correct?
>
> I also take Plavix (prescription drug) and aspirin (non prescription) to
> treat the same condition. Pub 502 specifically states that aspirin is
> not deductible but I'm wondering if it is deductible under the same
> conditions mentioned above.
> Any thoughts?
Note that what is deductible on Form 1040 Schedule A as a medical expense
is not the same as what may be covered via an employer's FSA, Archer MSA,
or an HSA.
njoracle
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 19:21:38 EST, Alan<sfcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> The OP stated he has an elevated cholesterol diagnosed by a physician. This
> is listed as a disease in the ICD9-CM (The International Classification of
> Diseases, 9th Revision, Clinical Modification). It is a subset of 272 and
> is included in 272.0 (Pure hypercholesterolemia) and 272.2 (mixed
> hyperlipidemia).
>
Triglycerids went from 220 to 114, LDL from 85 to 58 and HDL about 50 no
change (maybe I need some Niacin) over the last 4 years when I first
started taking the supplements recommended by my cardiologist. I had
already been taking statins, plavix and aspirin.
> ICD9-CM is used to classify diseases for the purpose of various studies, as
> well as for Medicare and other insurance purposes, and is generally
> accepted world wide, although soon will be replaced by ICD10-CM.
It would be nice if Medicare Part D would cover these supplements but
that's not likely to happen any time soon.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Quote from Pub 502
>
> "You cannot include in medical expenses the cost of nutritional
> supplements, vitamins, herbal supplements, “natural
> medicines,” etc. unless they are recommended by a medical
> practitioner as treatment for a specific medical condition
> diagnosed by a physician. Otherwise, these items are
> taken to maintain your ordinary good health, and are not
> for medical care."
>
> Does that not say that you can include as medical expenses the
> cost of nutritional supplements if they are recommended as
> treatment for a specific medical condition diagnosed by a
> physician?
My recollection is that the real question is whether you're doing it
for general health or to relieve a specific medical condition. If
the former it's not deductible, if the latter, it is.
--
Stu
http://downtoearthlawyer.com
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Sorry, I should have made that clear. The cardiologist says that
> my cholosterol is too high and if I don't get it under control,
> it could lead to another heart attack or stroke. He says that
> the supplements will reduce the cholosterol. I guess the
> question is "too high cholosterol" considered to be a "specific
> medical condition" or not?
Seems to me that treating high cholesterol is not for general health
but for a specific medical condition.
--
Stu
http://downtoearthlawyer.com
Ron Rosenfeld
>It would be nice if Medicare Part D would cover these supplements but
>that's not likely to happen any time soon.
Medicare Part D was set up specifically to cover "**Prescription** Drugs".
It was never intended to cover "anything recommended to treat a medical
disease that's not covered someplace else".
As such, it was an expansion to regular Medicare coverage. I suppose
someone could do the actuarial work to determine what it would cost to
insure for non-prescription drug coverage, dietary supplements, etc. I
suspect the cost for such coverage would be excessive.
jo
supplements for someone who has Osteopenia/Osteoporsis.
Since there is no cure, just management, of dry mouth/eyes from
Sjogren's Syndrome, would the wetting agents (sprays, drops and
mouthwashes) recommended by the physicians treating me be accepted as
legitimate medical deductions? They are all OTC.
D. Stussy
news:0ed659fb-c780-4d47...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> So I would assume that one could deduct the cost of Calcium
> supplements for someone who has Osteopenia/Osteoporsis.
Certainly NOT.
One can have an FSA pay for it, but one cannot deduct it on Schedule A.
> Since there is no cure, just management, of dry mouth/eyes from
> Sjogren's Syndrome, would the wetting agents (sprays, drops and
> mouthwashes) recommended by the physicians treating me be accepted as
> legitimate medical deductions? They are all OTC.
OTC drugs are not deductible, period.
Salmon Egg
"D. Stussy" <spam+ne...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
> OTC drugs are not deductible, period.
Just recently, my primary care physician gave mer a prescription for
ferrous sulfate in a strength corresponding to a nutritional supplement
for iron deficiency. It was more to remind me what to get than to
actually get filled. If in my ignorance, I turned it into a pharmacy to
get filled, I suppose, I could report it as a deduction. I am sure that
the chances of getting nailed by the IRS for the penny ante indiscretion
is practically nil. I am curious,however, what the legal status would
be. I have never reached a situation in which drug costs were high
enough to warrant entry on Schedule A.
As a matter of principle, I am more than willing to pay a little extra
just so as not to feed the avarice of main line drug companies. That is
why I like OTC and generic drugs. I am no longer a member of Costco, but
I can still enter a Costco store to patronize their pharmacy. It is hard
to beat their prices for prescription drugs in the USA. Their own house
brands of OTC medications are also hard to beat, but I have not tried to
enter a Costco for that purpose.
For many of the more expensive prescription drugs, importing them from
Canada or other foreign countries can usually be done at about half
price. I am not sure what their legal status is. Are such prescription
costs deductible? That is why I am still upset with the little Bush
administration's Medicare Part D. Instead of negotiation for better
prices, it became a socialistic program to subsidize drug companies.
Bill
--
An old man would be better off never having been born.
--
HLunsford
> So I would assume that one could deduct the cost of Calcium
> supplements for someone who has Osteopenia/Osteoporsis.
>
> Since there is no cure, just management, of dry mouth/eyes from
> Sjogren's Syndrome, would the wetting agents (sprays, drops and
> mouthwashes) recommended by the physicians treating me be accepted as
> legitimate medical deductions? They are all OTC.
>
just made a supply run over to the package store for Scotch whiskey.
ChEAr$,
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA
Arthur Kamlet
Salmon Egg <Salm...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>In article <hfd3d1$gle$1...@snarked.org>,
> "D. Stussy" <spam+ne...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
>
>> OTC drugs are not deductible, period.
>
>Just recently, my primary care physician gave mer a prescription for
>ferrous sulfate in a strength corresponding to a nutritional supplement
>for iron deficiency. It was more to remind me what to get than to
>actually get filled. If in my ignorance, I turned it into a pharmacy to
>get filled, I suppose, I could report it as a deduction. I am sure that
>the chances of getting nailed by the IRS for the penny ante indiscretion
>is practically nil. I am curious,however, what the legal status would
>be. I have never reached a situation in which drug costs were high
>enough to warrant entry on Schedule A.
That happened to me yesteday.
An Iron supplement, 325 mg, 60 tablets, $2.49.
I had to ask the pharmacist for this, and it was filled in a nice
little pharmacy bottle complete with child proof cap, and a
pharmacy label, but no Rx number. And that $2.49 is not going
to find its way to a Schedule A.
But if you have a healthcare reimbursement plan or an HSA plan
you can almost certainly claim it there.
>As a matter of principle, I am more than willing to pay a little extra
>just so as not to feed the avarice of main line drug companies. That is
>why I like OTC and generic drugs. I am no longer a member of Costco, but
>I can still enter a Costco store to patronize their pharmacy. It is hard
>to beat their prices for prescription drugs in the USA. Their own house
>brands of OTC medications are also hard to beat, but I have not tried to
>enter a Costco for that purpose.
>
>For many of the more expensive prescription drugs, importing them from
>Canada or other foreign countries can usually be done at about half
>price. I am not sure what their legal status is. Are such prescription
>costs deductible?
In general, No.
Here is what 2009 Pub 502 says:
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf page 16
Medicines and Drugs From Other
Countries
In general, you cannot include in your medical expenses
the cost of a prescribed drug brought in (or ordered/
shipped) from another country. You can only include the
cost of a drug that was imported legally. For example, you
can include the cost of a prescribed drug the Food and
Drug Administration announces can be legally imported by
individuals.
You can include the cost of a prescribed drug you
purchase and consume in another country if the drug is
legal in both the other country and the United States.
--
ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH
Arthur Kamlet
HLunsford <hlun...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>jo wrote:
>> So I would assume that one could deduct the cost of Calcium
>> supplements for someone who has Osteopenia/Osteoporsis.
>>
>> Since there is no cure, just management, of dry mouth/eyes from
>> Sjogren's Syndrome, would the wetting agents (sprays, drops and
>> mouthwashes) recommended by the physicians treating me be accepted as
>> legitimate medical deductions? They are all OTC.
>>
>Ah yes, and so it the medicine I take to keep the blood thin, in fact
>just made a supply run over to the package store for Scotch whiskey.
Et tu, Harlan? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
That you would borrow one of those unwanted and unnecessary E's!
Now had you mentioned Irish whiskey, useful for making piping
hot coffee more drinkable, no one would have noticed.
--
ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH
--
removep...@yahoo.com
> In article <SalmonEgg-006AB1.10243305122...@news60.forteinc.com>,
> >In article <hfd3d1$gl...@snarked.org>,
> > "D. Stussy" <spam+newsgro...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
>
> >> OTC drugs are not deductible, period.
>
> >Just recently, my primary care physician gave mer a prescription for
> >ferrous sulfate in a strength corresponding to a nutritional supplement
> >for iron deficiency. It was more to remind me what to get than to
> >actually get filled. If in my ignorance, I turned it into a pharmacy to
> >get filled, I suppose, I could report it as a deduction. I am sure that
> >the chances of getting nailed by the IRS for the penny ante indiscretion
> >is practically nil. I am curious,however, what the legal status would
> >be. I have never reached a situation in which drug costs were high
> >enough to warrant entry on Schedule A.
>
> That happened to me yesteday.
>
> An Iron supplement, 325 mg, 60 tablets, $2.49.
>
> I had to ask the pharmacist for this, and it was filled in a nice
> little pharmacy bottle complete with child proof cap, and a
> pharmacy label, but no Rx number. � And that $2.49 is not going
> to find its way to a Schedule A.
But it's prescribed by a doctor for a specific medical condition.
> But if you have a healthcare reimbursement plan or an HSA plan
> you can almost certainly claim it there.
> >For many of the more expensive prescription drugs, importing them from
> >Canada or other foreign countries can usually be done at about half
> >price. I am not sure what their legal status is. Are such prescription
> >costs deductible?
>
> In general, No.
>
> Here is what 2009 Pub 502 says:
>
> http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf�page 16
>
> Medicines and Drugs From Other
> Countries
>
> In general, you cannot include in your medical expenses
> the cost of a prescribed drug brought in (or ordered/
> shipped) from another country. You can only include the
> cost of a drug that was imported legally. For example, you
> can include the cost of a prescribed drug the Food and
> Drug Administration announces can be legally imported by
> individuals.
>
> � You can include the cost of a prescribed drug you
> purchase and consume in another country if the drug is
> legal in both the other country and the United States.
But importing the drug/medicine from Canada -- is that illegal?
Arthur Kamlet
removep...@yahoo.com <removep...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 5, 11:30�am, kam...@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) wrote:
>
>> In article <SalmonEgg-006AB1.10243305122...@news60.forteinc.com>,
>> >In article <hfd3d1$gl...@snarked.org>,
>> > "D. Stussy" <spam+newsgro...@bde-arc.ampr.org> wrote:
>>
>> >> OTC drugs are not deductible, period.
>>
>> >Just recently, my primary care physician gave mer a prescription for
>> >ferrous sulfate in a strength corresponding to a nutritional supplement
>> >for iron deficiency. It was more to remind me what to get than to
>> >actually get filled. If in my ignorance, I turned it into a pharmacy to
>> >get filled, I suppose, I could report it as a deduction. I am sure that
>> >the chances of getting nailed by the IRS for the penny ante indiscretion
>> >is practically nil. I am curious,however, what the legal status would
>> >be. I have never reached a situation in which drug costs were high
>> >enough to warrant entry on Schedule A.
>>
>> That happened to me yesteday.
>>
>> An Iron supplement, 325 mg, 60 tablets, $2.49.
>>
>> I had to ask the pharmacist for this, and it was filled in a nice
>> little pharmacy bottle complete with child proof cap, and a
>> pharmacy label, but no Rx number. � And that $2.49 is not going
>> to find its way to a Schedule A.
>
>But it's prescribed by a doctor for a specific medical condition.
That does not make it deductible on Schedule A:
2009 Pub 502 page 12 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf
Medicines
You can include in medical expenses amounts you pay for
prescribed medicines and drugs. A prescribed drug is one
that requires a prescription by a doctor for its use by an
individual. You can also include amounts you pay for
insulin. Except for insulin, you cannot include in medical
expenses amounts you pay for a drug that is not pre-
scribed.
>> But if you have a healthcare reimbursement plan or an HSA plan
>> you can almost certainly claim it there.
>
>
>> >For many of the more expensive prescription drugs, importing them from
>> >Canada or other foreign countries can usually be done at about half
>> >price. I am not sure what their legal status is. Are such prescription
>> >costs deductible?
>>
>> In general, No.
>>
>> Here is what 2009 Pub 502 says:
>>
>> http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf�page 16
>>
>> Medicines and Drugs From Other
>> Countries
>>
>> In general, you cannot include in your medical expenses
>> the cost of a prescribed drug brought in (or ordered/
>> shipped) from another country. You can only include the
>> cost of a drug that was imported legally. For example, you
>> can include the cost of a prescribed drug the Food and
>> Drug Administration announces can be legally imported by
>> individuals.
>>
>> � You can include the cost of a prescribed drug you
>> purchase and consume in another country if the drug is
>> legal in both the other country and the United States.
>
>But importing the drug/medicine from Canada -- is that illegal?
For an individual. without whatever permits or licenses might
be required? I suspect so, based on how Pub 402 phrases this.
--
ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH
--
Ron Rosenfeld
>That does not make it deductible on Schedule A:
>
>2009 Pub 502 page 12 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf
>
>Medicines
>
>You can include in medical expenses amounts you pay for
>prescribed medicines and drugs. A prescribed drug is one
>that requires a prescription by a doctor for its use by an
>individual. You can also include amounts you pay for
>insulin. Except for insulin, you cannot include in medical
>expenses amounts you pay for a drug that is not pre-
>scribed.
But Arthur, couldn't you also interpret 502 as allowing the deduction of
certain supplements that do not fall under that paragraph you quoted:
=========================================
Nutritional Supplements
You cannot include in medical expenses the cost of nutritional supplements,
vitamins, herbal supplements, �natural medicines,� etc. unless they are
recommended by a medical practitioner as treatment for a specific medical
condition diagnosed by a physician.
========================================
Since this paragraph uses the term "unless", does that not imply that if
they are "recommended" (note the use of recommended and not prescribed)
that they can be deducted?
So now the questions with regard to deductibility of your Iron would be
1. Is your iron supplement a "nutritional supplement, vitamin,
etc"?
2. Was it recommended by your medical practitioner for a "specific
medical condition" that was "diagnosed by a physician".
It seems to me that if the answers to both those questions was "Yes", then
the cost would be deductible.
--ron
Arthur Kamlet
OK -- I'll back off and say if you had a physician's written statement
that described the speciic medical condition this supplement was
designed to aleviate or stabilize, how it would do that, and listed
the amount and dosage, I would go along with that.
--
ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH
--
removep...@yahoo.com
> Ron Rosenfeld �<ronrosenf...@nospam.org> wrote:
> >On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 21:06:26 EST, kam...@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) wrote:
> >>That does not make it deductible on Schedule A:
>
> >>2009 Pub 502 page 12http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf
>
> >>Medicines
>
> >>You can include in medical expenses amounts you pay for
> >>prescribed medicines and drugs. A prescribed drug is one
> >>that requires a prescription by a doctor for its use by an
> >>individual. You can also include amounts you pay for
> >>insulin. Except for insulin, you cannot include in medical
> >>expenses amounts you pay for a drug that is not pre-
> >>scribed.
>
> >But Arthur, couldn't you also interpret 502 as allowing the deduction of
> >certain supplements that do not fall under that paragraph you quoted:
>
> >=========================================
> >Nutritional Supplements
> >You cannot include in medical expenses the cost of nutritional supplements,
> >vitamins, herbal supplements, �natural medicines,� etc. unless they are
> >recommended by a medical practitioner as treatment for a specific medical
> >condition diagnosed by a physician.
> >========================================
The above sounds reasonable. But I started to read the actual law. I
think this is section 213. Where in this short text does it say that
nutritional supplements are allowed?
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00000213----000-.html
They only talked of prescribed drugs:
(3) Prescribed drug.� The term �prescribed drug� means a drug or
biological which requires a prescription of a physician for its use by
an individual.
> >Since this paragraph uses the term "unless", does that not imply that if
> >they are "recommended" (note the use of recommended and not prescribed)
> >that they can be deducted?
>
> >So now the questions with regard to deductibility of your Iron would be
> > � �1. �Is your iron supplement a "nutritional supplement, vitamin,
> >etc"?
> > � �2. �Was it recommended by your medical practitioner for a "specific
> >medical condition" that was "diagnosed by a physician".
>
> >It seems to me that if the answers to both those questions was "Yes", then
> >the cost would be deductible.
>
> OK -- I'll back off and say if you had a physician's written statement
> that described the speciic medical condition this supplement was
> designed to aleviate or stabilize, how it would do that, and listed
> the amount and dosage, I would go along with that.
The question is not whether you will back off, but whether the IRS
will back off.
HLunsford
> In article <hfebs3$k5m$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> HLunsford <hlun...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Ah yes, and so it the medicine I take to keep the blood thin, in fact
>> just made a supply run over to the package store for Scotch whiskey.
>
>
> Et tu, Harlan? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
>
> That you would borrow one of those unwanted and unnecessary E's!
>
>
> Now had you mentioned Irish whiskey, useful for making piping
> hot coffee more drinkable, no one would have noticed.
You'd think I had Vanna White at my beck and call, what with using the
"e". But then we've already established on this bored that I can't spel.
ChEAr$,
Harlan
Ron Rosenfeld
>The above sounds reasonable. But I started to read the actual law. I
>think this is section 213. Where in this short text does it say that
>nutritional supplements are allowed?
I'm no attorney, but I would think that would fall under the category of
"medical care"
There is a "Limitation with respect to medicine and drugs". But a
nutritional supplement is not a "medicine or drug". If it were, the IRS
would not have to have regulations stating that the use cannot be deducted
unless certain conditions are met.
--ron
jo
> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 16:53:58 EST, "removeps-gro...@yahoo.com"
>
> <removeps-gro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >The above sounds reasonable. �But I started to read the actual law. �I
> >think this is section 213. �Where in this short text does it say that
> >nutritional supplements are allowed?
>
> I'm no attorney, but I would think that would fall under the category of
>
> "medical care"
>
> There is a "Limitation with respect to medicine and drugs". �But a
> nutritional supplement is not a "medicine or drug". �If it were, the IRS
> would not have to have regulations stating that the use cannot be deducted
> unless certain conditions are met.
> --ron
I'm confused. First there seemed to be general, if reluctant,
agreement that the law says OTC items were deductible on Schedule A if
they were required for treatment of a specific disease. Then a couple
posters stated emphatically that my calcium supplements for osteopenia/
osteoporsis wouldn't qualify. So which is it, guys?
Over the years, I've seen the passage that the yea-sayers are quoting
somewhere online, but of course when I call IRS they claim no
knowledge of it. I'm only talking about a couple hundred $ if that,
but every little bit helps.
HLunsford
> On Dec 6, 9:16 pm, Ron Rosenfeld <ronrosenf...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 6 Dec 2009 16:53:58 EST, "removeps-gro...@yahoo.com"
>>
>> <removeps-gro...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> The above sounds reasonable. But I started to read the actual law. I
>>> think this is section 213. Where in this short text does it say that
>>> nutritional supplements are allowed?
>> I'm no attorney, but I would think that would fall under the category of
>>
>> "medical care"
>>
>> There is a "Limitation with respect to medicine and drugs". But a
>> nutritional supplement is not a "medicine or drug". If it were, the IRS
>> would not have to have regulations stating that the use cannot be deducted
>> unless certain conditions are met.
>> --ron
>
> I'm confused. First there seemed to be general, if reluctant,
> agreement that the law says OTC items were deductible on Schedule A if
> they were required for treatment of a specific disease. Then a couple
> posters stated emphatically that my calcium supplements for osteopenia/
> osteoporsis wouldn't qualify. So which is it, guys?
> Over the years, I've seen the passage that the yea-sayers are quoting
> somewhere online, but of course when I call IRS they claim no
> knowledge of it. I'm only talking about a couple hundred $ if that,
> but every little bit helps.
>
Over the counter medication, even though prescribed by a doctor, is not
deductible.
--
Holiday ChEAr$!
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA
--
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Over the counter medication, even though prescribed by a doctor,
> is not deductible.
Even if it is to treat a specific medical problem rather than to
better general health?
--
Stu
http://downtoearthlawyer.com
Ron Rosenfeld
wrote:
>Over the counter medication, even though prescribed by a doctor, is not
>deductible.
But it seems that "nutritional supplements" are deductible, else why would
there be this in Pub 502?
=====================
Nutritional Supplements
You cannot include in medical expenses the cost of nutritional supplements,
vitamins, herbal supplements, �natural medicines,� etc. unless they are
recommended by a medical practitioner as treatment for a specific medical
condition diagnosed by a physician.
====================
In jo's case, he has *specific medical conditions* (osteoporosis/osteopenia
and Sj�gren's syndrome).
His calcium supplements and various wetting agents were apparently
*recommended by a medical practitioner as treatment* for these conditions.
So wouldn't the question would be whether jo's non-prescription calcium
supplements for osteopenia/osteoporosis and wetting agents for Sj�grens are
a "nutritional supplement, vitamin, herbal supplement, natural medicine,
etc."?
--ron
D. Stussy
news:Xns9CE1F1C116D65s...@130.133.1.4...
> HLunsford <hlun...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Over the counter medication, even though prescribed by a doctor,
> > is not deductible.
>
> Even if it is to treat a specific medical problem rather than to
> better general health?
Still not deductible. However, some FSAs may cover it.
jo
wrote:
> "Stuart A. Bronstein" <spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote in messagenews:Xns9CE1F1C116D65s...@130.133.1.4...
>
> > HLunsford <hlunsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > > Over the counter medication, even though prescribed by a doctor,
> > > is not deductible.
>
> > Even if it is to treat a specific medical problem rather than to
> > better general health?
>
> Still not deductible. �However, some FSAs may cover it.
If not deductible for specific diseases, why is it even talked about
as such in 502? Calcium isn't an OTC drug, it's a nutritional
supplement BTW. No FSA --- I'm on Medicare and long past working
ability.
jo
Alan
> On Dec 15, 9:35 am, "D. Stussy"<spam+newsgro...@bde-arc.ampr.org>
> wrote:
>> "Stuart A. Bronstein"<spamt...@lexregia.com> wrote in messagenews:Xns9CE1F1C116D65s...@130.133.1.4...
>>
>>> HLunsford<hlunsf...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> Over the counter medication, even though prescribed by a doctor,
>>>> is not deductible.
>>
>>> Even if it is to treat a specific medical problem rather than to
>>> better general health?
>>
>> Still not deductible. However, some FSAs may cover it.
>
> If not deductible for specific diseases, why is it even talked about
> as such in 502? Calcium isn't an OTC drug, it's a nutritional
> supplement BTW. No FSA --- I'm on Medicare and long past working
> ability.
>
> jo
>
(1) Are amounts paid by an individual for medicines that may be
purchased without a prescription of a physician deductible under
� 213 of the Internal Revenue Code?
(2) Are amounts paid by an individual for equipment, supplies, or
diagnostic devices that may be purchased without a prescription
of a physician deductible under � 213?
Answered:
(1) Amounts paid by an individual for medicines or drugs that may
be purchased without a prescription of a physician are not taken
into account pursuant to � 213(b) and are not deductible under �
213.
[Note there is an exception for insulin.]
(2) Amounts paid by an individual for equipment, supplies, or
diagnostic devices may be expenses for medical care deductible
under � 213 (subject to the other limitations of that section).
In this instance it was referring to that part of the section
(Section 213(d) that allows a deduction for "the diagnosis, cure,
mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or for the
purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body,".
I interpret all of this to mean that nonprescription medicines
and drugs (don't ask me for the definition of what is a
nonprescription medicine or drug) are not deductible. Other items
that a doctor prescribes as treatment for a specific medical
condition, such as nutritional supplements, vitamins, herbal
supplements, �natural medicines,� etc. are tax deductible.
Stuart A. Bronstein
> jo wrote:
>>
>> If not deductible for specific diseases, why is it even talked
>> about as such in 502? Calcium isn't an OTC drug, it's a
>> nutritional supplement BTW. No FSA --- I'm on Medicare and
>> long past working ability.
>>
> (1) Are amounts paid by an individual for medicines that may be
> purchased without a prescription of a physician deductible under
[snip]
> I interpret all of this to mean that nonprescription medicines
> and drugs (don't ask me for the definition of what is a
> nonprescription medicine or drug) are not deductible. Other
> items that a doctor prescribes as treatment for a specific
> medical condition, such as nutritional supplements, vitamins,
> herbal supplements, �natural medicines,� etc. are tax
> deductible.
Unfortunately, that analysis (the IRS's, not yours) is not
supported either by the Code or the Regulations. The Code only
says that if it's medicine or drugs, they must be prescribed.
There is no requirement that they be prescription only.
It would arguably be valid for the IRS to issue regulations saying
that medicine and drugs would have to be by prescription only to be
deductible. But the regulations don't say that. The regulations
say,
"The term medicine and drugs shall include only items which are
legally procured and which are generally accepted as falling within
the category of medicine and drugs (whether or not requiring a
prescription)." Treas. Reg. � 1.213-1(e)(1)(6)(2).
Seems to me that any revenue ruling that says drugs must be
prescription only is simply wrong.
--
Stu
http://downtoearthlawyer.com
Alan
> Alan<sfcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> jo wrote:
>>>
>>> If not deductible for specific diseases, why is it even talked
>>> about as such in 502? Calcium isn't an OTC drug, it's a
>>> nutritional supplement BTW. No FSA --- I'm on Medicare and
>>> long past working ability.
>>>
>> A Revenue Ruling in 2003 (2003-58) asked:
>> (1) Are amounts paid by an individual for medicines that may be
>> purchased without a prescription of a physician deductible under
>
> [snip]
>
>> I interpret all of this to mean that nonprescription medicines
>> and drugs (don't ask me for the definition of what is a
>> nonprescription medicine or drug) are not deductible. Other
>> items that a doctor prescribes as treatment for a specific
>> medical condition, such as nutritional supplements, vitamins,
>> deductible.
>
> Unfortunately, that analysis (the IRS's, not yours) is not
> supported either by the Code or the Regulations. The Code only
> says that if it's medicine or drugs, they must be prescribed.
> There is no requirement that they be prescription only.
>
> It would arguably be valid for the IRS to issue regulations saying
> that medicine and drugs would have to be by prescription only to be
> deductible. But the regulations don't say that. The regulations
> say,
>
> "The term medicine and drugs shall include only items which are
> legally procured and which are generally accepted as falling within
> the category of medicine and drugs (whether or not requiring a
>
> Seems to me that any revenue ruling that says drugs must be
> prescription only is simply wrong.
>
prescribed drugs:
213(b) Limitation with respect to medicine and drugs
An amount paid during the taxable year for medicine or a drug
shall be taken into account under subsection (a) only if such
medicine or drug is a prescribed drug or is insulin.
213(d) Definitions
(3) Prescribed drug. - The term ''prescribed drug'' means a
drug or biological which requires a prescription of a
physician
for its use by an individual.
(4) Physician. - The term ''physician'' has the meaning given
to such term by section 1861(r) of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 1395x(r)).
Lastly, those regulations are as old as Methuselah. The code was
changed after those Regs were published.
Stuart A. Bronstein
>
>> Seems to me that any revenue ruling that says drugs must be
>> prescription only is simply wrong.
>>
> The first thing we look at is the code. Sec 213 is quite clear
> on prescribed drugs:
>
> 213(d) Definitions
> (3) Prescribed drug. - The term ''prescribed drug'' means a
> drug or biological which requires a prescription of a
> physician for its use by an individual.
Thanks. I'm embarrassed that I didn't catch that.
> Lastly, those regulations are as old as Methuselah. The code was
> changed after those Regs were published.
That's irrelevant. To the extent there are no regulations properly
interpreting the statute, any reasonable interpretation would
suffice until a court says otherwise.
In this case, however, as you noted, the statute is clear, so the
regulation that is inconsistent with it should be ignored.
--
Stu
http://downtoearthlawyer.com
Alan
> Alan<sfcn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Seems to me that any revenue ruling that says drugs must be
>>> prescription only is simply wrong.
>>>
>> The first thing we look at is the code. Sec 213 is quite clear
>> on prescribed drugs:
>>
>> 213(d) Definitions
>> (3) Prescribed drug. - The term ''prescribed drug'' means a
>> drug or biological which requires a prescription of a
>> physician for its use by an individual.
>
> Thanks. I'm embarrassed that I didn't catch that.
>
>> Lastly, those regulations are as old as Methuselah. The code was
>> changed after those Regs were published.
>
> That's irrelevant. To the extent there are no regulations properly
> interpreting the statute, any reasonable interpretation would
> suffice until a court says otherwise.
>
> In this case, however, as you noted, the statute is clear, so the
> regulation that is inconsistent with it should be ignored.
>
have misinterpreted my point about the regs being old. All I was
trying to say was that for Sec. 213, the Regulations were out of
date as changes to Title 26, court decisions and the IRS's own
rulings have superseded them. THis is true for awhole bunch of
Regulations. If you relied upon the Regs for Sec. 152 as to who
is a dependent child, you would never get it right as our friends
in Congress continue to provide us with a moving target.
Charlie K
> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 21:06:26 EST, kam...@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) wrote:
> >That does not make it deductible on Schedule A:
>
>
> >Medicines
>
> >You can include in medical expenses amounts you pay for
> >prescribed medicines and drugs. A prescribed drug is one
> >that requires a prescription by a doctor for its use by an
> >individual. You can also include amounts you pay for
> >insulin. Except for insulin, you cannot include in medical
> >expenses amounts you pay for a drug that is not pre-
> >scribed.
>
> But Arthur, couldn't you also interpret 502 as allowing the deduction of
> certain supplements that do not fall under that paragraph you quoted:
>
> =========================================
> Nutritional Supplements
> You cannot include in medical expenses the cost of nutritional supplements,
> recommended by a medical practitioner as treatment for a specific medical
> condition diagnosed by a physician.
> ========================================
>
> Since this paragraph uses the term "unless", does that not imply that if
> they are "recommended" (note the use of recommended and not prescribed)
> that they can be deducted?
>
> So now the questions with regard to deductibility of your Iron would be
> etc"?
> � � � � 2. �Was it recommended by your medical practitioner for a "specific
> medical condition" that was "diagnosed by a physician".
>
> It seems to me that if the answers to both those questions was "Yes", then
> the cost would be deductible.
> --ron
According to IRS Revenue Ruling 2003-58, the law does limit the
deduction for medicine or drugs to those drugs that require a
prescription. Even when recommended (or prescribed) by a doctor,
medicines available over-the-counter are not deductible. The point is
you can buy them without a prescription. Read the Revenue Ruling. IRS
pubs are not authoritive.
Stuart A. Bronstein
>> Since this paragraph uses the term "unless", does that not
>> imply that if they are "recommended" (note the use of
>> recommended and not prescribed) that they can be deducted?
>>
>> So now the questions with regard to deductibility of your Iron
>> would be � � � � 1. �Is your iron supplement a "nutritional
>> supplement, vitamin, etc"?
>> � � � � 2. �Was it recommended by your medical practitioner for
>> a "specific medical condition" that was "diagnosed by a
>> physician".
>>
>> It seems to me that if the answers to both those questions was
>> "Yes", then the cost would be deductible.
>> --ron
>
> According to IRS Revenue Ruling 2003-58, the law does limit the
> deduction for medicine or drugs to those drugs that require a
> prescription. Even when recommended (or prescribed) by a doctor,
> medicines available over-the-counter are not deductible. The
> point is you can buy them without a prescription. Read the
> Revenue Ruling. IRS pubs are not authoritive.
With regard to medicines and drugs that's correct. If it's a
nutritional supplement rather than a medicine or drug, that
restriction apparently does not apply.
--
Stu
http://downtoearthlawyer.com
Wallace
"Charlie K" <Cha...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:b45b9ab7-16df-429e...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 6, 9:36 am, Ron Rosenfeld <ronrosenf...@nospam.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 5 Dec 2009 21:06:26 EST, kam...@panix.com (Arthur Kamlet) wrote:
>> >That does not make it deductible on Schedule A:
>>
>> >2009 Pub 502 page 12http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf
>>
>> >Medicines
>>
>> >You can include in medical expenses amounts you pay for
>> >prescribed medicines and drugs. A prescribed drug is one
>> >that requires a prescription by a doctor for its use by an
>> >individual. You can also include amounts you pay for
>> >insulin. Except for insulin, you cannot include in medical
>> >expenses amounts you pay for a drug that is not pre-
>> >scribed.
>>
>> But Arthur, couldn't you also interpret 502 as allowing the deduction of
>> certain supplements that do not fall under that paragraph you quoted:
>>
>> =========================================
>> Nutritional Supplements
>> You cannot include in medical expenses the cost of nutritional
>> supplements,
>> recommended by a medical practitioner as treatment for a specific medical
>> condition diagnosed by a physician.
>> ========================================
>>
>> Since this paragraph uses the term "unless", does that not imply that if
>> they are "recommended" (note the use of recommended and not prescribed)
>> that they can be deducted?
>>
>> So now the questions with regard to deductibility of your Iron would be
>> etc"?
>> 2. Was it recommended by your medical practitioner for a "specific
>> medical condition" that was "diagnosed by a physician".
>>
>> It seems to me that if the answers to both those questions was "Yes",
>> then
>> the cost would be deductible.
>> --ron
>
> According to IRS Revenue Ruling 2003-58, the law does limit the
> deduction for medicine or drugs to those drugs that require a
> prescription. Even when recommended (or prescribed) by a doctor,
> medicines available over-the-counter are not deductible. The point is
> you can buy them without a prescription. Read the Revenue Ruling. IRS
> pubs are not authoritive.
but, are nutritional supplements "medicine or drugs"? I think not.
Ron Rosenfeld
>According to IRS Revenue Ruling 2003-58, the law does limit the
>deduction for medicine or drugs to those drugs that require a
>prescription. Even when recommended (or prescribed) by a doctor,
>medicines available over-the-counter are not deductible. The point is
>you can buy them without a prescription. Read the Revenue Ruling. IRS
>pubs are not authoritive.
I don't believe 2003-58 applies to jo's case unless his calcium supplements
are considered to be a "drug".
2003-58 states in part that "�213(b)does not apply to items that are not
medicines or drugs"
To get back to jo's specific question, most authorities would hold that
Calcium is a nutritional supplement (in the category of a mineral).
Is there IRS guidance for what the IRS considers a "nutritional supplement"
vs what the IRS considers a "drug"?
--ron
HLunsford
>
> With regard to medicines and drugs that's correct. If it's a
> nutritional supplement rather than a medicine or drug, that
> restriction apparently does not apply.
>
>
So my doctor one time recommended that I supplement my daily intake of
nutritional requirements with bananas, since that supplement contains
the necessary potassium that the body needs daily.
My bananas are now tax deductible. Yeah!!!!
Or does it matter that bananas are not in pill form or in a bottle?
In a bottle; yes, banana liquer made by Bols or DeKuyper would fit
that bill.
--
Holiday ChEAr$!
Harlan Lunsford, EA n LA
--
Stuart A. Bronstein
> Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>
>> With regard to medicines and drugs that's correct. If it's a
>> nutritional supplement rather than a medicine or drug, that
>> restriction apparently does not apply.
>>
> So my doctor one time recommended that I supplement my daily
> intake of nutritional requirements with bananas, since that
> supplement contains the necessary potassium that the body needs
> daily. My bananas are now tax deductible. Yeah!!!!
> Or does it matter that bananas are not in pill form or in a
> bottle? In a bottle; yes, banana liquer made by Bols or
> DeKuyper would fit that bill.
Again, the technical test is whether it is prescribed for a specific
medical condition rather than for general health reasons. If you are
specifically sick because of lack of potassium, and your doctor
prescribes bananas in particular to ease your illness, then it seems
to me you'd have a good argument.
That said, I haven't gone to look at how the courts have dealt with
this issue.
--
Stu
http://downtoearthlawyer.com
removep...@yahoo.com
> Stuart A. Bronstein wrote:
>
> > With regard to medicines and drugs that's correct. �If it's a
> >nutritional supplement rather than a medicine or drug, that
> > restriction apparently does not apply.
>
> So my doctor one time recommended that I supplement my daily intake of nutritional requirements with bananas, since that supplement contains
> the necessary potassium that the body needs daily.
> My bananas are now tax deductible. �Yeah!!!!
> Or does it matter that bananas are not in pill form or in a bottle?
> In a bottle; �yes, banana liquer made by Bols �or DeKuyper would fit
> that bill.
My criteria would be that you have to eat anyway, and personal meals
are not deductible, so recommending a different fruit is not an extra
expense -- instead of eating a slice of pizza and coke, you now have
to eat a banana and bagel. Same price, or maybe even a little more
expensive, as healthier food is often a bit more expensive than the
processed stuff. So not deductible. But if your banana extract is in
concentrated pill form only available as a prescription or supplement,
then it is deductible as long as you have the doctor's go-ahead. If
you had to eat 10 bananas a day, then maybe 8 of them would be
deductible, as 2 is probably the maximum you would normally eat
otherwise, but then again it's bad for government to regulate these
kinds of things, so I think the rule ought to be that it is not
deductible period. Banana liquor is also a concentrated extract, but
it is used in a social setting as well, so I have no idea what to do
here. BTW, this is all just my common sense talking. I haven't
looked at any rules or court cases :).