IRS Says Infant Formula for Child of Mastectomy Patient Not a Medical Expense

In Private Letter Ruling 200941003, the IRS turned down the request of a taxpayer to be able to deduct infant formula as a medical expense.  The woman in question had undergone a double mastectomy to address two medical conditions.  She later gave birth to a healthy child.  She asked the IRS to rule that she be allowed a medical deduction for the cost of the formula she would be required to purchase for her child.

As the formula in question was consumed by the child, the IRS looked to Revenue Ruling 55-261, which held that the cost of food may be deductible if the items are (a) are prescribed by a physician for alleviation or treatment of a specific illness, (b) are in addition to the taxpayer’s normal diet, and (c) in no way are a part of the nutritional needs of the patient, but that food that is a substitute for food normally consumed is considered a personal, nondeductible expense.

The formula in question satisfied the child’s nutritional needs, which were the normal needs of an infant.

The fundamental problem in this case was that while the medical condition in question affected the mother, the item attempting to claimed as an expense treated not her condition but rather that of her child.  Under §213(d)(1)(A), the term “medical care” is defined as amounts paid “for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body.”

The expense in this case arose from a medical condition of the mother, but the actual expense involved providing for the care of her child and not herself.  As such, the IRS decided the items obtained from the payment of the expense affected the child’s body and not the mother’s―and for the child it fell into the category of “substitute for food normally consumed” and became a nondeductible personal expense.