Mark Bole <makbo[at]pacbell.net> wrote:
- quote -

Tax Rules issued by the IRS are often logical. But when logic
and tax laws coincide, it is fair to presume that Congress was
asleep at the switch.

- quote -

Better said: "there sometimes appears to be logic in the tax laws,".

- quote -

For brother-in-law, you may substitute constitutent, friend,
campaign donor, business partner, mistress, etc.

- quote -

Alas I too wait to read Katie's response especially on State
tax issues.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Aug 9, 4:37*pm, Mark Bole <ma...[at]pacbell.net> wrote:
- quote -


- quote -


Let me just once more make my main point: No one should ever expect
an IRS publication to answer all questions. The pubs are purposely
simplified. Often the publication will take you just up to the point
where you know the answer, but not quite to the answer to your
question. Don't try to parse the pub. Just look at the statute,
regs, rulings, and case law. That's where the answers are.

And very often there is no answer!

Katie in San Diego

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Andrew wrote:
- quote -

I don't think it is an "all or nothing" situation, there actually is
some logic in the tax laws, but it often gets tossed aside in various
quirky corners of the system, maybe just because some Congressperson's
brother-in-law needed a favor... ;-)

- quote -

Sorry. I actually drafted two replies, posted the wrong one, and after
reading Katie's excellent response, wished I hadn't wasted my time
posting at all, since she nailed it.

-Mark Bole

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Katie wrote:
- quote -

All interesting; as I said, it was a naive question. I thank all. I thinkt
it makes sense to include repairs, but the tax law often does not make
sense. In fact, a class I took on it once specifically said to not try to
apply logic to the tax rules. I wanted to hear opinions on how people read
into this that repairs are covered.

(One point to MarkBole about not reading it carefully; I did specifically
say "...for hearing impaired people." - that's the point about TTY and TDD
devices I was including. I think perhaps you didn't pick up on that point.)

--
----------------------------- Regards -

- Andrew

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Aug 9, 9:25*am, "Andrew" <and...[at]jkl.com> wrote:
- quote -


Andrew, please remember that IRS publications are NOT TAX AUTHORITY.
They do not go through an administrative law review process (as
regulations do). They are merely the IRS's interpretation of the law,
written for use by taxpayers. As a result there is an attempt to keep
them relatively simple, and there is no way they can address every
possible scenario or nuance in application of the law. They are often
oversimplified. A wise tax practitioner never relies solely on an IRS
publication; only the law, the regulations, official IRS rulings, and
precedential court decisions are citable to support a tax position.
And courts can overturn regulations, IRS rulings, and lower court
decisions if they do not comport with the statutes.

In this particular case, Treas. Reg. § 1.213-1(e)(1)(iii) provides
that a capital expenditure, such as the purchase of eyeglasses, that
is related only to the medical care of the individual and does not
increase the value of property, is a deductible medical expense. In
addition, expenditures for the operation or maintenance of the capital
asset also qualify provided that the medical reason for the capital
expenditure still exists. So eyeglass repair is specifically defined
as a medical expense by the regulation, as long as the individual
still needs the glasses to correct a medical condition.

Katie in San Diego

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Andrew wrote:
[...]
- quote -

Since you want to get picky, the pub doesn't specify purchase *or*
repair, it just says "amounts you pay for eyeglasses" -- how does a
repair not meet that definition? Further, you didn't read the part
about telephones carefully, only the repair of TTY or TDD devices is
included, not the basic phone unit itself.

Eyeglasses, crutches, hearing aids, TTY and TDD telephone devices,
wheelchairs and the like are specifically and exclusively used for
medical purposes. The pub does say, for example, that the cost of
*maintaining* a wheelchair is a valid medical expense. If you broke a
crutch and had it repaired, no one would question that as a medical
expense either.

Automobiles get exceptional tax treatment in many areas, I wouldn't use
them as your base case for anything.

-Mark Bole

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

On Aug 9, 9:25 am, "Andrew" <and...[at]jkl.com> wrote:

- quote -

Here's my logic. His eyeglasses broke. If he bought new ones for
$300 then he can claim the full $300. If he repairs the existing
glasses, it's like getting a new pair for $50. So I think that
repairs for hearing aids, oxygen tanks, etc should be allowed.

- quote -

Yeah, the car is quite unrelated.

I searched publication 502 for the word "repair" but didn't find
anything to allow or disallow the repair of eyeglasses.

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

"Andrew" <andrew[at]jkl.com> wrote:
- quote -

If you can deduct the cost of getting glasses, it only makes sense
that you can deduct the cost of keeping them usable.

- quote -

You don't normally write off the entire car for medical expenses, but
mileage. And mileage estimates all the costs of maintaining the car,
including repairs. So it's already in there.

- quote -

Publication 502 says you can deduct the cost of crutches, too. Do
you really think you wouldn't be able to deduct the cost to repair
them? That would be ridiculous.

In fact, the publication doesn't refer to repairing anything other
than cars (not deductible) and telephones (deductible). It doesn't
say the cost of repairing glasses is not deductible, either, so why
assume it is?

Stu

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Dick Adams wrote:

- quote -


So I checked the IRS publication 502 - quote:
"
Eyeglasses
You can include in medical expenses amounts you pay for eyeglasses and
contact lenses needed for medical reasons. You can also include fees paid
for eye examinations. "


It does NOT mention repairs UNLIKE the mentioning of repairs for telephone
for hearing impaired people.

It specifically mentions you can NOT include car repairs when claiming
deduction for auto use of medical expenses.

So my naive question is why do both of you feel the repairs of eyeglasses is
allowed when not specifically cited and in fact, in counter to what is in
the section concerning auto deductions and telephone use of hearing impaired
people?

---------------- Regards -

- Andrew

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

AES <siegman[at]stanford.edu> wrote:

- quote -

Yes, Yes, and BUT!

They are both medical deductions and if you have a health
care spending account, it should reimburse you for both.
BUT if you do no have a health care spending account, your
medical expenses need to exceed 7.5% of AGI before they
are actually deductible.

Dick

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

In article <siegman-D1A4C3.17230107082008[at]news.stanford.edu> ,
AES <siegman[at]stanford.edu> wrote:
- quote -


I would claim prescription glasses, even sunglasses, and their repair,
as allowed medical deductions.
--


ArtKamlet at a o l dot c o m Columbus OH K2PZH

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >

Metal/wire frame of my prescription sunglasses got broken (I wear
strong-prescription eyeglasses 16/7 or 17/7).

Local Spektek eyewear repair shop did a solder repair job (and a great
job, it looks like; remember the name if you ever need their services).

Is the $40 charge potentially a medical deduction? Might the several
hundred dollar original cost of the glasses have been deductible also?

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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. > << ------------------------------------------------------- >