Mark Bole wrote:
[snip]
- quote -

Rev. Ruling 2003-102 created the carve out for nonprescription
drugs reimbursed under a cafeteria or flexible spending plan.
Basically, it stated that Sec. 105 did not require that the
reimbursable medical expense also be a medical deduction under
Sec. 212. There is no requirement one way or the other that an
employer include this element in the plan.

Also see Rev. Ruling 2003-58.

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

Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:

- quote -

Not trying to stray too far off topic, but I'm not clear on how allowing
this one special medical benefit under an FSA is an incentive for the
*employer*. In fact, doesn't it tend to reduce forfeited amounts at the
end of the year, to the employer's detriment?

It looks to me more like an incentive to the *individual* to be an
employee rather than gaining income in some other way, which
historically has been the case ever since World War II, right?

Or to put another way, what scenario could one outline to an employer to
show they are better off adding this feature to the FSA they offer, if
any? (What I don't know is, did the law require *every* Sec. 121 plan
to include this feature, when it was first introduced?)

-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 Dec 23, 3:51*pm, "Paul Thomas, CPA" <paulthomascp...[at]bellsouth.netwrote:
- quote -

I get the point. Still P. O'd. Like suppose I had some disease for
which aspirin or some such product, in copious quantities, was a life
saving/sustaining treatment. This is a rhetorical scenario, but you
understand my position. Wish there was some blanket policy for
ANYTHING that was prescribed for a disease state. If there's going to
be a Schedule A deduction for medical costs, let's make it
comprehensive. Obviously there are fraud and interpretation issues
that would have to be addressed, but our current system is
ridiculous.

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

"jo" <phillysleuth[at]verizon.net> wrote
- quote -




Tax laws (and other laws as well) are not fair to everyone in every
concievable situation, and they never will be.

Laws come into being to create a certain type of behavior from a certain
group of people. They often times enact these laws without regard or
consideration of the impact to other groups, or the actual or perceived
inequities of other people not similarly situated. At other times they know
the implications to other groups and they make certain that there ~is~ an
inequity there.

In your case you don't have an employer, in others their employer might not
offer that type of plan. The goal of the lawmakers was to encourage
employers to offer these types of plans. To create the incentive they had
to sweeten the pot by offering something that people ~not~ in that type of
plan couldn't get - namely a pre-tax deduction for certain OTC meds and
supplies.





--
Paul A. Thomas, CPA
Watkinsville, Georgia

--
<< ------------------------------------------------------- > << 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 Dec 22, 3:36*pm, Alan <sfcnm-...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

Since I'm on SSDI and not working, I don't have any employer plan to
cover these. Not that my opinion is going to matter, but this policy
doesn't seem fair to those of us paying a lot of money for disease
related products who don't have these FSAs.

jo

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

"jo" wrote:

- quote -

It's not IRS policy, it's the law. If you can get it without a prescription
it's not deductible, even if a doctor orders it.

--
Phil Marti
Clarksburg, MD

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

jo wrote:
- quote -

You have either misread or have confused not being able to deduct
over the counter (OTC) medicines with the ability to get
reimbursed under an employer flexible spending account.

The items you mention are not deductible. However, they are
eligible medical expenses for getting reimbursed by an employer
plan as long as they are either used primarily for medical care
or you have a letter from your physician citing the specific
medical condition being treated and indicating that the OTC drug
or medication will treat or alleviate it.


- quote -

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

I know the standard IRS policy is that over the counter medications
and supplies are not deductible on Schedule A. However, I have also
read somewhere that if these costs are directly related to a specific
medical condition, they can be.

My situation is that I have an autoimmune disease called Sjogren's
Syndrome. Causes dry eyes and dry mouth, among other things. I have
had to buy many kinds of eye drops to find one I can tolerate, and
several different dental products.. toothpastes and mouth sprays.. for
dealing with dry mouth and it's potentially serious side effects.

Can anyone verify that what I've read as a nuance to the general rule
is true, and if so, what kind of proof do I need to deduct my
supplies?

(A simliar question could be asked about my doctor's "prescription" to
take high doses of calcium w D because I have Osteoporosis). Vitamins
are not generally deductible but this is disease specific.

Thanks. (is there anything online about these issues I can read).

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