A taxpayer could not deduct medical expenses incurred in connection with fathering two children by means of in vitro fertilization. The taxpayer was not infertile, and the procedures were not for the treatment of a medical condition or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the taxpayer’s own body. Instead, the procedures affected the bodies of two gestational carriers.
William Magdalin Petitioner-Appellant v. Commissioner of IRS Respondent-Appellee.
U.S. Court of Appeals, 1st Cir.; 09-1153, December 17, 2009.
Affirming the Tax Court, 96 TCM 491, TC Memo. 2008-293.
JUDGMENT
Petitioner William Magdalin appeals a decision of the tax court holding non-deductible certain expenses he incurred in connection with fathering two children via in vitro fertilization of an anonymous donor's eggs with petitioner's sperm and placement of the resulting embryos in unrelated gestational carriers who gave birth to them. Petitioner stipulated in the tax court proceedings that he was not infertile and that he had had two children via natural processes with his now ex-wife.
This court reviews the tax court's factual findings for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Drake v. Comm'r, 511 F.3d 65, 68 (1st Cir. 2007). “Clear error exists, if, on the entire record, the court is ‘left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.’” Haffner's Serv. Stations, Inc. v. Comm'r, 326 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 2003) (quoting Mitchell v. United States, 141 F.3d 8, 17 (1st Cir. 1998)). We agree with the tax court and therefore summarily affirm its decision. As the court concluded, the various expenses incurred by petitioner were not for the treatment of any underlying medical condition suffered by the taxpayer; as noted, he stipulated that he was not infertile and that his previous children had been produced by natural processes in conjunction with the woman who was his wife at the time. In addition, the procedures were not for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of taxpayer's own body. Rather, they affected the bodies of the gestational carriers who, petitioner agrees, were not his dependents. Consequently, the tax court properly affirmed the Commissioner's disallowance of the deductions. The decision of the tax court is summarily affirmed. See First Circuit Local Rule 27.0(c).
Affirmed.