Articles Posted in In Vitro Fertilization

Can A Gay man use the IRS deductions for medical expenses and deduct for his in vitro fertilization procedure and its costs? In a short answer no.  A Homosexual man in Florida attempted to deduct all his costs for housing and caring for a lady who held his baby as a surrogate.  The complicated litigation that followed in the appellate Courts is quite unique and involves heavy use of the IRC.  Mr. Morrissey the sperm donor argued that the IRS had special deductions for him and that all expenses related to the in vitro fertilization process should be deductible.  Mr. Morrisey speant thousands of dollars on the whole process.  He basically took care of the egg donor and the surrogate during the times of the pregnancy.  He claimed that a man cannot house the baby therefore he had to spend all this money and it related the medical care costs. Mr. Morrisey in order to get the tax deduction on the caring for the surrogate argued that he himself suffered through the health care needs during the pregnancy process as he was the sperm donor and therefore was somehow apart of the reproductive process and thus should be permitted a huge deduction from the IRS.

The IRC section 213 states that if Mr. Morriseys body was effected by the in vitro fertilization process he could claim a deduction of the $55,000 he paid to get the process of finding a lady and transferring his sperm to her and the process of her getting the egg to inseminate.

The circuit Court of Florida found Mr. Morriseys argument specious and without real merit because his involvement in the in vitro fertilization process was limited at best.  The Court argued that he was like every other male a donor of sperm and had limited biological contribution to the production of the baby.   The male reproductive position in creating a baby was really a donor sperm and not more than that.  The female had to do a lot more on her end as far as creating the baby.  They had to hold the egg and then pass the egg to the uterous and house the baby for 9 months which the male counterpart did not.  Thust the application of IRC 213 did not apply.