July 18, 2007, - 3:11 pm

Small Favors: Taxpayers Won’t Have to Subsidize Sex Change Op . . . For Now

By Debbie Schlussel
Thank Heaven for small favors. American taxpayers won’t have to subsidize the sex-change operation for Rhiannon O’Donnabhain, after all.
The 57-year-old Boston father, husband, Coast Guardsman, and construction tried to write off $25,000 in medical expenses to change him into a “her.” AP reports that the tax code allows tax deductions for cosmetic surgery or similar procedures when they are needed to improve a congenital abnormality, an accident or trauma, or a disfiguring disease.
Incredibly, O’Donnabhain and the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (who represented him) tried to argue that a sex change is covered by that rule for the disfigured. But the IRS ruled against him.

sexchangedude.jpg

Tranny She-Man Rhiannon O’Donnabhain Wants Your Tax Money

Now the dispute is before the U.S. Tax Court, set for trial on July 24th. Incredible that this has gone this far.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly



Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses

Take. Photo. Down.

spiffo on July 18, 2007 at 4:33 pm

The surgeon of this trangender sex change must have screwed up somewhere during the surgery cauz thats one mighty ugly looking (s)he-bitch. Thank G-D the IRS was sensible enough not to force us to shell out our hard earned tax dollars do this freak job.

Jew Chick on July 18, 2007 at 5:58 pm

What the hell kind of name is that? She/he needs to change her/his name as well.

lexi on July 18, 2007 at 8:29 pm

Blame it on those who believe that the Constitution is a “living, breathing” document — and then by judicial fiat cut its balls off.

Jeremiah on July 18, 2007 at 10:51 pm

Yuk! Revolting…

Floyd R. Turbo on July 19, 2007 at 12:57 am

There were a few things that drove me away from my nursing profession, and tending to sex change operation patients was one of them. In fact, the day I had to deal with a male homosexual couple who were in the process of becoming females, so they could be a lesbian couple, was the day I said “that’s it — I’m outa here.” Of course, there is more to the story of why I felt I needed to make a career change, but the problem of asking myself too many times during the course of a work day “what am I doing?” played a big role.
These people need psychiatric help, not body butchering. “Sex change” operations should be reserved for those few unfortunate people who were born with ambiguous sex characteristics, or those who have an odd number of (meaning extra) x and y chromosomes, which can have an impact on physical sexual development and identity.

AmericanJewess on July 19, 2007 at 7:52 am

This isn’t the only case like this in Massachusetts:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/26/sex.change.inmate.ap/index.html

C-Hay on July 19, 2007 at 8:37 am

At 57 you need a sex change?

Burt on July 19, 2007 at 9:21 am

Burt, I think most people at 57 would word it differently and say they need sex for a change.

stevecanuck on July 19, 2007 at 1:35 pm

I’m actually in the same situation as this fellow taxpayer. I am a female-to-male transsexual and find it interesting that this year I would be able to deduct the $5000 I spent on LASIK eye surgery, which I had done for completely cosmetic reasons, but I am unable to deduct the $6000 I spent on a chest reconstruction because the IRS considers that cosmetic.

By the way you taxpayers would not be subsidizing my tax deduction (if I were allowed to take it) as I would only be getting back a very small portion of taxes I have already paid in. Additionally, I pay more in taxes than 92-95% of Americans. So give up your self righteous BS because I pay more in taxes than probably all reading this.

DrAnon on December 31, 2009 at 5:24 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field