11th Circuit Denies Tax Deduction For Gay Man's Reproductive Expenses
By Peter J Reilly,
Forbes
| 10. 03. 2017
Kevin Newsom, President Trump's recent appointee to the Eleventh Circuit has managed to disappoint a major LGBT organization with his very first decision. In Morrissey v United States Judge Newsom wrote :
Was the money that a homosexual man paid to father children through in vitro fertilization—and in particular, to identify, retain, compensate, and care for the women who served as an egg donor and a gestational surrogate—spent “for the purpose of affecting” his body's reproductive “function” within the meaning of I.R.C. § 213? And second: In answering the statutory question “no,” and thus in disallowing the taxpayer's deduction of his IVF-related expenses, did the IRS violate his right to equal protection of the laws either by infringing a “fundamental right” or by engaging in unconstitutional discrimination?
We hold that the costs of the IVF-related procedures at issue were not paid for the purpose of affecting the taxpayer's own reproductive function—and therefore are not deductible—and that the IRS did not violate the Constitution in disallowing the deduction.
Mary Bonauto, Civil Rights Project Director of GLAD (GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders...
Related Articles
By Tory Shepherd, The Guardian | 07.17.2026
Over eight years, Ethan and his wife went through nine rounds of IVF in Melbourne.
They travelled to Spain for two more, without success.
“I thought maybe the universe had decided we’re not supposed to have kids,” says Ethan, who...
By Oscar Lopez, The Guardian | 07.19.2026
Diogo Amaro met his future husband, Loup, in Paris and from the first date, he made one thing clear: he wanted to have children.
“Right off the bat, I was like: ‘If I’m going to be in a relationship with...
By Risa Cromer, The Conversation | 07.17.2026
Media coverage of recent developments in embryo gene editing might seem to suggest that gene-edited babies are close to becoming a reality. As tech billionaires eager to profit off of techno-eugenics invest in “designer baby” technologies, attempts to normalize heritable genome editing – which remains unsafe and raises significant ethical and societal concerns – are especially dangerous. It’s worth taking a closer look at these developments and what they mean, in a way that pushes back on narratives normalizing the...