Natural Path (N.D.) physicians - are they covered under Section 125? (N.D. is a homeopathic physician)

[Guest cjangelmine]

An employee of ours only sees a N.D. physician. This physician is licensed, however, not covered by health insurance companies. Are visits to this N.D. covered under the Section 125?

Has anyone else run into this situation?

[Guest JerseyGirl]

Many insurance companies don’t cover chiropractic care, either. Nor do I believe they would cover the care provided by a Christian Science Practitioner, but their services are eligible expenses for purposes of Section 125. Same thing with acupuncture. Check the SPD, and if the services of an N.D. physician are not specifically excluded, I would say they are allowable. The key issue in my mind was your statement that the physician is licensed.

[Guest cjangelmine]

thanks for your reply jerseygirl. I made the comment about the license just because I was thinking about how doctors have to display their licenses and this is a person that has a specific degree N.D. not someone just working out of their basement as a homeopathic guide.

[GBurns]

There are many M.Ds etc who do work out of their basements and Home Offices, just as was done in the old comedy show "The Cosby Show". The show reflected an actual fact of life that occurs not only in the rural areas but also in many older cities.

Is there some reason why you think that it matters?

If a "homeopathic guide" worked out of an office in a medical office building, would that make them any more competent?

Do you think that having to display a license has anything to do with competence or legitimacy?

[Guest JerseyGirl]

You are always so much fun, *G*!! Is your tone as argumentative in person as you sound in print? You always make me laugh!!

On the subject of doctor’s working out of there homes, I must agree with you. It was a wonderful experience as a child to live across the street from our family physician; he made house calls, would come in an emergency at a moments notice, and his *nurse* (who was in fact an RN as well as his receptionist) was another neighbor.

In regard to cjangelmine’s post, I believe the fact that the N.D. in question is a licensed physician adds some *weight* to the professionalism of the services rendered, and may therefore further legitimize the alternative treatment provided.

[GBurns]

I am told that in person my argumentativeness and propensity for confrontation makes for interesting and even exhilarating (sometimes boisterous) discourses, but most of all it is welcomed as a change of pace. Maybe, because in person you can see my smile and know when I am teasing or being cynical etc. BTW it never gets nasty or personal.

I picked at the post not only because it seemed narrow minded and not thought through but also because it seemed cynical and denigrating of those qualified persons who use such locations. It also seemed that the poster was one of those who believes in form over substance, or show and hype over fact and competence. Such fallacious and/or misguided statements should always be addressed as a means of trying to stop it from influencing others. It is surprising how many people think that "I saw it on the Internet" equates with fact.

[Guest cjangelmine]

"G" - there was nothing meant when I mentioned the license except for the fact that the person actually went to school and earned a license to do their chosen career instead of me just deciding that today I am going to say I know all about homemopathic medicine and am going to open a practice because I think I know enough.

I cannot believe you read so much into one simple statement.

[GBurns]

So what does that have to do with the location of their office?

[Mike Preston]

GBurns, hang it up. You have been outed again. Whether you like it or not, an individual that rents an office needs a lower outside threshold of competence to establish credibility. At least with most people. cjangelmine was well within the bounds of political correctness to state that should an individual practice from their house the absence of outside credentials casts a shadow on their credibility. By way of example, cjangelmine was indicating that the practitioner in question was not dogged by that shadow.

There was nothing to pick on. Nothing to save the internet from.

[Mike Preston]

cjangelmine, the answer to your question is found in 213(d)(1)(A) of the Code. The answer is that as long as the visit was for the "diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure or function of the body" the expense should be covered. That is a pretty loose standard. There is no reference to the qualifications of the individual providing services with respect to the above. The only reference to qualifications has to do with whether or not lodging expenses incurred in finding your way to the above services (and, I might add, requiring such services to be provided at a hospital or equivalent facility) are covered. In such a case, the services must be provided by a physician as that term is defined by section 1861® of the Social Security Act. I don't have access to that cite without a bit of research beyond my desktop, so I'm not sure an ND would qualify. I don't think your question was about reimbursing expenses related to lodging while away from home anyway. Hope this helps.

[Kirk Maldonado]

Rev. Rul. 63-91, 1963-1 C.B. 54

IRS Headnote

Amounts paid for medical services rendered by practitioners, such as chiropractors, psychotherapists, and others rendering similar type services, constitute expenses for `medical care' within the provisions of section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, even though the practitioners who perform the services are not required by law to be, or are not (even though required by law) licensed, certified, or otherwise qualified to perform such services.

I.T. 3598, C.B. 1943, 157; Revenue Ruling 143, C.B. 1953-2, 129; and Revenue Ruling 55-261, C.B. 1955-1, 307 modified.

Full Text

Rev. Rul. 63-91

Advice has been requested whether amounts paid for medical services to practitioners, such as, chiropractors, psychotherapists, and others rendering similar type services, constitute expenses for `medical care' within the provisions of section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954(1) where there is no law requiring such practitioners to be licensed or (2) where they are not licensed, even though required to be by law.

Under section 213 of the Code, a deduction in computing taxable income is allowable for expenses paid during the taxable year, not compensated for by insurance or otherwise, for medical care of the taxpayer, his spouse, or a dependent, subject to certain limitations.

Section 213(e)(1) of the Code defines the term `medical care' as amounts paid-

(A) for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, or for the purpose of affecting any structure of function of the body (including amounts paid for accident or health insurance), or

(B) for transportation primarily for and essential to medical care referred to in subparagraph (A).

Section 1.213-1(e)(ii) of the Income Tax Regulations provides, in part, `Amounts expended for illegal operations or treatments are not deductible.'

Revenue Ruling 55-261, C.B. 1955-1, 307, states that medical expenses include payments for services rendered by physicians, surgeons, dentists, optometrists, chiropractors, osteopaths, qualified psychiatrists and psychologists, and authorized Christian Science practitioners.

Revenue Ruling 143, C.B. 1953-2, 129, holds that amounts paid to psychologists, who are qualified and authorized under state law, for the rendition of medical services constitute expenses paid for medical care.

I.T. 3598, C.B. 1943, 157, holds that amounts paid for services rendered by licensed chiropractors and osteopaths constitute expenses paid for medical care.

The sentence in the regulation quoted above, regarding the deductibility of amounts expended for illegal operations or treatments, is intended to be applied to operations or treatments which are illegal regardless of whether they are rendered by licensed or unlicensed practitioners. The sentence was not intended to imply that amounts paid to unlicensed practitioners are not expenses for `medical care.' The determination of what is medical care depends on the nature of the services rendered, not on the experience, qualifications, or title of the person rendering them. See George B. Wendell v. Commissioner , 12 T.C. 161, at 163 (1949).

The requirements for the licensing of practitioners vary with state laws. In many cases, treatments or services rendered by unlicensed practitioners are not illegal even though such treatments or services constitute the practice of medicine and the persons rendering them are required to obtain certificates or licenses from the state in which they practice. In such cases, patients are not paying for illegal medical care or treatments notwithstanding that the practitioners rendering the care or treatments are not authorized or licensed by the state to render medical services.

The Code and the regulations do not require a taxpayer to ascertain whether a practitioner is qualified, is authorized under state law, or is licensed to practice, before obtaining his services or claiming a medical expense deduction. Where it can be shown that an individual paid an amount for a purpose defined in the Code as `medical care,' such amount qualifies as a medical expense.

Accordingly, it is held that amounts paid for medical services rendered by practitioners, such as chiropractors, psychotherapists, and others rendering similar type services, constitute expenses for `medical care' within the provisions of section 213 of the Code, even though the practitioners who perform the services are not required by law to be, or are not (even though required by law) licensed, certified, or otherwise qualified to perform such services.

I.T. 3598, C.B. 1943, 157; Revenue Ruling 143, C.B. 1953-2, 129; and Revenue Ruling 55-261, C.B. 1955-1, 307, are modified to remove the implication that amounts paid only to persons, who are licensed, qualified, or authorized under state law to practice, constitute `medical care.'

[Mike Preston]

Good to know they got it right! Seriously, thanks, Kirk.

[GBurns]

Mike Preston,

The IRS got it right, but reading your post shows that you did not.

[Mike Preston]

Since my post appears to be consistent with the IRS Rev. Rul., would you care to point out what part of my post you think did not get it "right"?

[GBurns]

For example:

Your post:

"There is no reference to the qualifications of the individual providing services with respect to the above."

"so I'm not sure an ND would qualify."

The Rev Ruling:

"Amounts paid for medical services rendered by practitioners, such as chiropractors, psychotherapists, and others rendering similar type services, constitute expenses for `medical care' within the provisions of section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, even though the practitioners who perform the services are not required by law to be, or are not (even though required by law) licensed, certified, or otherwise qualified to perform such services."

"Amounts paid for medical services rendered by practitioners, such as chiropractors, psychotherapists, and others rendering similar type services, constitute expenses for `medical care' within the provisions of section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, even though the practitioners who perform the services are not required by law to be, or are not (even though required by law) licensed, certified, or otherwise qualified to perform such services."

[Mike Preston]

For example:

Your post:

"There is no reference to the qualifications of the individual providing services with respect to the above."

"so I'm not sure an ND would qualify."

The Rev Ruling:

"Amounts paid for medical services rendered by practitioners, such as chiropractors, psychotherapists, and others rendering similar type services, constitute expenses for `medical care' within the provisions of section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, even though the practitioners who perform the services are not required by law to be, or are not (even though required by law) licensed, certified, or otherwise qualified to perform such services."

"Amounts paid for medical services rendered by practitioners, such as chiropractors, psychotherapists, and others rendering similar type services, constitute expenses for `medical care' within the provisions of section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, even though the practitioners who perform the services are not required by law to be, or are not (even though required by law) licensed, certified, or otherwise qualified to perform such services."

You really can't read, can you?

The first quote you picked up from my post is with respect to the provision of services under 213d1A.

The second quote you picked up from my post is with respect to lodging expenses under a different section (213d2).

Yes, there are qualifications that apply in the case of the latter cite. That was my point. I was pointing out that the Code does apply a standard of some sort specifically to one type of expense (lodging) and that there was no such requirement on the type of expense the OP was asking about.

Do you understand the implication?

The fact that the Code spells out the requirements for one type of expense and doesn't for another type of expense SCREAMS that there is no such requirement where it isn't spelled out.

Get it?

[GBurns]

So you were addressing lodging, an issue that the post never raised?

What you stated in your post re 213 etc re qualifications etc and your comment that an ND would not qualify etc is simply not reflected in the Revenue Ruling anyhow.

[Mike Preston]

So you were addressing lodging, an issue that the post never raised?

What you stated in your post re 213 etc re qualifications etc and your comment that an ND would not qualify etc is simply not reflected in the Revenue Ruling anyhow.

Correct as to the first comment. Maybe you can even see why. Probably not, though.

With respect to the second comment, again you mislead. I didn't say that an ND would NOT qualify. I said that I wasn't sure whether an ND would qualify or not. Which, of course, is completely irrelevant because the R.R. wasn't published as an interpretation of the section I was referencing (213(d)(4)), which is specifically defining a "physician" and that definition is used solely in the determination as to whether certain lodging expenses satisfy the definition of medical expenses.

[Guest cjangelmine]

Mike and Kirk, thank you so much for your reply's it really helped out.

G, I don't know why you feel that the world is against you - lighten up!!! It is people like you that make our society what it is today where you have to be so careful is what you say that soon we will not be allowed to talk.