Discussion:Miles driven for medical studies

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

Jump to: navigation, search

Discussion Forum Index --> Advanced Tax Questions --> Miles driven for medical studies


Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Miles driven for medical studies

Contents

Deanp (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008

I have a client that did a lot of drug research studies in 2007. She was issued a 1099-MISC for her income from doing these. She drove almost 300 miles one way to go to the facility where the studies were taking place. Do these miles qualify as an expense on Schedule C? Also, would hotel expenses and meals be expensed as well? I'm thinking the miles might be considered commuting miles but just want some input.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
1) was she in a trade or business?

2) if so, where is her tax home?

PostingFromWork (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
I guess it's like the ovum transplants.

If you don't want to do the Sch C route, you could always claim them as ยง212 2% misc deductions on Sch A.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
not if they are commuting, but then again, is this even work?

PostingFromWork (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
Doesn't really matter if it's "work," only if it produces taxable income.

Depeding on the drug study, I suppose it could be argued that the facility is a tempory worksite.

Additionally, there are no communting restricions on medical deductions, but the thresholds are much higher.

Deanp (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
Well, it's not really work. But people do it to earn income and in her case it was over $20,000. It has to go on Schedule C as I look at it. She drove a long distance just to do this and I would like to think that she can expense those miles. The temporary worksite might be an option. She is only allowed to participate in the studies she qualifies for.

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
what is the name of her business?

Guinea Pig, LLC??

Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
Oddly enough I heard a short feature on a Philadelphia news radio station while driving to there Monday. The gist was that people do get paid for this, and sometimes the fee is 5 figures. Made me wonder whether the City of Philadelphia would force the GPs to get a business license. I was waiting for the announcer to discuss the tax ramiifications, but a commerical came on for the fast elephant house at the zoo.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
To me,this seems more like lawsuit damages than it does "work". Why? 1) Because you are really not selling your services. On the deduction: 2) You are not being treated, because it's double blind, meaning some people are getting placebo drugs. Since you don't know what group you are in, no one can argue mileage as a medical deduction.

She's essentially being paid for an indignity to be done to her (in legal terminology, a battery), hence the doctor must get the release because it may not be treatment (i.e. a doctor is supposed to treat by oath, unless there's some serious paperwork).

No SE tax, report as you would lawsuit damages would be my take. She eats the mileage.

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
And, it's certainly not a business IMHO.

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
Unless otherwise prohibited the cost of any income producing activity is deductible.

Selling Blood and Plasma

TheTinCook (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
Didn't we have a disscussion about this last year involving a person with a very rare blood factor selling their plasma on a regular basis?

CrowJD (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
I remember something like that. But, that is the sale of a good, isn't it, blood? This is a drug study, if I'm understanding it correctly. For instance, to get FDA approval. It's not treatment, you could be getting a placebo (double-blind study). I'm beginning to wonder if it should be taxable at all, theoretically.

TheTinCook (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
I'm thinking it should be taxable, just as surrogacy fees are taxable. Doesn't there have to be a tort for there to be a battery? I'm not sure that would be the case for a simple clinical trial.

I'll also disagree with you on the issue of the medical deduction. It's almost like denying the deduction because a treatment didn't work, or there was a misdiagnosis and the client was treated for a illness they didn't have, or the client was flatout given the wrong drug or treatment due to ministrial error. Additionally, there are some cases where the experimental treatment is the only option.

WesR (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
Hi deanp to answer your question I would take all her costs to earn the income and I would not subject it to S/E tax. bye

RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
See this:

In Green v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 1229 (1980), the Tax Court held that taxpayers' bodies are not among the "natural deposits" contemplated by Congress in the depletion provisions. In this case, petitioner, whose main source of income was the sale of her blood (a rare and valuable type), claimed a 10 percent depletion deduction for the loss of her blood's mineral content and the loss of her blood's ability to regenerate. Although the court held that the payments received by Mrs. Green for her plasma "donations" were income received in the trade or business of selling her blood -- and thus allowed a number of her business expenses --

Kevinh5 (talk|edits) said:

5 March 2008
(please don't tell us that she is an SMLLC, and I won't make any jokes about checking any .....)

To join in on this discussion, you must first log in.
Personal tools