5 Aug 09 Pet Alert - Congress considers pet expenses tax deduction

[Kananga]

@tanza:

No, I operate as a hobby….. not a non-profit. Done as an individual (I only speak for myself)

Right, but my point was that you're essentially operating as a non-profit since you're not paying any taxes on income and you're not showing a profit (with a motivation not to). Losses from such should not flow through to personal income. It's similar how gambling to some is a hobby. The losses do not offset your income (no deduction). But at times you make money, but it's usually offset by a loss.

Pet expenses are different according to this proposed change. It's a decent idea, however, I have my doubts that something like this would go through. Especially with the running deficit. This would have a big impact on personal income tax revenue as there are a good number of pet owners in the US.

It would be nice but I wouldn't have high hopes for it.

[Kananga]

@nobarkus:

I think they're teaching the vets students how to gouge the poor pet owners now. Seems taking my first Basenji to the vet in the 70s and 80s wasn't any big deal as far as $.

I'd think it's more about the cost of education these days and the costs of malpractice insurance (yes, vets carry this too). I'd imagine there has been more litigation towards veterinarians these days compared to a few decades ago. You have to also factor in the changes over the years in regards to changes to legislation.

[GenJMar]

Would love for this to bill to pass. I don't have human children and alway feel I get the shaft when filing taxes.

Cody vet bills alone this year have cost me over $3,000.00 and Aurora is 13 y/o is on ongoing medication while not terribly expensive still its not free.

[nobarkus]

@tanza:

I don't think that… everyone needs to make a living... don't forget... no one is paying for equipment/instruments that are needed for them to run a practice... not like they can submit to Medicare... I am sure that some push the envelope... but most are just trying to cover their costs. They deserve to make a decent living too....

My cat needed his teeth cleaned. One vet priced it at $565 and had this long list of itemized tube, cotton swabs and things I couldn't even tell you what they were. Another vet 1 mile away doing the exact same thing and analysis of what needed to be done priced it at $135. I had the second vet do the cleaning and did an excellent job too. You don't think the first was gouging?

[lvoss]

Not necessarily. Were they truly comparable estimates as far as pre-op bloodwork IV during anesthia, etc? Also, you have no way of knowing what each practice's overhead is. One could own the building or have been there so long their rent is very low compared to the other.

My repro vet has very good rates for her services, this is in large part because her practice is located in an industrial area where the space is cheaper and she has been there quite a while. The drawback is that it is out of the way and takes a significant amount of time to get to. My regular vet is conveniently located in a shopping center with a pharmacist next door and a pet supply store next to that. They also have a working relationship with the specialists from UC Davis who will do in office consults with patients there. The cost is more for my regular vet, rent is high in Davis and there is the cost of keeping up with technology. I don't think that they are gouging me but the difference in operating costs means a difference in cost to their clients.

[lvoss]

The vets I have a problem with are the ones that recommend unneccessary procedures. I had a puppy person call me quite upset when their vet told them that their, at the time, 1 year old basenji would need major surgery to remove a small bump from his lip and that his jaw could be permanently damaged from the surgery. The first question I asked is what did the fine needle aspiration of the lump show that required this radical approach. Their response, "Huh? What is a fine needle aspiration?" The vet hadn't even bothered to look at what type of cells were in the lump. They saw a lump and the only option they gave the owner was surgery without even doing any diagnostic work to determine what the lump might be. And the estimate on the surgery was well over $1000. The vet even went so far as to make the owner feel bad when she walked out of the office saying she would have to really think about this before agreeing, telling her that she was jeopardizing her dog's life and it if she waited too long it would be riddled with tumors and dead.

At my urging, they sought a second opinion and the fine needle aspiration showed a mild infection probably caused by a nip from the 12 week old puppy in the household at the time. Some antibiotics and time and the bump went away on its own and has never recurred. And the total cost was around $100-$150.

[nobarkus]

@lvoss:

Not necessarily. Were they truly comparable estimates as far as pre-op bloodwork IV during anesthia, etc? Also, you have no way of knowing what each practice's overhead is. One could own the building or have been there so long their rent is very low compared to the other.

My repro vet has very good rates for her services, this is in large part because her practice is located in an industrial area where the space is cheaper and she has been there quite a while. The drawback is that it is out of the way and takes a significant amount of time to get to. My regular vet is conveniently located in a shopping center with a pharmacist next door and a pet supply store next to that. They also have a working relationship with the specialists from UC Davis who will do in office consults with patients there. The cost is more for my regular vet, rent is high in Davis and there is the cost of keeping up with technology. I don't think that they are gouging me but the difference in operating costs means a difference in cost to their clients.

Both vets have been in town for about 30 years. They are about 1 mile apart in town. I have been going to the first vet since 1983 and since the late 90's their fees have been climbing fast. They have been in the same building that they own for over 30 years. I have seen posts from other people saying they are 50% higher than other vets. Anyway I don't want to get off the subject here which is tax write-offs.

[BART]

@GenJMar:

Would love for this to bill to pass. I don't have human children and alway feel I get the shaft when filing taxes.

Ditto. While I haven't had and vet bills in the $1000 range (knock wood-knock,knock) and for the most part my guys have been healthy, it does seem that the price of the check-ups just keeps inching up and up. When it come to the tax code, if we could take even a percentage of it as a deduction it would be nice. I have a co-worker who's mutt was having surgery to have an eye removed just yesterday (Friday) and I know she has spent several thousand dollars trying to save the eye before it got to this point.
I agree the chances of something like this ever even getting out of committee are somewhere between slim and none, but we can dream, can't we:)

[BART]

BTW, just did a google search for "H.R. 3501". Came up with 2 very different bills. One the "pet" bill and the other had something to do with "securities and commodities". What up!!! Am I wrong in assuming (don't say it) that H.R. means House of Representatives and not the Senate. If I'm not, then why 2 very different bills?? Something is amiss…...but still dreaming!

[Maxie]

How will we know when the Pet Expenses Tax Deductions bill will be voted on
or has it already been passed or defeated?

[Quercus]

@tanza:

No, I operate as a hobby….. not a non-profit. Done as an individual (I only speak for myself)

But, Pat…don't you have to declare the income? I mean, selling puppies, even if you are not breaking even, is still income...and it is well over the small amount allowed to be untaxed.

But I agree...I would MUCH prefer to take vet care expense deduction than count it as a business expense. The IRS isn't very clear in hobby vs income area, and if you get audited you could be get an auditor that has a totally different interpretation than your accountant.

We don't have to worry about it this year (or last), as we won't be breeding again for a long time. But it would be helpful if it was more clear...

[Quercus]

@Kananga:

Right, but my point was that you're essentially operating as a non-profit since you're not paying any taxes on income and you're not showing a profit (with a motivation not to). Losses from such should not flow through to personal income. It's similar how gambling to some is a hobby. The losses do not offset your income (no deduction). But at times you make money, but it's usually offset by a loss.

Pet expenses are different according to this proposed change. It's a decent idea, however, I have my doubts that something like this would go through. Especially with the running deficit. This would have a big impact on personal income tax revenue as there are a good number of pet owners in the US.

It would be nice but I wouldn't have high hopes for it.

I agree Kananga…it sounds like a pipe dream. For one thing....seems like there would need to be some sort of official record of the pets one owns..otherwise you could collect receipts from other people and deduct expenses that you didn't actually pay....

[Vicki]

I'll be praying for that bill to pass.
Six dogs = BIG vet bills.

[kdrockas]

yes we have one of these!