Is a taxpayer who dies in the tax year, who was sighted at the beginning of the tax year, but became blind shortly before dying, entitled to the increased standard deduction for blindness?
How is total blindness defined? Is there a minimum time that the taxpayer must be alive but (if that's the definition) unable to see to qualify? Must the taxpayer be conscious to qualify? (For instance, a taxpayer who experienced a fatal auto accident which destroyed his eyes on August 10, but who survived, breathing and heartbeat unassisted, but not conscious, until August 12.)
Is medical documentation required? What form would it take?
If you are blind on the last day of your tax year, then you can take the deduction. Just like filing status single or married depends on your status last day of year.
Yes, you need a letter from your physician stating that the patient cannot see better than 20/200 in either eye with glasses or contact lenses, or his field of vision is less than 20 degrees. If the patient can see better than 20/200 with contacts, but they can only be worn briefly, then the physician should state this, and the patient can still take the deudction. The physician should also state if he thinks the vision will not improve.
I asked about a taxpayer who became blind and shortly after died, within the same tax year, without ever having been debilitated by the blindness because he was never blind and conscious at the same time.
On Mar 20, 2:36 am, " snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com" quoted from the instructions:
For a taxpayer who dies during the year, is "last day of the year" the last day he was alive? (His surviving spouse will be filing jointly for the full 365-day tax year.)
That's the definition for partial blindness. (One might assume that total blindness is a subset of partial blindness, but it's not clear that "zero" statisfies "less than" for these kinds of things.) Would the personal representative typically request such a letter from the former PCP, or from the ER doctor? Would the death certficate suffice? Perhaps a letter from another MD who did not examine the patient, stating that from the record it is clear that if the patient had survived he would have been blind? I understand that the letter is not actually filed.
n/a
Again, will the death certificate suffice to document the permanence of the situation?
I'm particularly concerned about limiting cases, like a taxpayer who utters "Why did the room suddenly go dark?" in the moments before dying. (Not the case here, but if that worked, this case is stronger.) Certainly the dead can't see, does that mean that anybody who died during a tax year gets the blindness add-on? (For that matter, maybe surviving non-remarried widows get the add-on for subsequent years when they are still allowed to file jointly -- since this won't kick in until 2008 tax year, I haven't looked into the details for that status, and will do so in 12 months.)
When this was asked of me my first reaction was "No, dead and dying people aren't usually considered 'blind'" but looking into it I haven't found anything to support that being alive (medically, legally, or for tax purposes) is a requirement for being blind.
No, that is the definition of _legal_ blindness, which is the condition referred to by the IRS. In order to confirm this condition, an optometric examination would be required. Such an exam would most likely be very difficult to perform were the person in question comatose or deceased. It is doubtful that a dying statement such as "I cannot see" would suffice.
Beg your pardon, "...never blind and CONSCIOUS at the same time." How do you determine blindness in an unconscious person?
An accident perhaps, that left the person unconscious from which he never recovered and was left obviously blind from the same accident (both eyes destroyed for example), so that he would never see if he did recover?
I would think (I am not a tax professional so what do I know) that the IRS would require, at least, that the tax payer be aware that they were blind before the exemption would be allowed, and not an accident victim who died from their injuries which included injuries to the eyes.
If I am misreading your question, please correct me.
OK. I'm going by Publication 17, Chapter 20, that says you qualify if you are totally or partly blind, and then says you have to have a letter from an eye doctor or an optometrist to that effect if you are partly blind. It never says what you have to do if you are totally blind. Now you've introduced a third term, legally blind, Legally blind is not discussed in Chapter 20.
That's often the difference between physicians and veterinarians. Most eye exams I've had have involved doctors asking me if I could see things. What would be involved in such an optometric examination?
Ernie Klein asked: ] Beg your pardon, "...never blind and CONSCIOUS at the same time." How ] do you determine blindness in an unconscious person? ] ] An accident perhaps, that left the person unconscious from which he ] never recovered and was left obviously blind from the same accident ] (both eyes destroyed for example), so that he would never see if he did ] recover?
That would do it, or destruction or disconnection of some other part of the system. That's why I'm asking.
] I would think (I am not a tax professional so what do I know) that the ] IRS would require, at least, that the tax payer be aware that they were ] blind before the exemption would be allowed, and not an accident victim ] who died from their injuries which included injuries to the eyes.
OK - is that supported by anything? I didn't see any requirement that the taxpayer be aware of the situation. (Just as someone who is hit by full-on Alzheimer's at age 64, and is never aware that he's turned 65 would be eligible for the old-age benefit.) I realize it might be so, even though it's not in the publications or instructions, which is why I'm asking.
Readng further in Pub 17 I see The amount of the standard deduction for a decedent's final tax return is the same as it would have been had the decedent continued to live. However, if the decedent was not 65 or older at the time of death, the higher standard deduction for age cannot be claimed.
There is no exception for the blindness benefit, just the age benefit. So it seems that a decedent who became blind a few days before dying during 2007 gets the same treatment as a decedent who became blind early in 2007 and did not regain sight at any time before January 1, 2008.
This still leaves out what it mean to be blind, especially other than under the given definition of "partly blind". (Apparently you are not partly blind unless you have a certified statement to that effect.) The old proverb teaches us that "There's none so blind as those who will not see" -- in this situation the question is whether those who cannot see are, by that reason, totally blind for IRS purposes, and thus blind for IRS purposes.
I now believe there is no minimum time before the end of the tax year that one must be blind; Ernie Klein thinks one must be aware of one's inability to see to be blind. (Would that apply to a newborn who was born without eyes?)
Conversely, it seems that because of the "last day of the year" standard, someone who has been blind for several years but regains sight (such as through a successful corneal implant) late in December does not qualify for the higher standard deduction -- the rules here often use arbitrary cutoffs that defy common sense.
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.