Sorting a surrogacy bill into what the tax credit actually covers

The situation

The reassessment notice did not ask a question. It made a decision, and the decision was that every dollar Giulia and her spouse Rizki had claimed for their surrogacy arrangement the previous year was disallowed, all at once, with a single line of explanation stating that the expenses did not qualify as eligible medical expenses under the rules.

Giulia ran a small farm outside Markham and picked up landscaping contracts in the growing season to fill out the household income, while Rizki worked as an administrative assistant. Their combined income was modest, and the surrogacy arrangement, arranged through a fertility clinic with a surrogate named Vincenzo acting as the gestational carrier, had cost them a significant amount over the year: fees paid to the clinic for medical procedures, reimbursement to Vincenzo for pregnancy-related medical costs, and a separate set of payments that covered Vincenzo's living expenses and a fee for the arrangement itself.

They had claimed the whole amount as a medical expense on the theory that it was all, in one sense or another, part of the cost of having a child through surrogacy. Their accountant at the time had prepared the claim the same way, bundling every invoice from the arrangement into one figure without separating out what each payment was actually for.

That bundling was exactly what the reassessment seized on. Rather than dispute individual line items, the reassessing officer treated the entire claim as unsupported because the invoices did not clearly show which costs were medical in nature and which were not, and disallowed the full amount rather than sorting through it. The total in dispute landed in the range of fifteen to fifty thousand dollars, a meaningful sum for a household running on farm income and seasonal landscaping work.

Giulia and Rizki had spent years trying to have a child before the surrogacy arrangement came together, and the arrangement with Vincenzo had, from their point of view, finally worked. A healthy child had come from it. The reassessment notice arrived not as a warning shot but as a finished decision, and it landed at a moment when the family had every reason to think the hardest part of their story was already behind them, not still ahead of them in a tax file.

The problem

The tax credit for medical expenses covers a defined set of costs connected to conceiving a child through assisted means, including specific fees paid to a fertility clinic and reimbursement for a surrogate's own eligible medical expenses during the pregnancy. It does not extend to every payment a family makes as part of a surrogacy arrangement. A general fee paid to a surrogate for her time and the arrangement itself, and reimbursement for living costs unrelated to a medical procedure, generally fall outside what the credit was built to cover, however reasonable those costs are as part of the overall arrangement.

Giulia and Rizki's original claim had not drawn that line at all. It combined clinic fees, medical reimbursements to Vincenzo, a general arrangement fee, and living-expense reimbursements into one number, supported by a folder of invoices that were themselves not itemized clearly enough to show a reviewer which category each payment belonged to. From the reassessing officer's point of view, an unsorted claim like that was simpler to disallow outright than to sort through item by item, and that is what happened.

The genuine problem for Giulia and Rizki was that some of what had been disallowed was, in fact, clearly eligible. The clinic fees for the medical procedures themselves and the reimbursements tied specifically to Vincenzo's prenatal care and delivery were the kind of cost the credit exists for. But proving that now meant going back through a year of invoices and separating medical costs from non-medical ones after the fact, using records that had never been organized that way to begin with.

Money to fight the reassessment was tight. Farm income varies year to year, and Giulia's landscaping season had been a modest one. They could not afford to contest every disallowed dollar with equal effort, and a fight that dragged out with no clear priorities risked costing more in time and professional fees than the amount actually at stake. The strategy had to identify, quickly, which parts of the claim were strong enough to win and which were not worth the cost of arguing.

There was also a timing pressure specific to farm income. Giulia's best months for cash flow ran through the harvest season, and the family wanted the file resolved, one way or another, before the next planting cycle required its own capital. A dispute that dragged on indefinitely, accumulating professional fees against an uncertain outcome, was itself a risk to the farm's operating budget, separate from whatever the reassessment ultimately cost.

What we did

1. Sorted every invoice from the surrogacy arrangement into three categories on a single spreadsheet: clearly medical, clearly non-medical, and unclear, working from the same bundled folder the original accountant had used but reading each line item on its own terms rather than as part of one lump figure. Doing this before drafting a single argument meant the family could see, immediately, roughly how much of the disallowed claim was worth fighting for, which kept the early hours of the file cheap and focused on facts rather than speculation.
2. Went back to the clinic for itemized statements covering the procedures Giulia and Rizki had paid for, replacing the bundled invoices in their original folder with documents that separated the medical procedure fees from any administrative or facility charges billed alongside them. Itemized clinic records carry far more weight with a reviewer than a lump-sum receipt, since the reviewer can see exactly what was medical and what was not without having to take the family's word for the breakdown.
3. Contacted Vincenzo directly to reconstruct which reimbursements had covered prenatal medical care as opposed to general living costs during the pregnancy, rather than relying only on Giulia and Rizki's own recollection of which payment covered what. Vincenzo's own records, kept for their own tax purposes, turned out to distinguish the two more clearly than the family's had, since a surrogate has their own reason to track medical reimbursements separately from personal support payments.
4. Dropped the general arrangement fee and the living-expense reimbursements from the claim entirely rather than argue for them, even though every dollar mattered to a household running on farm and landscaping income. This was a deliberate decision to concede the weakest parts of the claim early, before the reviewer had to reject them, so the remaining file read as credible rather than as one more unsorted bundle, and so no further hours were spent defending amounts that were never likely to be recovered.
5. Prepared a narrowed adjustment request covering only the clinic's medical procedure fees and the reimbursements tied specifically to Vincenzo's prenatal and delivery care, supported by the newly itemized records rather than the family's original explanation of the arrangement. Filing a request scoped this tightly, instead of resubmitting the original bundled claim and inviting a second blanket denial, meant the reviewer had nothing left to sort through and nothing easy to reject wholesale.
6. Kept the submission to a single, focused package rather than a lengthy written argument, on the reasoning that a reviewer facing a tight, well-documented claim with the weak items already removed needed persuading on facts, not on pages of legal argument the family could not afford to have drafted. A shorter submission also meant fewer billable hours spent writing, which mattered directly to a household deciding, dollar for dollar, how much of the disputed amount could reasonably be spent recovering it.
7. Set a firm limit on the hours budgeted for the file before it started and agreed with Giulia and Rizki upfront on which steps were essential and which were optional, given how little room a farm-and-landscaping income left for an open-ended fight. Deciding that scope in advance, rather than letting it accumulate step by step, meant every hour spent afterward was measured against a number the family had already agreed was proportionate to what was actually at stake.
8. Followed up with the reviewing office on a fixed schedule rather than waiting passively for updates to arrive, setting calendar reminders so the file was never allowed to go quiet for long stretches. A narrowed, well-supported claim sitting untouched in a queue for months would still have eroded the cost advantage the early triage was meant to protect, since delay itself has a cost when a family is budgeting professional time against a fixed amount at stake.

The outcome

The tax authority accepted the narrowed claim in full. The clinic's medical procedure fees and the reimbursements tied to Vincenzo's prenatal and delivery care were reinstated as eligible medical expenses, restoring the large majority of the amount originally disallowed. The general arrangement fee and the living-expense reimbursements, which had been dropped from the claim before the resubmission, were never recovered, but they had also never had a strong basis for eligibility to begin with.

Giulia and Rizki ended up with most of the disputed amount restored, at a fraction of the cost a full-scale dispute over every line item would have required. Because the weak items were conceded early rather than argued and lost, the professional time spent on the file stayed proportionate to what was actually recoverable, which mattered given how tightly the household was budgeting for the fight in the first place.

The credit going forward is now claimed with the same itemization the family used to win this dispute, so a future year's invoices will already be sorted the way a reviewer expects to see them, rather than requiring the same reconstruction after the fact.

The file also closed before the next planting season began, which mattered as much to Giulia as the outcome itself. Farm cash flow does not wait for a reassessment to be resolved, and having a clear answer, with no professional fees still accumulating against an open dispute, meant the family could plan the coming year's budget without a tax file hanging over it.

Vincenzo's willingness to go back through their own records for the reconstruction turned out to matter more than anyone expected going in; without their itemized account of what each reimbursement had actually covered, the medical portion of the claim would have been far harder to separate from the rest. Giulia later said that the win, when it came, felt less like a legal victory and more like the paperwork finally catching up to what she had always known the money was actually for.

What you can learn from this