• Subscribe
  • Log In
  • Sign up for email updates
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

The Texas Lawbook

Free Speech, Due Process and Trial by Jury

  • Appellate
  • Bankruptcy
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Corp. Deal Tracker/M&A
  • GCs/Corp. Legal Depts.
  • Firm Management
  • White-Collar/Regulatory
  • Pro Bono/Public Service/D&I

Baker Botts Fights ‘Tampon Tax’ Imposed by Texas Comptroller

April 21, 2022 Osler McCarthy

A Sugar Land woman and an organization calling itself the Texas Menstrual Equity Coalition are challenging the Texas comptroller’s interpretation that permits sales taxes to be collected on feminine-health products like tampons.

In a letter requesting a tax refund, sent more than a year ago to the comptroller, Baker Botts partner Meghan Dawson McElvy, on behalf of Sahar Punjwani of Sugar Land and the coalition, offered sales receipts from two Houston-area stores to argue that feminine-hygiene products were subject to state sales tax but comparable male-only products – and even a libido-enhancer – are not.

This policy, McElvy wrote, “favors the male sex drive and organs over the management of female menstruation. The current tax scheme suggests that the state of Texas, through the Comptroller, views over-the-counter libido enhancers as a higher medical priority than tampons.”

McElvy could not be reached for comment. But Laura Shoemaker McGonagill, a Baker Botts associate, said the comptroller denied the refund request in February. McGonagill said the firm, representing Punjwani and the coalition pro bono, will file an administrative appeal Friday to Comptroller Glenn Hager. If that’s denied, McGonagill said, the next recourse would be suing the comptroller in Travis County district court.

The comptroller’s office said pending sales-tax refund claims are confidential by statute so it would have no comment. But the comptroller’s spokesman did not answer a follow-up question, whether taxing feminine-hygiene products and not gender-neutral “wound care products” discriminates against women.

The comptroller’s failure to apply its rules to grant feminine-hygiene products tax-exempt status “constitutes impermissible gender-based discrimination” because only women use menstrual products,” McElvyt wrote. In seeking Punjwani‘s refund, McElvy noted that the comptroller’s rules exempt “wound-care dressings” like gauze and adhesive bandages but not such feminine-hygiene products that meet the same definition.

Staff reporter Bruce Tomaso contributed to this story.

Osler McCarthy

Osler McCarthy is an editor-at-large for The Texas Lawbook.

View Osler’s articles

Email Osler

©2025 The Texas Lawbook.

Content of The Texas Lawbook is controlled and protected by specific licensing agreements with our subscribers and under federal copyright laws. Any distribution of this content without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.

If you see any inaccuracy in any article in The Texas Lawbook, please contact us. Our goal is content that is 100% true and accurate. Thank you.

Primary Sidebar

Recent Stories

  • FBFK Adds Two Veteran Lawyers to its Austin Office
  • Litigation Roundup: CEO Indicted in Alleged UT Austin Arena Bid Rigging Conspiracy
  • ‘Whatever It Takes’: San Antonio Lawyer Joins Frontline Flood Recovery in His Hometown
  • Texas-sized Ambition: Huntington Banks on Middle Market with $1.9B Purchase of Prized Veritex
  • CDT Roundup: AI Gets Amped in Somewhat Quiet Week for Deals

Footer

Who We Are

  • About Us
  • Our Team
  • Contact Us
  • Submit a News Tip

Stay Connected

  • Sign up for email updates
  • Article Submission Guidelines
  • Premium Subscriber Editorial Calendar

Our Partners

  • The Dallas Morning News
The Texas Lawbook logo

1409 Botham Jean Blvd.
Unit 811
Dallas, TX 75215

214.232.6783

© Copyright 2025 The Texas Lawbook
The content on this website is protected under federal Copyright laws. Any use without the consent of The Texas Lawbook is prohibited.