A new special tax tribunal ruling could have major implications for the aesthetics industry. Pete Richardson takes a look at what’s happened and asks some questions about its possible effects.
A simple ruling posted inline about a special tax tribunal finding has raised some interesting questions.
Anti-wrinkle POMs will continue to be taxed after a London clinic lost a tribunal fight claiming they are medical procedures. Tax officials said supplies of the treatment were subject to VAT because they did not consider either to be ‘medical’.
Wow – The taxman considers this POM not to be medical procedures.
I wonder what the JCCP thinks of that? Surely if the taxman thinks the principle purpose of the toxin is for cosmetic reasons then that should be game set and match. No need for regulation or complex consultation – the taxman has spoken!!!
This all comes about after Skin Rich, in Richmond, south-west London, challenged the decision at a specialist tax tribunal. The clinic argued that the toxin was a medical procedure and said they employed medics to administer and supervise the provision of the drug, which can treat certain muscular conditions but is used cosmetically to remove wrinkles.
However, tribunal judge Jeanette Zaman ruled in favour of HM Revenue and Customs and dismissed the appeal. In a written ruling published online, Judge Zaman wrote that Skin Rich had not satisfied her that the “principal purpose” of the “injectable treatments” was to “protect, restore or maintain” health, rather than “for cosmetic reasons”.
So, Mr Taxman thank-you.
The industry continues to pay VAT on the POM as it’s not a medical procedure.
Now maybe this case will be used by those who believe non-medics should be allowed to be treated the same as medics when practising.