Tag Archives: vat-medical

VAT: Updated guidance for medical professionals

By Marcus Ward 2 October 2023

HMRC has updated VAT Notice 701/57 – Health professionals and pharmaceutical products.

The changes, in summary, are:

Para 2.1 – Pharmacy technicians (only in England, Scotland and Wales) has been added to the meaning of a health professional list.

Para 2.5 – Services directly supervised by a pharmacist has been removed: Services that are not exempt from VAT.

Para 4.7 has been updated to make it clear when forensic physicians services are exempt healthcare.

Para 5.2 – Services supervised by pharmacists are now included when referring to a health professional: Exemption of care services performed by a person not enrolled on a statutory medical register.

The exemptions covered in the health and welfare area are complex and even slight differences in circumstances can change the VAT liability of a supply. Additionally, there are further exemptions for charities and NFP bodies and the age-old issue of business/non-business.

We advise that specialist advice is sought when considering the VAT position of supplies in this area.

VAT: Is a cosmetic treatment exempt medical care? The Illuminate Skin Clinics Ltd case

By Marcus Ward 12 July 2023

Latest from the courts

In the Illuminate Skin Clinics Ltd First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) case the issue was whether cosmetic procedures qualified as exempt medical treatment.

Background

The Appellant runs a private, ie; non-NHS clinic offering a range of aesthetic, skincare and wellness treatments advertised as: fat freezing, thread lifts, chemical peels, fillers, facials, intravenous drips and boosters. The Appellant’s sole director and shareholder, Dr Shotter, complies with Item 1 (below) in terms of qualifications, ie; she is enrolled on the register of medical professionals.

The list of treatments included:

Botox
Dermal fillers
CoolSculpting
Microsclerotherapy
Prescription skincare
Chemical peels
Microdermabrasion
Thread lifting
Thermavein
Aqualyx
Platelet-rich plasma treatment.

HMRC contended that these supplies were standard rated because there is no medical purpose behind the treatments, and they are carried out for purely cosmetic purposes. An assessment was raised for output tax on this income.

The Appellant argued that what it provided was exempt medical care via The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, Group 7, item 1 – “The supply of services consisting in the provision of medical care by a person registered or enrolled in any of the following:

The register of medical practitioners…”

And its contention was that the primary purpose of the treatments was “the protection, maintenance or restoration of the health of the person concerned”

In the Mainpay case it was established that “medical” care means “diagnosing, treating and, in so far as possible, curing diseases or health disorders”

Decision

Although there may have been a beneficial psychological impact on undergoing such treatments and this may have been the reason for a patient to proceed (and they may be recommended by qualified medical professionals) this, in itself, was insufficient to persuade the judge that the services were exempt. Consequety, the appeal was rejected and the assessment was upheld.

The FTT found that there was very little evidence of diagnosis. This was important to the overall analysis because diagnosis is the starting point of medical care. Without diagnosis, “treatment”, in the sense of the exemption, is not something which is being done responsively to a disease or a health disorder.

The fact that people go to the clinic feeling unhappy with some aspect of their appearance, and (at least sometimes) are happier when something is done at the clinic about that aspect of their appearance, does not mean that the treatment is medical, or has a therapeutic aim.

It was telling that the differentiation, in Dr Shotter’s own words, between what the clinic does from what “a GP or other health professional” does is; diagnosis. It also highlighted the general trend or purpose of the clinic’s activity – helping people to feel better about their appearance, in contexts where their appearance is not itself a health condition, or threatening to their health in a way which mandates treatment of their appearance by a GP or another health professional.

Helping someone to achieve goals in relation to their appearance, which is what this clinic did, is not treating someone’s mental health status, but is going to their self-esteem and self-confidence. It is a misuse of language to say that this is healthcare in the sense that it would fall within Item 1 of Group 7.

Commentary

There has been an ongoing debate as to what constitutes medical care. Over 20 years ago I was advising a large London clinic on this very point and much turned on whether patients’ mental health was improved by undergoing what many would regard as cosmetic procedures. We were somewhat handicapped in our arguments by the fact that many of the patients were lap dancers undergoing breast augmentation on the direction of the owner of the club…

It is worth remembering that not all services provided by a medically registered practitioner are exempt. The question of whether the medical care exemption is engaged in any given case will turn on the particular facts.

Further recent cases on medical exemption here and here.

VAT: Day-care services by private bodies are taxable

By Marcus Ward 22 June 2021

Latest from the courts

Following the Supreme Court decisions in Life Services Ltd and The Learning Centre (Romford) Ltd HMRC have published guidance in Revenue & Customs Brief 9 (2021).

NB: This guidance applies to bodies in England and Wales only – Scotland and Northern Ireland have different rules.

The relevant cases concerned the VAT liability of day-care services provided by private bodies to vulnerable adults in England. They confirmed that HMRC’s interpretation of the legislation is correct; that providers of day-care must be charities, public bodies or regulated by the relevant authority (“approved, licensed, registered or exempted from registration by any Minister or other authority pursuant to a provision of a public general Act”) in order to be able to exempt these services.

The legislation is: The VAT Act 1994, Schedule 9, group 7, item 9.

It is understood that there were a significant number of claims stood behind the Supreme Court cases and these will now fail.

HMRC state that providers who have not accounted for VAT on supply of these services must do so with immediate effect.

Commentary

This is a further example of the VAT complexity in the provision of health and welfare services. It has always been an area ripe for disputes and such bodies and their advisers would be prudent to review the tax treatment of their supplies. There are usually two discrete areas of potential problems; whether services are business or non-business, and if business – do they fall within the various exemptions found at Schedule 9, group 7, items 1 to 11.

VAT: Extent of exemption for healthcare. The X-GmbH CJEU case

By Marcus Ward 10 March 2020

Latest from the courts

In the CJEU case of X, a German business, the issue was whether services provided by telephone could be treated as exempt. The decision is not available in English in the link above, so thanks to Google translate and very rusty schoolboy language skills!

Background

X provided a healthcare hotline to people covered by certain insurance. The types of services carried out where in respect of medical issues; medical advice, answers to queries, explanations of possible diagnoses and treatments, and patient support programmes for certain conditions. The service was provided by suitably qualified nurses, medical staff and doctors.

The issue

Was this service exempt from VAT as personal care considering it was “support” provided by telephone? He relevant legislation is Article 132(1)(c) of the VAT Directive. A separate issue was whether the staff required additional proof of their professional qualifications to qualify as an exempt service by telephone. The advice was provided via a computer assisted assessment, using targeted questions allowing X to assess the patient’s situation and to advise accordingly. Consequently, there was a degree of automation involved.

The German authorities considered that the supplies fell short of the exemption and raised assessments for output tax due on the services.

Decision

The CJEU has ruled that personal care is not dependent on where it is carried out and there is no bar to it being conducted by telephone. X contended that its services were directly connected with illness and was medical care and, as a result of its activities, the cost of subsequent treatment was reduced.

The court established that the supply was exempt if it met two tests:

it must be a service of personal care, and
it must be carried out within the framework of the exercise of the medical and paramedical professions as defined by the Member State concerned

Therefore, healthcare services carried out by telephone may fall within the exemption, but only if they meet all the conditions for applying this exemption. The test was not how the services were delivered.

Whether X’s services met the exemption conditions depended on case law and whether they were to;

diagnose, treat and cure illnesses or health anomalies
protect (including maintaining or restoring) the health of individuals.
explain diagnosis and therapies
propose modifications to treatments and medication

Such services were likely to have a ‘therapeutic purpose’. However, simply; directing patients to factsheets, providing specialists’ contact details and communicating information is insufficient to qualify for exemption and would be regarded as of a (taxable) administrational nature.

Summary

The services provided by telephone, consisting of providing advice on health and illness, were likely to be exempt, if they pursue a ‘therapeutic aim’. However, this was for the German referring court to verify. On the “additional qualifications” point, EU law does not define medical professions, so it is the responsibility of each Member State to determine the necessary qualifications. In the UK, these qualifications are set out at VAT Act 1994, Schedule 8, Group 7, item 1 (mainly; registered or enrolled as a doctor, optician, osteopath, chiropractor, nurse or midwife). It was decided that Article 132(1)(c) does not require that those X’s staff which provide telephone services to obtain additional professional qualifications.

Commentary

There is often significant uncertainty when businesses provide “healthcare”, This has mainly manifested in questions of whether staff or medical services are actually provided (and in more wide-ranging cases, whether the provision of staff is by way of agent or principal). However, with technology moving faster than ever, it is helpful to have these guidelines and the understanding that it is not just “old-fashioned” medical services which are covered by the exemption.

VAT: Exempt medical treatment – The Skin Rich case

By Marcus Ward 9 September 2019

Latest from the courts

In the Skin Rich Ltd [2019] TC 07310 First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case, the issue was whether Botox and nail treatments could be exempt as health and welfare services: “The supply of services consisting in the provision of medical care” by a “registered person” (principally, doctors, opticians, osteopaths, chiropractors and nurses).

Background

Skin Rich Ltd operated a skin culture and aesthetics clinic offering a range of specialist skin treatments including, but not limited to, Botox and dermal filler treatments or ‘Injectables’ and fungal nail treatments it contended were exempt from VAT.

The appellant employed several medical professionals to administer the injectables arguing it was a medical procedure and exempt under VATA 1994, Sch. 9, Grp. 7, items 1 and 2. It was not enough, however, that the services were provided by persons registered as appropriate, they had to be providing “medical care” in order to meet the terms of the exemption. Their principal purpose had to be the protection, including the maintenance or restoration of health. Whilst it was conceded a cosmetic benefit would not preclude a treatment having a primary purpose to protect, restore or maintain the health of an individual.

Decision

The FTT dismissed the appeal that Botox services and fungal nail treatment supplied by them were exempt under VATA 1994, Sch. 9, Grp. 7, items 1 and 2, or alternatively item 4. Consequently, output tax was due on the full value of these supplies. The FTT was not persuaded the services were principally to protect, restore or maintain the health of an individual. They did not, therefore, meet the definition of medical care established by the relevant case law. Furthermore, they did not consider the taxpayer to be “state regulated” as required by item 4.

Commentary

This can be a difficult area of the tax. I have dealt with a number of cases where apparent cosmetic surgery (breast augmentation and liposuction etc) were argued to have beneficial mental health outcomes. Case law on this matter is sometimes conflicting. Care should be taken when determining the VAT liability of certain procedures. The tests are more than something being “sort of medical”.

This was not an unexpected outcome, but presumably the appellant thought that, for the tax involved, it was worth going to court.