Aesthetic-Doctor.Com Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 12 December 2023
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 48 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: medium
This appeal concerned whether supplies by a private aesthetic clinic led by Dr McKeown qualified as exempt medical care under Item 1 Group 7 Schedule 9 VATA (and Article 132(1)(c)). The FTT found on the balance of probabilities that the clinic's overall purpose was cosmetic, contemporaneous records were generally inadequate to show a therapeutic purpose, and mere involvement of registered health professionals did not make the services exempt. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's compulsory registration and s73 assessments upheld.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
To qualify for the Item 1 exemption a supplier must show that the purpose (or, where relevant, the principal purpose) of the supply is to diagnose, treat or cure a disease or disorder of the body or to protect, maintain or restore health; contemporaneous clinical records evidencing diagnosis, clinical findings and a documented treatment plan are central to establishing that therapeutic purpose; the professional status of staff is relevant but not by itself determinative of exempt status.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The tribunal observed that guidance from the JCCP on record-keeping and documenting therapeutic benefit is persuasive practice guidance but not legally binding; the patient's subjective view may be relevant but is not decisive; incidental psychological benefit from cosmetic procedures does not convert them into medical care; and HMRC's Notices are interpretative guidance rather than law.
Warning
- The bundle and transcripts were voluminous and at times incoherent; many records were retrospective or redacted, complicating factual findings. The notes indicate the evidential bundle and transcripts were voluminous, sometimes incoherent, and many clinical records were retrospective or redacted, so the record on some factual points is materially imperfect.