Mark Glenn Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 1 August 2024

Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 715 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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: high

Mark Glenn Ltd supplied a labour‑intensive hair integration service called the Kinsey System involving a custom‑made fitted and regularly maintained hair integration. The Tribunal found the supply to be a single service, not a supply or adaptation of a wig or other zero‑rated medical appliance, and held it did not qualify for zero‑rating under Schedule 8 Group 12 VATA94; the supply is standard‑rated. The Tribunal also held that significant hair loss or baldness in women is not, by itself, a disability or chronic illness for the purposes of the zero‑rating provisions.

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: high

The claimant bears the burden of establishing that a supply falls within a zero‑rating provision; where the social and economic reality is a single supply of services, it should not be artificially dissected to capture zero‑rating applicable to a distinct good or appliance. Additionally, underlying hair loss or baldness alone does not satisfy the statutory concept of disability/chronic illness in Note 3 to Schedule 8 for zero‑rating purposes.

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 made observations (not determinative of the outcome) about fiscal neutrality arguments and contrasted conventional medical/surgical wigs (which may be zero‑rated) with integrated, maintenance‑dependent hair systems like the Kinsey System, noting they are conceptually distinct.