Gillian Graham t/a Skin Science v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 25 April 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 352 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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
This appeal concerned whether treatments provided by a nurse-run clinic were VAT-exempt medical care or standard-rated cosmetic services, and whether HMRC's 18 March 2021 VAT assessment was issued in time. The Tribunal found the Appellant did not prove the treatments had a principal therapeutic purpose or fell within the nurse's RGN scope, so the supplies are standard-rated and the compulsory registration decision stands. However, the Tribunal held the 2021 assessment was out of time under s 73(6)(b) because the nil return did not supply new evidence to justify issuing the assessment, so that assessment was annulled. Procedural‑validity/jurisdictional issues were not decided as unnecessary.
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 exemption for medical care requires that the principal purpose of the interventions be the protection, maintenance or restoration of health; cosmetic treatments are only exempt if there is a demonstrated therapeutic/medical need. Separately, for the purposes of s 73(6)(b), the submission of a nil return does not, without supplying new evidence of facts, constitute "evidence of facts" sufficient to restart the one-year period for issuing an assessment.
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 commented (without deciding) on the WHO ICD list and a broad WHO definition of health, noting it had no evidence about their status in UK medical practice and so did not determine their applicability to the exemption. It also observed that partial VAT treatment for mixed-purpose services could be a solution in some cases but did not consider that approach because the Appellant sought full exemption.