UT/2023/000122 - [2025] UKUT 00341 (TCC)

Ground 1 - The FTT considered itself bound to make its assessment by reference to the “commercial and economic reality” of the Appellant’s supplies. This was an error of approach. The correct approach was to ask whether the services in question fell within the concept of ‘purely cosmetic’ services and therefore fell outside the concept of medical care.

Ground 2 - The FTT’s decision was based upon its view of the purpose or the primary purpose of the Appellant’s services without distinction and without addressing the Appellant’s argument that the primary purpose approach was incorrect. The correct and conceptually distinct approach was to ask whether the purpose was purely cosmetic.

Ground 3 - The FTT confined its assessment of the therapeutic purpose of the care provided by the Appellant within a particularly narrow compass, contrary to the relevant case law.

Ground 4 - The FTT failed to address or record its response to the Appellant’s submission that HMRC were effectively seeking to override the decision made by Parliament not to implement Article 131 of the PVD by excluding cosmetic care (which was not purely cosmetic) from the scope of the exemption.