In the Swedish case of Skatteverket v PFC Clinic AB (CJEU Case C-91/12) a company (P) operated a clinic which provided plastic surgery and cosmetic treatments such as breast augmentation and reduction. It reclaimed input tax relating to these supplies. The tax authority rejected the claim on the basis that P was making exempt supplies of medical care. P appealed and the case was referred to the CJEU for a ruling on the interpretation of art 132 of Directive 2006/112/EC. The CJEU held that P’s services could fall within the concept of medical care ‘where those services are intended to diagnose treat or cure diseases or health disorders or to protect maintain or restore human health’. However where the surgery was ‘for purely cosmetic reasons’...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In the Swedish case of Skatteverket v PFC Clinic AB (CJEU Case C-91/12) a company (P) operated a clinic which provided plastic surgery and cosmetic treatments such as breast augmentation and reduction. It reclaimed input tax relating to these supplies. The tax authority rejected the claim on the basis that P was making exempt supplies of medical care. P appealed and the case was referred to the CJEU for a ruling on the interpretation of art 132 of Directive 2006/112/EC. The CJEU held that P’s services could fall within the concept of medical care ‘where those services are intended to diagnose treat or cure diseases or health disorders or to protect maintain or restore human health’. However where the surgery was ‘for purely cosmetic reasons’...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
