header-logo header-logo

VAT

03 May 2013
Issue: 7558 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Skatteverket v PFC Clinic AB C-91/12, [2013] All ER (D) 192 (Apr)
 

Article 132(1)(b) and (c) of Council Directive (EC) 2006/112 (the VAT Directive) should be interpreted as meaning that: supplies of services such as those at issue in the main proceedings, consisting of plastic surgery and other cosmetic treatments, fell within the concepts of “medical care” and “the provision of medical care” within the meaning of Art 132(1)(b) and (c) where those services were intended to diagnose, treat or cure diseases or health disorders or to protect, maintain or restore human health. The subjective understanding that the person who underwent plastic surgery or a cosmetic treatment had of it was not in itself decisive in order to determine whether that intervention had a therapeutic purpose. The fact that services such as those at issue in the main proceedings were supplied or undertaken by a licensed member of the medical profession or that the purpose of such services was determined by such a professional might influence the assessment of whether interventions such as those at issue in the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll