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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll