Tax Appeals Commission determination 33TACD2022 regarding VAT, 2022

• Administrative Decision Number: 33TACD2022
• Year: 2022
• Date: 07 September 2016
• Respondent: THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

1

33TACD2022

Between/

Appellant

V

THE REVENUE COMMISSIONERS

Respondent

DETERMINATION

1. Outline of the issues

1. This appeal comes before the Tax Appeals Commission by way of an appeal against a

Notice of Assessment to VAT issued by the Respondent to the Appellant on 7

September 2016. The Assessment assessed the Appellant’s liability in the total sum

of €47,109 in respect of the years 2012 to 2016 inclusive, made up as follows:-

1/1/2012 to 31/12/2012 € 6,156.27

1/1/2013 to 31/12/2013 €11,944.40

1/1/2014 to 31/12/2014 €12,432.29

1/1/2015 to 31/12/2015 €12,432.29

2

1/1/2016 to 30/06/2016 € 4,144.10

2.The Appellant by his agent appealed against the said Notice of Assessment by Notice

of Appeal dated 7 October 2016.

2.Factual Background

3.The Appellant originally registered for VAT during the 1998 tax year in connection

with property transactions. In or about 20, he began providing certain medical

services to clients.

4.In January 2007, the Respondent commenced a tax audit of the Appellant’s VAT and

income tax liabilities for the 2005 tax year. In March 2014, the Appellant made an

offer to settle his VAT affairs for the tax years 2004 to 2007 inclusive in the amount

of €31,113 excluding interest and penalties. Each of the tax returns for 2004 to 2007

described the business activity of the Appellant as “Acupuncturist”. The financial

accounts for the year ended 31 December 2007 submitted to the Respondent by the

Appellant’s then agent noted that:-

“Turnover comprises the amount net of VAT in respect of the provision of

acupuncture services and health coaching.”

5.The tax return submitted by the Appellant for 2014 described the Appellant’s

business activity as “Acupuncture/Chiropractor” for the first time. The Appellant had

not, as of the hearing of this appeal, submitted income tax returns for the years 2015

and 2016.

3

6.The position taken by the Appellant was that he was primarily a practitioner of

Traditional Chinese Medicine. This was a group term for a broad spectrum of

treatment methodologies, which were sometimes grouped together and described as

the “four branches” of Traditional Chinese Medicine. The Appellant stated that he was

one of the very few practitioners in Ireland who had trained in and was qualified in

all four branches of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

7.The four branches of Traditional Chinese Medicine practised by the Appellant were:-

(a)Acupuncture and Moxibustion;

(b)Herbal Medicine and Nutrition;

(c)Medical Qigong and Shengong; and,

(d)Tui Na Massage and Chiropractic.

8.Following a meeting with the Respondent, the Appellant carried out a review of his

treatment records in respect of 2014, which he said was a typical and representative

year. He said that his treatmentapproaches could be categorised under five

headings:-

(a)psychology only;

(b)chiropractic only;

(c)acupuncture only;

(d)composite including acupuncture; and,

(e)composite including only VAT exempt services.

9.The Appellant’s view was that the psychology and chiropractic services he provided

were clearly VAT exempt, and he had also asserted in correspondence that

acupuncture services ought also to be exempted. His review indicated that where a

composite service including acupuncture was provided, the acupuncture element

would constitute some 2 to 3 minutes out of an overall treatment period of 30 to 40