The appellants were doctors practicing far from a pharmacy. They themselves administered rather than dispensed drugs direct to their clients under the regulation. They appealed a finding that the supplies were exempt supplies, asserting instead that they were zero-rated. The NHS refused to make an allowance against VAT paid on drugs supplied to regulation 20 patients.
Held: The judge had viewed the issue as one of fact. That was incorrect. The aim of the patient was to be diagnosed and then to receive treatment. In a general sense that was one supply, but in the context of this question, that was the wrong level of generality. Here there were two supplies, and the supply of the drug was zero-rated.
Judges:
Lord Justice Aldous Lord Justice Chadwick Mr Justice Munby
Citations:
Times 15-Jan-2003, [2002] EWCA Civ 1870
Links:
Statutes:
National Health Service (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992 (1992 No 662) 20, Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch8 Grp12 1A
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Doctor Beynon and Partners v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 2002
. .
Cited – Beynon and Partners v Customs and Excise HL 25-Nov-2004
The House asked whether the personal administration of a drug such as a vaccine by an NHS doctor to a patient is a taxable supply for the purposes of value added tax. The provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Beynon and Partners v Customs and Excise HL 25-Nov-2004
The House asked whether the personal administration of a drug such as a vaccine by an NHS doctor to a patient is a taxable supply for the purposes of value added tax. The provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
VAT, Health Professions
Updated: 06 June 2022; Ref: scu.178546