6 December 2002 External T.I. 2002-0164235 - MEDICAL EXPENSES

Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the CRA.
Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle de l'ARC.

Please note that the following document, although believed to be correct at the time of issue, may not represent the current position of the CCRA.

Prenez note que ce document, bien qu'exact au moment émis, peut ne pas représenter la position actuelle de l'ADRC.

Principal Issues: Whether electrolysis expenses are medical expenses

Position: Only if performed by a medical practitioner or by a person employed by a medical practitioner

Reasons: Paragraph 118.2(2)(1) allows amounts paid to medical practitioners for "medical services"-hair removal is not a medical service unless performed for a medical reason by a medical practitioner or a person employed by a medical practitioner

XXXXXXXXXX 2002-016423
Lena Holloway, CA
December 6, 2002

Dear Sir or Madam:

Re: Hair Removal Expenses

We are writing in reply to your letter of September 19, 2002, wherein you requested our comments as to whether the cost of electrolysis or laser hair removal would qualify as a medical expense for income tax purposes.

Subsection 118.2(2) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act") describes the expenses that qualify for purposes of claiming the medical expense tax credit. An expense for electrolysis or laser hair removal is not found in the list of qualifying medical expenses. However, the list includes an amount paid to a "medical practitioner, dentist or nurse or a public or licensed private hospital" in respect of a medical or dental service. For this purpose, a medical practitioner is a person authorized to practise pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction in which the service is rendered. Thus, the cost of electrolysis can only be treated as a medical expense if a medical practitioner or a person employed by a medical practitioner performs it for a medical purpose.

The foregoing comments represent our general views with respect to the subject matter. As indicated in paragraph 22 of Information Circular 70-6R5, the above comments do not constitute an income tax ruling and accordingly are not binding on the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency. Our practice is to make this specific disclaimer in all instances in which we provide an opinion.

We trust the above comments are of assistance.

Yours truly,

Daryl Boychuk, LL.B
for Director
Business and Partnerships Division
Income Tax Rulings Directorate