2 October 1997 Internal T.I. 9711897 - Chelation treatments as a medical expense

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 Department.

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

Principal Issues:

Whether chelation treatments paid to a private clinic qualify as medical expenses.

Position:

Question of fact.

Reasons:

The private clinic would have to qualify as a "licensed private hospital."

			October 2, 1997

	EDMONTON TAX SERVICES OFFICE	HEADQUARTERS
	Client Services		J. Gibbons
(613) 957-8953
	Attention:  Frank Fontana
			7-971189

Chelation Treatments

This is in reply to your memorandum of May 2, 1997, requesting our opinion as to whether chelation treatments for atherosclerosis are "medical expenses" as defined in subsection 118.2(2) of the Income Tax Act (the "Act").

According to paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Act, an amount paid to a medical practitioner, dentist, or nurse or a public or licensed private hospital in respect of medical services is a medical expense. According to subsection 118.4(2) of the Act, a medical practitioner, dentist, or nurse is a person authorized to practice as such pursuant to the laws of the jurisdiction in which the service is rendered. Accordingly, amounts paid to such persons in respect of chelation treatments would qualify as medical expenses.

However, where fees for chelation treatments are paid to a private clinic, the fees would not qualify as a medical expense under paragraph 118.2(2)(a) of the Act, unless the clinic qualified as a "licensed private hospital." As indicated in paragraph 24 of Interpretation Bulletin IT-519R, it is a question of fact whether an institution is a licensed private hospital. We cannot determine from the information provided whether the XXXXXXXXXX would qualify as a licensed private hospital.

In concluding, we would like to clarify that the approval or lack thereof by the Health Protection Branch of Health Canada in respect of a particular medical treatment is irrelevant for purposes of determining whether such treatment qualifies for purposes of section 118.2 of the Act.

C. Chouinard
for Director
Business and Publications Division
Income Tax Rulings and
Interpretations Directorate
Policy and Legislation Branch