Dear Forum Members

[thatdamnJoe]

siris sometimes one cannot questions SARS and their policies. as far as they are concerned rules are rules and that is that.

I dont know why you think SARS is above the law. If SARS decides that something is one way and you disagree and can back up your interpretation from the ACT or decided cases, then nothing stops you from challenging SARS in court.

 

[Celine]

Celine, I know I am being stuck up about the whole plastic surgery thing.

To be honest: At first I did not think SARS would allow the claim (just using common sense). Then I went and did some research and could not find anything that clearly states that plastic surgery is not deductable. In fact, I could not find anything anywhere, almost as if plastic surgery does not exist and no one in the history of man ever tried to claim it. So, I proceeded to claim it. Obviously, plastic surgery is not cheap, so the medical claim for this year was a lot more than last year, so no surprise that they asked for supporting docs after issuing the first assessment and granting the claim. Here I should have just made a summary of the medical expenses, but I thought that, when they see the summary and see one big expense, they are going to ask for that invoice anyways, so I just sent everything. Back comes the assessment and it differs with exactly that expense. So obviously they did not allow it, but they did not say anything about it or let me know that they did not allow it. I had to figure it out myself (it was obvious, but someone else might not have known where the difference is). So now I tell her that they won't allow it because it is cosmetic, but I have nothing to show her to clarify that, except for the assessment that might well have been a mistake on SARS side, how would you know if I really get technical here. And no one can show me anything, other tax people (one of which used to represent SARS in court back in the days when you could still bargain with SARS) seem to think that you should be able to, even the SARS call centre.

I have little doubt that you are indeed 100% correct, but I just need the official explanation. And on what grounds exactly they decide. That is all. Don't you know somebody at SARS that can clarify?

you are not being stuck up stefan. you have every right to object and appeal. but bare in mind that if it gets to the appeal it may cost money unless you have the expertise to take on SARS and their confounded one sided minds.
having been on both sides of the fence, i see from both angles. a) being in SARS and having to follow the rulings and tell people that their claims are not allowed in terms of x y and z and b) being a tax consultant on the outside and people such as yourself claiming what is really a legitimate claim, yet knowing full well how and why it won't be allowed.
the only thing that i can say is if you have the time and money, then challenge the act, go the full hog. see what the outcome is. put it all down setting out the reasons etc. but know this, that it might just be thrown out on the basis of it being cosmetic. extensive questions will be asked such as was it really necessary? would it have made any difference in the life of the person if she hadn't had the surgery done? there will be comparisons made i.e. that of a person who really needs the surgery e.g. a woman who say has huge breasticles and has extensive back and shoulder pain or a woman who has had cancer and wants reconstructive surgery. out of the 3 cases which of them would qualify the most needy. two would and the one wouldn't in the eyes of both SARS and the court.

 

[Stefanmuller]

breasticles...LOL!

Don't worry, I won't go to court. I'm not that adamant about it. The furthest I would go is to "lodge a objection" via e-filing, but I don't know what the procedure is - I hesitated when I saw the form I had to complete for it - before even beginning with the objection. Or write a letter to SARS stating that they did not deduct that expense and that I think they should have. That way at least they have to reply in writing with a reason. The other option is to phone somebody that actually knows at SARS, because clearly the call centre people don't know.

With the scenario of the huge breasticles: For them to be so big to cause back problems, the person usually is huge too. And the breaticles tend to stretch/hang and not look very attractive. So here the main reason at the end is also cosmetic and more about self esteem than actual unbearable back pain. You don't see this very often with a person of normal weight. So why not go for liposuction (cosmetic) and claim that too. (This is me being a prick again....but technically it's true)

 

[Celine]

i submitted an objection for one of my clients re rental income - objection disallowed, was a standard computer generated letter issued to me BAM! that was it LOL. no explanation no thank you for your objection, query or even asking. just disallowed like that. i even went as far as the SSMO office and boy was i stupid to do that. all that is is people in head office passing the query to the relevant person giving them 15 working days to finalise said query.

 

[Stefanmuller]

So what you are saying is that submitting an objection probably won't give me any further explanation?

I cant remember how it worked in the old days when you still had to send your documentation with. But it is strange that they don't tell you 1) what they did not allow and, 2) Why not. I often do financials or tax for clients, and if there is something that I can't subtract for tax, I usually inform the client, and state a tax act or something official should they ask why not. In this case that is all I want. Funny that you don't find any info on plastic surgery though....those doctors are booked for months in advance, and the procedures are expensive, so you would think people would want to claim it and that you would find info on it on the interwebs or forums at least....oh well.

 

[undesign]

So what you are saying is that submitting an objection probably won't give me any further explanation?

I cant remember how it worked in the old days when you still had to send your documentation with. But it is strange that they don't tell you 1) what they did not allow and, 2) Why not. I often do financials or tax for clients, and if there is something that I can't subtract for tax, I usually inform the client, and state a tax act or something official should they ask why not. In this case that is all I want. Funny that you don't find any info on plastic surgery though....those doctors are booked for months in advance, and the procedures are expensive, so you would think people would want to claim it and that you would find info on it on the interwebs or forums at least....oh well.

I've been thinking about your issue. Here is a link from SARS detailing medical deductions -

http://www.moonstoneinfo.com/Morpheus/documentlibrary/67.pdf

The Act is fairly ambiguous about the deductions, as it refers to "qualifying expenses", which includes payments to medical practitioners - hence a plastic surgeon also qualifies. On the other hand, it is fairly obvious that the intent of the Act would never be to allow cosmetic surgery as a deduction - only expenses relating to illness, disability and the likes. Plastic surgery deemed non-cosmetic would obviously fall under the ambit of "normal" medical expenses, as per the intention of the Act.

My suspicion is that cosmetic deductions have never been tested in court, because of the relatively small amounts involved vs. legal fees to pursue such a case. A court may very well find that it is deductible, strictly in terms of the Act. You can be sure that the Act will then be changed during the next rounds of annual amendments to specifically exclude cosmetic surgery - to reflect the actual intention. So either way, a deduction is not going to happen, unless you can prove illness.

 

[Celine]

perhaps what you should challenge is the cost of the surgeon and leave out the surgery costs. the act clearly states qualifying expenses which includes medical practitioners. now in this case i would challenge them with the costs of the surgeon. why don't you try that? how much is it? and perhaps the anethetist. and any other medical practitioner you paid out your own pocket. they are telling you that you can't claim the op itself as it is cosmetic but what about the costs of the doctors? how can they disallow those?

 

[Stefanmuller]

I've been thinking about your issue. Here is a link from SARS detailing medical deductions -

http://www.moonstoneinfo.com/Morpheus/documentlibrary/67.pdf

The Act is fairly ambiguous about the deductions, as it refers to "qualifying expenses", which includes payments to medical practitioners - hence a plastic surgeon also qualifies. On the other hand, it is fairly obvious that the intent of the Act would never be to allow cosmetic surgery as a deduction - only expenses relating to illness, disability and the likes. Plastic surgery deemed non-cosmetic would obviously fall under the ambit of "normal" medical expenses, as per the intention of the Act.

My suspicion is that cosmetic deductions have never been tested in court, because of the relatively small amounts involved vs. legal fees to pursue such a case. A court may very well find that it is deductible, strictly in terms of the Act. You can be sure that the Act will then be changed during the next rounds of annual amendments to specifically exclude cosmetic surgery - to reflect the actual intention. So either way, a deduction is not going to happen, unless you can prove illness.

Hi SiriS

Thanks for the link. I agree with you, it is not that I think I have definate grounds to stand on and that the claim MUST be allowed. I won't go to court or anything, because I realise that the purpose of the act is to provide tax relief for people spending money on the protection of their own health. There is no logical reason to reward (or giving tax relief) to a person for plastic surgery, firstly because it doesn't make sense because it is not directly protecting the person's health, and secondly because it may be encouraging plastic surgery. I was just interpreting the Act literally, and by that plastic surgery should be allowed. Also, there are different forms of plastic surgery, some that are allowed and some that are not. How do they determine when it is allowable? This is an ambiguous point that can be debated. Also, there are some procedures that can be done by a normal surgeon, but to be safe you do it at a plastic surgeon to limit the risk of leaving scars etc. So yes, I had a cricket ball hit me on my nose on two different occasions. No obvious damage, but a year or so later my mom always said that it sounds as though my nose is blocked when I speak. Breathing through my nose was also not what it should be, but not really causing any discomfort or anything. And my nose did look a bit wide and flat, but nothing too obvious. So I could have gone to a "Ear, nose and throat" specialist to have it done, but opted for a plastic surgeon to reconstruct my septum (which apparently was totally crooked like a double "S" which they did not pick up before) and to define my nose a bit more so it looks normal and not too flat. To be honest I don't look any different than I did before, and the nose breathing did not make any huge difference, and it freaking hurts like hell. Point is, I got an invoice for "Rhinoplasty" which is cosmetic surgery. Had I done the same procedure at the "Ear, nose and throat" guy, would does that make any difference? Obviously in this case you can justify medical condition and reconstructive reasons, but plastic surgery was not really needed but obviously costs more. You could argue that the breathing was not what it should be (but not that it is now afterwards), so what can you use as justification, psychological reason? It is thus clear that there are a wide range of cosmetic surgery, some that are more justifiable than others. How do they decide? I would think that it would be standard procedure then for SARS to query the claim, and ask for justification from the taxpayer. And then assess that.

 

[undesign]

Hi SiriS

Thanks for the link. I agree with you, it is not that I think I have definate grounds to stand on and that the claim MUST be allowed. I won't go to court or anything, because I realise that the purpose of the act is to provide tax relief for people spending money on the protection of their own health. There is no logical reason to reward (or giving tax relief) to a person for plastic surgery, firstly because it doesn't make sense because it is not directly protecting the person's health, and secondly because it may be encouraging plastic surgery. I was just interpreting the Act literally, and by that plastic surgery should be allowed. Also, there are different forms of plastic surgery, some that are allowed and some that are not. How do they determine when it is allowable? This is an ambiguous point that can be debated. Also, there are some procedures that can be done by a normal surgeon, but to be safe you do it at a plastic surgeon to limit the risk of leaving scars etc. So yes, I had a cricket ball hit me on my nose on two different occasions. No obvious damage, but a year or so later my mom always said that it sounds as though my nose is blocked when I speak. Breathing through my nose was also not what it should be, but not really causing any discomfort or anything. And my nose did look a bit wide and flat, but nothing too obvious. So I could have gone to a "Ear, nose and throat" specialist to have it done, but opted for a plastic surgeon to reconstruct my septum (which apparently was totally crooked like a double "S" which they did not pick up before) and to define my nose a bit more so it looks normal and not too flat. To be honest I don't look any different than I did before, and the nose breathing did not make any huge difference, and it freaking hurts like hell. Point is, I got an invoice for "Rhinoplasty" which is cosmetic surgery. Had I done the same procedure at the "Ear, nose and throat" guy, would does that make any difference? Obviously in this case you can justify medical condition and reconstructive reasons, but plastic surgery was not really needed but obviously costs more. You could argue that the breathing was not what it should be (but not that it is now afterwards), so what can you use as justification, psychological reason? It is thus clear that there are a wide range of cosmetic surgery, some that are more justifiable than others. How do they decide? I would think that it would be standard procedure then for SARS to query the claim, and ask for justification from the taxpayer. And then assess that.

I have a bad habit of evaluating issues like this according to the "reasonable man test". Bad, because in reality it doesn't work like that. IMHO, with proper justification from your plastic surgeon regarding the real medical issues you should be able to claim the expense. There is a definite "health" factor involved, the surgeon must just motivate it properly.

I would pursue it further - I'm not too sure about the channels available these days. In the old p) days you went to see the assessor and talked it out, maybe a couple of rounds of correspondence - but it was entirely possible to convince them to change their stance.

 

[noxibox]

The Act is fairly ambiguous about the deductions, as it refers to "qualifying expenses", which includes payments to medical practitioners - hence a plastic surgeon also qualifies. On the other hand, it is fairly obvious that the intent of the Act would never be to allow cosmetic surgery as a deduction - only expenses relating to illness, disability and the likes. Plastic surgery deemed non-cosmetic would obviously fall under the ambit of "normal" medical expenses, as per the intention of the Act.

And SARS does not always get it right. Speak to three different supposed experts at SARS on what you can and can't claim, and you'll get three different answers.

Shouldn't the differentiation be between elective and non-elective cosmetic surgery? I know medical aids try to avoid paying for either, despite the fact that being disfigured is disabling, but treatable.