天美影院

There are a number of Tribunal decisions on the subject of 鈥渄irect supervision鈥�. Details of some key decisions follow.

Easyway Productions Ltd (VTD 14938) was heard in December 1996 and May 1997. In 1983 Mr Allen Carr (a director of Easyway) developed a system of individual (and then group) therapy to help people stop smoking. In 1985 he published a book and in 1989 he took on an associate, Mr Hayley. Neither Mr Carr nor Mr Hayley had any medical qualification. By the time of the Tribunal hearing Mr Carr鈥檚 son had trained as a doctor. Dr Carr had been at school in 1983 and in his 鈥減re-med鈥� year at university in 1985. He provided services which the Tribunal described as 鈥渙f an informal, advisory nature鈥� over the following several years. Mr Carr argued that Dr Carr directly supervised him and Mr Hayley.

The Tribunal found that Dr Carr did not decide the patient鈥檚 level of care, and he 鈥渓ast visited a building where a therapy session was being conducted in 1992 and 鈥� did not partake in it鈥�. The Tribunal concluded that Dr Carr鈥檚 active involvement in developing the method and 鈥渧etting鈥� the book was irrelevant as he was not a registered doctor at the time, and when he was registered his 鈥渋nformal advice鈥� did not constitute supervision.

However, Easyway appealed again in 2007 (UKFTT 181 (TC), claiming that since the time of the first decision they now employed the services of a doctor who directly supervised the therapists. The tribunal accepted Easyway鈥檚 arguments that the doctor had regular involvement with the therapists, monitoring their sessions, and ensuring that they could always contact him. He also had medical input in assuring that any medical issues arising from therapy were appropriately addressed.

Carragh Pittam (VTD13268) concerned a chiropractor. Certain doctors and surgeons referred patients to her. She argued that her services to those patients were exempt, by virtue of being directly supervised by the referring practitioners. However, the Tribunal pointed out that neither Dr Pittam nor the referring practitioner had said 鈥渋n terms that he supervised her, let alone supervised her directly鈥� and moreover, that the referring practitioner 鈥渟aid that it would be professionally improper to carry out spot checks鈥�, The Tribunal therefore found that direct supervision did not exist. (This appeal pre-dated the introduction of VAT exemption for Chiropractors鈥� services on 15 June 1999).

In the case of A & S 天美影院 (VTD 16025) Mr Jones manufactured and dispensed spectacles. He claimed he was directly supervised by Mr Hamdi, an ophthalmic medical practitioner who sent his patients to Mr Jones if they wanted him to recommend a dispenser. Mr Hamdi did not attend Mr Jones鈥� premises, and there was minimal telephone contact between them. The only regular check carried out by Mr Hamdi was that when, in time, a customer came for their next eye test he would check whether the spectacles had been dispensed in accordance with his prescription. This check was made 1-2 years after the dispensing took place, and obviously could not be carried out for customers whose previous prescription was issued by someone else or who did not return to Mr Hamdi. Though sympathetic to Mr Jones鈥� claim that he was highly proficient and required little supervision, the tribunal found that he had to be 鈥渄irectly supervised鈥� for the purposes of VAT exemption and his arrangement with Mr Hamdi did not amount to supervision.