Case C61

Members:
AM Donovan Ch
GR Thompson M
RK Todd M

Tribunal:
No. 2 Board of Review

Decision date: 1 October 1971.

---

A.M. Donovan (Chairman), G.R. Thompson and R.K. Todd (Members): From childhood the taxpayer, who is still only a young man, has suffered from alopecia totalis, which is the medical term used to describe the complete loss of hair from the scalp and other parts of the body. The objection to his assessment in respect of the year ended 30 June 1970, contends that the Commissioner incorrectly disallowed as a deduction an amount of $150 being the cost of a wig purchased by him during that year.

2. The evidence was that the taxpayer consulted two physicians at different times and underwent treatment for the condition from which he suffered but was ultimately told that nothing could be done to regenerate the growth of hair. His baldness was a source of embarrassment to him and caused him to withdraw from society. On the recommendation of the physician, he acquired a wig in 1957 and then found himself able to mix more freely with his fellows. He wore the wig at all times other than when sleeping. New wigs were purchased at intervals of about two years and, except for the last two, the cost was in all cases allowed as a deduction.

3. It seems that the physician referred the

---

ATC 273

taxpayer to the company from which the first wig was obtained and the taxpayer has continued to be its customer. On the invoice relating to the purchase of the last wig, the supplier was described as ``Ladies Hairdressers, Street and Theatrical Wigmakers and Hair Specialists''. It was the practice of the company to make the taxpayer's wigs to his scalp measurements, the hair being knotted to a base fitted with elastic grips at the sides and metal inserts to make it sit properly. As far as practicable, the hair colour of the wigs remained unaltered but the coiffure changed from time to time.

4. It was contended by the taxpayer that the payment of $150 for the wig was deductible under sec.82F(1) as ``medical expenses'' because it satisfied cl.(f) of sub-sec.(3). which defines the words as including payments ``in respect of a medical or surgical appliance... prescribed by a legally qualified medical practitioner''. To put it briefly, the taxpayer contends that, because the wearing of a wig was recommended by his physician and because it contributes to his psychological well-being in the way described, the requirements of the definition above quoted are satisfied.

5. We do not propose to consider whether, in the circumstances, it could be said that the subject wig was prescribed by a legally qualified medical practitioner, but only whether it satisfies the remainder of the definition. It is necessary to point out that the provision stipulates a ``medical or surgical'' appliance and not just any appliance. It is a fundamental rule of interpretation that all words be given due weight if that is practicable. No-one would suggest that the words in question are easily defined, but their meaning has engaged the attention of Boards on a number of occasions. In
14 T.B.R.D. Case P29, at p. 144, it was said: ``It is not sufficient for a taxpayer to show that a physician has prescribed an appliance to be used for medical or surgical ends. That would be implicit without more in the requirement that the appliance be prescribed. The section requires that the appliance be a medical or surgical appliance, that is an appliance which is manufactured as or distributed as or generally recognised to be an article or thing intended to achieve a medical or surgical end.'' No better interpretation of the words suggests itself to us.

6. One's experience leads to the conclusion that wigs are articles widely advertised and displayed for sale and quite commonly in use, perhaps more often by women than by men. These wigs are generally used for cosmetic purposes and are manufactured, sold and recognised as being worn for those purposes. Such wigs cannot on any tenable view be regarded as medical or surgical appliances. There is little to distinguish the taxpayer's wig from the generality of such articles. It is of course, made to the taxpayer's own measurements and, because he is bald, the base is smaller than otherwise would be the case and its method of gripping the scalp different from the method used in wigs worn by people with natural hair. But these are differences of detail and not of essence. The taxpayer's wig appears indistinguishable in nature and character from those usually worn. Wigs in general cannot be described as medical or surgical appliances and neither can the taxpayer's.

7. In relation to this conclusion it may be observed that in
18 T.B.R.D. Case 123, it was held that in circumstances that seemed to be slightly more favourable to the taxpayer than the present, a wig was not a medical or surgical appliance.

8. For the reasons set out above, the taxpayer's claim fails and the Commissioner's decision on the objection should be upheld.

Claim disallowed.