Is laser and IPL hair removal performed by trained but unlicensed technicians in a New York City clinic subject to the city's local sales tax on electrolysis services?

Plain-English summary

A company operates hair-removal clinics in New York City using FDA-approved Intense Pulsed Light (IPL) and laser equipment. Each clinic has a physician serving as medical director who supervises the technicians, but the technicians themselves who operate the equipment are trained in-house (with training protocols developed by physicians and certified by a registered nurse) and are not licensed under Title VIII of New York's Education Law — the law that licenses doctors, nurses, and similar medical professionals. Customers are billed directly by the company for the hair removal services.

New York City has its own local sales tax, separate from the state tax, covering "electrolysis" and "similar services" — but specifically excluding services performed by a physician, nurse, or other Title VIII-licensed professional. The Department found that laser and IPL hair removal achieves essentially the same result as electrolysis (permanent or long-term hair removal) and is cosmetic rather than medical in nature when performed by these unlicensed technicians, so it falls within the "similar services" language and is taxable under the city's local law. Because "electrolysis" and its similar services were never added to New York State's own separate list of taxable services, though, no state sales tax (or the additional state MCTD tax) applies at all — only the New York City local tax.

What this means for you

Laser and IPL hair removal businesses in New York City

Your services are subject to New York City's local sales tax under the same rule that covers electrolysis, waxing, and similar cosmetic hair-removal services — regardless of how sophisticated your equipment is or whether an FDA-regulated device is involved. What actually exempts a hair-removal service from this tax is who performs it: work personally performed by a licensed physician, nurse, or other Title VIII professional is excluded, but work performed by a trained-but-unlicensed technician (even one supervised by a medical director) is not.

Medical spas and cosmetic clinics with mixed licensed/unlicensed staff

The licensed-professional exclusion turns on who actually performs the service, not on whether a licensed professional supervises the business or reviews the equipment's safety. Having a physician as medical director overseeing a clinic doesn't extend the exclusion to services physically performed by unlicensed staff.

Businesses located outside New York City

This local tax is unique to New York City (and other cities of one million or more under Tax Law § 1212-A); it doesn't apply statewide. Electrolysis and similar cosmetic services aren't on New York State's own enumerated taxable-services list, so a business located elsewhere in the state generally owes no sales tax on these services at all.

Common questions

Q: Does having a physician as medical director make our hair removal services exempt from NYC's local tax?
A: No — the exclusion applies only to services personally performed by a licensed Title VIII professional (physician, nurse, etc.), not to services performed by supervised but unlicensed technicians, even in a physician-directed clinic.

Q: Is laser hair removal taxed the same way statewide as it is in New York City?
A: No — this is a New York City-specific local tax; electrolysis and similar cosmetic services were never added to New York State's own list of taxable enumerated services, so no state tax applies anywhere in New York.

Q: Would the answer change if the technicians were licensed nurses performing the procedure themselves?
A: Based on the statute's exclusion for services rendered by a licensed physician, nurse, or similar Title VIII professional, a procedure genuinely performed by such a licensed person would likely fall outside the tax — though that specific fact pattern isn't what this opinion addressed.

Citations and references

Statutes and rules:

• Tax Law § 1105(a) (state enumerated services tax, not extended to electrolysis/similar services)
• Tax Law § 1212-A(a)(2) (NYC local tax authority for electrolysis and similar services)
• NYC Administrative Code § 11-2002(h) (NYC local sales tax imposition and licensed-professional exclusion)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tax.ny.gov/pubs_and_bulls/advisory_opinions/sales_ao_2005.htm
• Opinion: https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/advisory_opinions/sales/a05_3s.pdf

Original ruling text

New York State Department of Taxation and Finance

Office of Tax Policy Analysis
Technical Services Division

TSB-A-05(3)S
Sales Tax
January 31, 2005

STATE OF NEW YORK
COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION AND FINANCE
ADVISORY OPINION

PETITION NO. S040412A

On April 12, 2004, the Department of Taxation and Finance received a Petition for
Advisory Opinion from Michael Bozimowski, BDO Seidman, LLP, 755 West Big Beaver, Suite
1900, Troy, Michigan, 48084. Petitioner, Michael Bozimowski, BDO Seidman, LLP, provided
additional information pertaining to the Petition on August 26, 2004.
The issue raised by Petitioner is whether charges for laser hair removal services
performed in New York City are subject to the sales tax imposed by New York City pursuant to
section 1212-A(a)(2) of the Tax Law.
Petitioner submits the following facts as the basis for this Advisory Opinion.
A company (Company) is in the business of providing hair removal services with Intense
Pulsed Light (IPL) devices and laser equipment. The laser hair removal services ("the services")
are provided to customers at locations within New York City. The IPL devices and laser
equipment used in providing the services are FDA approved and are subject to the reporting
requirements under the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, Parts 800 to 898 for Medical
Devices. The equipment may be purchased or leased by Company. Company may lease the
equipment directly from a leasing company or, in some cases, may lease the equipment from
physicians who, in turn, lease the equipment directly from a leasing company. Each Company
clinic has a physician who serves as a medical director. These same physicians supervise
Company technicians who operate the IPL devices and laser equipment in treatment rooms that
are located within their offices. Petitioner states that the physicians are compensated for these
services through a contract for services, which compensation is reported to the Internal Revenue
Service on Form 1099, and that the physicians are not Company’s employees.
Company technicians undergo a thorough training program before performing the
services. The training protocols were developed by physicians and the trainer who certifies the
technicians is a registered nurse. Additional training is provided, as needed, by Company’s
medical directors. Petitioner represents that the technicians who perform these services are not
licensed, and are not required to be licensed, under Title VIII of the Education Law.
Customers are billed directly by Company for the hair removal services provided.
Applicable law and regulations
Section 1105(a) of the Tax Law imposes sales tax upon the receipts from the sales, except
for resale, of certain enumerated services.

-2­
TSB-A-05(3)S
Sales Tax
January 31, 2005
Section 1212-A of the Tax Law provides, in part:
Certain taxes of cities of one million or more administered by commissioner
of taxation and finance (a) Any city in this state having a population of one million or
more, acting through its local legislative body, is hereby authorized and empowered to
adopt and amend local laws imposing in any such city:
*

*

*

(2) a tax . . . on the receipts from every sale of the following services: beauty,
barbering, hair restoring, manicuring, pedicuring, electrolysis, massage services and
similar services . . . but excluding services rendered by a physician, osteopath, dentist,
nurse, physiotherapist, chiropractor, podiatrist, optometrist, ophthalmic dispenser or a
person performing similar services licensed under title VIII of the education law, as
amended, and excluding such services when performed on pets and other animals.
Section 11-2002 of the New York City Administrative Code provides, in part:
Imposition of sales tax. On and after July first, nineteen hundred seventy-four,
there is hereby imposed within the city of New York and there shall be paid a tax upon
. . . the receipts specified in the following subdivision (h) . . . :
(h) Receipts from beauty, barbering, hair restoring, manicuring, pedicuring,
electrolysis, massage services and similar services, and every sale of services by weight
control salons, health salons, gymnasiums, turkish and sauna bath and similar
establishments and every charge for the use of such facilities, whether or not any tangible
personal property is transferred in conjunction therewith; but excluding services rendered
by a physician, osteopath, dentist, nurse, physiotherapist, chiropractor, podiatrist,
optometrist, ophthalmic dispenser or a person performing similar services licensed under
title VIII of the education law, as amended, and excluding such services when performed
on pets and other animals.
Opinion
Company is in the business of providing hair removal services. The services are
provided to customers at locations within New York City. Customers are billed directly by
Company for the services provided.
Section 1212-A(a)(2) of the Tax Law authorizes, and section 11-2002(h) of the New
York City Administrative Code imposes, a tax on the receipts from every sale of “electrolysis . . .
and similar services . . . but excluding services rendered by a physician, osteopath, dentist, nurse,
physiotherapist, chiropractor, podiatrist, optometrist, ophthalmic dispenser or a person
performing similar services licensed under title VIII of the education law, . . ."

-3­
TSB-A-05(3)S
Sales Tax
January 31, 2005
In the present case, Company is in the business of providing hair removal services using
IPL devices and laser equipment. Such services are similar to and have similar results as
electrolysis services. Company uses trained technicians to operate the laser hair removal
equipment. It is assumed for purposes of this Advisory Opinion that the technicians who
perform these services are not licensed under Title VIII of the Education Law.
Furthermore, the services that Company provides using these technicians are not medical
in nature as are the services provided by a physician, osteopath, dentist, nurse, physiotherapist,
chiropractor, podiatrist, optometrist, ophthalmic dispenser or other person licensed under Title
VIII of the Education Law. Rather, the services provided by Company are cosmetic in nature, as
are the taxable services enumerated in section 1212-A(a)(2) of the Tax Law and section
11-2002(h) of the New York City Administrative Code. Accordingly, receipts from sales of
Company’s services are subject to the New York City sales tax.
Since electrolysis services are not included within the enumerated services subject to tax
under section 1105(c) of the Tax Law, Company’s services are not subject to New York State
sales and compensating use taxes (including the ¼% rate imposed by section 1109 of the Tax
Law).

DATED: January 31, 2005

NOTE:

/s/
Jonathan Pessen
Tax Regulations Specialist IV
Technical Services Division

The opinions expressed in Advisory Opinions are
limited to the facts set forth therein.