Help on New Indoor Tanning Tax

[wbond]

Can anyone point me to details about this new tax?

I understand that in the new legislation there is to be a 10% tax on indoor tanning booth services.

I am wondering if this only applies – strictly speaking – to the tanning sessions or to all purchases? So, in other words, if I also buy eyeprotectors with a custom design and some sort of skin product then do I pay only the applicable sales tax on that portion of the bill? Also, is the 10% levied on the tanning charges before sales tax, or after? How about the sale of tanning beds for private use – do I pay only state sales tax, or also this additional federal 10% tax? Does this cover the use of UV as medical therapy in a dermatologist’s office (e.g. for psoriasis in some cases)?

Some of these places are a little shady. Who do I report them to if they don’t charge me the 10%?

Lastly, from a tax-planning standpoint I am looking to move for the biggest tax break and the most cost-effective, George Hamiltonesque, suntan. Of the states without a state income tax and with significant natural sunshine year-round, that would seem to leave Nevada, Texas, and Florida as the best candidates. Boglehead thoughts?

[fishnskiguy]

You want thoughts? I'll give you thoughts.

The tax will be used to pay for your melanoma treatment.

Chris

[strafe]

The answer depends on your Tanner stage and other factors. See the sticky post on how to determine your Tanner staging, format your available tanning options, and reconcile your need/ability/willingness to receive a tan.

In the absence of that information and ignoring the fungibility of money, I recommend against funding your tanning purchases with capital gains income to avoid double-taxation.

[wbond]

The answer depends on your Tanner stage and other factors. See the sticky post on how to determine your Tanner staging, format your available tanning options, and reconcile your need/ability/willingness to receive a tan.

In the absence of that information and ignoring the fungibility of money, I recommend against funding your tanning purchases with capital gains income to avoid double-taxation.

Thanks for your reply. I'm a Tanner Stage V male. Are you saying that there's a discount for children? Perhaps we're not saying the same thing.

That is a good point about the capital gains income, however.

Evidently this starts tomorrow. Anyone know of any late-night tanning booths?

[baw703916]

Anyone know of any late-night tanning booths?

I had always thought of tanning as more of a daytime activity, actually.

Brad

[Blue]

Indoor tanning is a little like playing russian roulette.... every time you are in the bed you have to wonder is the UV ray that is going to cause the mutation that causes a fatal melanoma for you. Don't do it.

btw, despite the similarity in names, Tanner stage has zero to do with tanning.

[Rick Ferri]

If this activity is so bad for us, why tax it? Why not just outlaw tanning? Make tanning illegal...it is for the good of the country. A win for the people of America! I heard that outlawing tanning would save $130 billion according to the CBO, and likely balance the budget by 2030!

This is a joke, Alex. Please don't ban me.

[Opponent Process]

I think this only kicks in after you've purchased $200,000 worth of indoor tanning services. But then there's people that'd tell you that you just can't get by on less than $200,000 worth of indoor tanning in NYC.

[arthurdawg]

If this activity is so bad for us, why tax it? Why not just outlaw tanning? Make tanning illegal...it is for the good of the country. A win for the people of America! I heard that outlawing tanning would save $130 billion according to the CBO, and likely balance the budget by 2030!

This is a joke, Alex. Please don't ban me.

\



former marine or not, i am reporting you ferri! this post was a disgrace to rules of this forum regarding politicial posts!

[market timer]

If this activity is so bad for us, why tax it? Why not just outlaw tanning?

Tax can be more efficient than a ban:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax

[arthurdawg]

Indoor tanning is a little like playing russian roulette.... every time you are in the bed you have to wonder is the UV ray that is going to cause the mutation that causes a fatal melanoma for you. Don't do it.

btw, despite the similarity in names, Tanner stage has zero to do with tanning.

as a practicing oncologist, i heartily endorse tanning, smoking, ingestion of radioactive elements, etc. as good for my future business! keep it up america!

[Pacific]

Some of these places are a little shady

Then not much tan, huh?

[Jack]

I can see a bull market in tax-free spray-on tanning salons.

[Cloud]

If this activity is so bad for us, why tax it? Why not just outlaw tanning? Make tanning illegal...it is for the good of the country. A win for the people of America! I heard that outlawing tanning would save $130 billion according to the CBO, and likely balance the budget by 2030!

This is a joke, Alex. Please don't ban me.

Tax is good. Ban is bad. Tax marijuana instead of banning it just like we tax cigarettes and alcohol. I don't want any tanning ban starting an underground market. LOL

[Dale_G]

Please note: If your adjusted gross income is less than 513% of the poverty level, you may be eligible for a refundable tax credit.

Will sunshine be next?

Dale

[sommerfeld]

Insider tanning: worse than insider trading?

[MWCA]

If this activity is so bad for us, why tax it? Why not just outlaw tanning? Make tanning illegal...it is for the good of the country. A win for the people of America! I heard that outlawing tanning would save $130 billion according to the CBO, and likely balance the budget by 2030!

This is a joke, Alex. Please don't ban me.

Next thing you know they will want to tax away your salt!

Woah wait a minute...

[wbond]

Some of these places are a little shady

Then not much tan, huh?

You are to be commended on your finely-tuned pun detector.

[felixters]

Some of these places are a little shady

Then not much tan, huh?

very well played.

[bottlecap]

I detect an emerging identity crisis. But Ward Bond to George Hamilton?

[Jack]

Indoor tanning is a little like playing russian roulette.... every time you are in the bed you have to wonder is the UV ray that is going to cause the mutation that causes a fatal melanoma for you. Don't do it.

btw, despite the similarity in names, Tanner stage has zero to do with tanning.

as a practicing oncologist, i heartily endorse tanning, smoking, ingestion of radioactive elements, etc. as good for my future business! keep it up america!

Seriously though, it turns out that the tanning bed tax was proposed by the American Academy of Dermatology as a health care cost reduction measure. Indoor tanning increases the risk of skin cancer by 75%. The hope is that this will work the way the large increase in tobacco taxes has helped reduce smoking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/fashion/24Skin.html

[SP-diceman]

Indoor tanning is a little like playing russian roulette.... every time you are in the bed you have to wonder is the UV ray that is going to cause the mutation that causes a fatal melanoma for you. Don't do it.

btw, despite the similarity in names, Tanner stage has zero to do with tanning.

as a practicing oncologist, i heartily endorse tanning, smoking, ingestion of radioactive elements, etc. as good for my future business! keep it up america!

Seriously though, it turns out that the tanning bed tax was proposed by the American Academy of Dermatology as a health care cost reduction measure. Indoor tanning increases the risk of skin cancer by 75%. The hope is that this will work the way the large increase in tobacco taxes has helped reduce smoking.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/24/fashion/24Skin.html

That sounds nice. However, the truth is someone else was taxed.
They complained about it (I guess they had more leverage) and
it was changed at the last minute to a tanning tax.

So they can make believe they care about skin cancer but
the truth is its just like smokes. As long as we get money from it
we dont care.

Hey, why not put tolls on every single street?
People die in car crashes.

Whats next?
The running with scissors tax?


Thanks
SP-diceman

[mtl325]

It's really a tax targetted at Anthony Mozillo, it's a pigovian tax to dissuade subprime lending. Ta-Da, we fixed it.

[ryuns]

It's really a tax targetted at Anthony Mozillo, it's a pigovian tax to dissuade subprime lending. Ta-Da, we fixed it.

It's the UV making him that color? I thought he was just from another planet where that was a normal shade.

[Penguin]

Please note: If your adjusted gross income is less than 513% of the poverty level, you may be eligible for a refundable tax credit.

Will sunshine be next?

Dale

Dale,

I think it is only fair to tax indoor tanning salon 10% as sunshine is already taxed 10%!

[Opponent Process]

someone has to make pale cool again, like it was in ancient Egypt.

[ryuns]

someone has to make pale cool again, like it was in ancient Egypt.

Me and fishnskiguy are doing our best.

[imagardener]

I keep waiting for someone to say "April Fool"

[Ron]

Please note: If your adjusted gross income is less than 513% of the poverty level, you may be eligible for a refundable tax credit.

Will sunshine be next?

Dale

Dale,

I think it is only fair to tax indoor tanning salon 10% as sunshine is already taxed 10%!

Wait till they do oxygen/air. Failure to pay the tax will leave you breathless !!!

- Ron

[monkey_business]

I'm officially raising the Pun-o-Meter level to orange, pun intended.

[peter71]

Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"? I don't know anything about it, but all else equal I'm always intrigued by the side trying to overcome the entrenched recommendations . . . here's a couple stories just from the past two days.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/hea ... le1510334/

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/new ... -vitamin_d

All best,
Pete

[Opponent Process]

Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"?

yeah, I guess the story is that many more people die from the indirect effects of vitamin D deficiency (hard to quantify) than skin cancer. that's probably true, but I've also heard that getting something like ten minutes of sun a day is adequate. who isn't getting ten minutes of sun a day?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-say.html

[peter71]

Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"?

yeah, I guess the story is that many more people die from the indirect effects of vitamin D deficiency (hard to quantify) than skin cancer. that's probably true, but I've also heard that getting something like ten minutes of sun a day is adequate. who isn't getting ten minutes of sun a day?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-say.html

babies and canadians?

[wbond]

Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"? I don't know anything about it, but all else equal I'm always intrigued by the side trying to overcome the entrenched recommendations . . . here's a couple stories just from the past two days.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/hea ... le1510334/

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/new ... -vitamin_d

All best,
Pete

One, of course, doesn't need UV to increase Vitamin D levels - you can fortify milk and buy pills.

That said, the estimated lifetime mortality from melanoma is around .3%/caucasian persons. Non-melanoma skin cancers are much more common, but not fatal.

Osteoporosis, however, is a significantly more common cause of morbidity/mortality. There is data supporting a mortality benefit from adequate Vit D levels in osteoporosis - and even some suggesting that there is an extra-osteoporotic mortality benefit. There is conflicting data on Vitamin D as a novel cardiac risk marker. In the elderly, Vitamin D levels are associated not only with fewer fractures but also with fewer falls due to its effect on muscle function.

I don't have time to cite all sources here, but a quick search found this relatively OK news summary: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/709117

(Note that this is not the reason I typed the satirical OP, but interesting nonetheless).

[wbond]

Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"?

yeah, I guess the story is that many more people die from the indirect effects of vitamin D deficiency (hard to quantify) than skin cancer. that's probably true, but I've also heard that getting something like ten minutes of sun a day is adequate. who isn't getting ten minutes of sun a day?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-say.html

Using the new cutoffs the rate of Vitamin D deficiency is widespread, actually. Something like 60% of Europe is deficient by those standards.

[peter71]

Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"? I don't know anything about it, but all else equal I'm always intrigued by the side trying to overcome the entrenched recommendations . . . here's a couple stories just from the past two days.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/hea ... le1510334/

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/new ... -vitamin_d

All best,
Pete

One, of course, doesn't need UV to increase Vitamin D levels - you can fortify milk and buy pills.

That said, the estimated lifetime mortality from melanoma is around .3%/caucasian persons. Non-melanoma skin cancers are much more common, but not fatal.

Osteoporosis, however, is a significantly more common cause of morbidity/mortality. There is data supporting a mortality benefit from adequate Vit D levels in osteoporosis - and even some suggesting that there is an extra-osteoporotic mortality benefit. There is conflicting data on Vitamin D as a novel cardiac risk marker. In the elderly, Vitamin D levels are associated not only with fewer fractures but also with fewer falls due to its effect on muscle function.

I don't have time to cite all sources here, but a quick search found this relatively OK news summary: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/709117

(Note that this is not the reason I typed the satirical OP, but interesting nonetheless).

Ah, not a medscape member so can't follow the link . . . re supplements, is this then demonstrably one of those things where the supplement is just as good as the natural source? Years ago I remember Alan Alda on some PBS special talking about some experiment on (some sort of) supplements and telomeres saying that in that case the supplements didn't cut it . . .

I realize this is a bit like someone asking me, "where do things stand with people voting their pocketbooks these days?" but nonetheless . . .

All best,
Pete

[Opponent Process]

Using the new cutoffs the rate of Vitamin D deficiency is widespread, actually. Something like 60% of Europe is deficient by those standards.

that is troubling. I've only been to Marseille, but the young women there seemed to be getting plenty of exposure. I mean that's what they told me.

[wbond]

Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"? I don't know anything about it, but all else equal I'm always intrigued by the side trying to overcome the entrenched recommendations . . . here's a couple stories just from the past two days.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/hea ... le1510334/

http://www.webmd.com/parenting/baby/new ... -vitamin_d

All best,
Pete

One, of course, doesn't need UV to increase Vitamin D levels - you can fortify milk and buy pills.

That said, the estimated lifetime mortality from melanoma is around .3%/caucasian persons. Non-melanoma skin cancers are much more common, but not fatal.

Osteoporosis, however, is a significantly more common cause of morbidity/mortality. There is data supporting a mortality benefit from adequate Vit D levels in osteoporosis - and even some suggesting that there is an extra-osteoporotic mortality benefit. There is conflicting data on Vitamin D as a novel cardiac risk marker. In the elderly, Vitamin D levels are associated not only with fewer fractures but also with fewer falls due to its effect on muscle function.

I don't have time to cite all sources here, but a quick search found this relatively OK news summary: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/709117

(Note that this is not the reason I typed the satirical OP, but interesting nonetheless).

Ah, not a medscape member so can't follow the link . . . re supplements, is this then demonstrably one of those things where the supplement is just as good as the natural source? Years ago I remember Alan Alda on some PBS special talking about some experiment on (some sort of) supplements and telomeres saying that in that case the supplements didn't cut it . . .

I realize this is a bit like someone asking me, "where do things stand with people voting their pocketbooks these days?" but nonetheless . . .

All best,
Pete

My apologies: like with the WSJ you can get there through google but not directly without the membership.

There is no evidence that I am aware of that how one obtains a normal D level matters. There is plenty of evidence that oral supplementation is helpful. I doubt there is any good data comparing meaningful outcomes with sunshine vs. pills.

Pills are recommended since the medical community cannot bring themselves to really recommend UV sun exposure.

Lastly, no major group is currently recommending screening routinely for D levels outside of patients with low bone density, but the assay is now widely available (it's the 25-OH-D, not the 1,25-OH D).

Cheers, wbond

[wbond]

Using the new cutoffs the rate of Vitamin D deficiency is widespread, actually. Something like 60% of Europe is deficient by those standards.

that is troubling. I've only been to Marseille, but the young women there seemed to be getting plenty of exposure. I mean that's what they told me.

It sounds like you may have a particular talent for identifying the 40%.

[ryuns]

Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"?

yeah, I guess the story is that many more people die from the indirect effects of vitamin D deficiency (hard to quantify) than skin cancer. that's probably true, but I've also heard that getting something like ten minutes of sun a day is adequate. who isn't getting ten minutes of sun a day?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-say.html

Agreed. A ridiculous debate in that sense. Be careful about the sun, just don't go nuts. If you're having a 20 minute walk after work, don't fret about a little exposure. If you're heading to the beach, then you can be careful.

That said, I think part of the problem is that dermatologists feel they have to oversell the message to get people to pay attention and be careful in the sun.

It's a little like a certain environmental issue (which will remain nameless). (This is an obtuse analogy, not a political talking point.) People who think it's a really big problem have been hitting their head against the wall for years trying to get people to take them seriously. In effect, they do a disservice to their ultimate message by risking oversimplification, misinterpretation, and losing credibility through scare tactics. A better case is made by trying to tell the whole story, IMO.

Ryan

[arthurdawg]

Has anyone in the know been following the sunshine/Vitamin D deficiency "debate"?

yeah, I guess the story is that many more people die from the indirect effects of vitamin D deficiency (hard to quantify) than skin cancer. that's probably true, but I've also heard that getting something like ten minutes of sun a day is adequate. who isn't getting ten minutes of sun a day?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... s-say.html

Agreed. A ridiculous debate in that sense. Be careful about the sun, just don't go nuts. If you're having a 20 minute walk after work, don't fret about a little exposure. If you're heading to the beach, then you can be careful.

That said, I think part of the problem is that dermatologists feel they have to oversell the message to get people to pay attention and be careful in the sun.

It's a little like a certain environmental issue (which will remain nameless). (This is an obtuse analogy, not a political talking point.) People who think it's a really big problem have been hitting their head against the wall for years trying to get people to take them seriously. In effect, they do a disservice to their ultimate message by risking oversimplification, misinterpretation, and losing credibility through scare tactics. A better case is made by trying to tell the whole story, IMO.

Ryan

A few thymine dimers wont hurt if you decide to get a little sun! A few years ago I was at an internal medicine meeting: the first speaker was a surgical oncologist specializing in melanoma, who was immediately followed by an endocrinologist specializing in Vit. D deficiency! It was pretty humourous. Vit D is probably equal as long as your levels are ok (easily checked with a blood test) and the route probably matters little.

[Taz]

I have a related question that someone might be able to shed some light on.

For those suffering from SAD (think Pacific NW for example), will they have to pay the medical devices tax on full-spectrum lights & light bulbs?

[rustymutt]

If this activity is so bad for us, why tax it? Why not just outlaw tanning? Make tanning illegal...it is for the good of the country. A win for the people of America! I heard that outlawing tanning would save $130 billion according to the CBO, and likely balance the budget by 2030!

This is a joke, Alex. Please don't ban me.

This is exactly what I though. Same with cigarettes, pop and other deadly products. Let’s put texting while driving in there to. Why this country waters down the truth is beyond me.

[Opponent Process]

If this activity is so bad for us, why tax it? Why not just outlaw tanning? Make tanning illegal...it is for the good of the country. A win for the people of America! I heard that outlawing tanning would save $130 billion according to the CBO, and likely balance the budget by 2030!

This is a joke, Alex. Please don't ban me.

This is exactly what I though. Same with cigarettes, pop and other deadly products. Let’s put texting while driving in there to. Why this country waters down the truth is beyond me.

well, in the best cases the government empowers the consumer with information. so for example with the new law people will now know that that dinner at the Olive Garden had twice as many calories as a meal at McDonald's.

[Jack]

I have a related question that someone might be able to shed some light on.

For those suffering from SAD (think Pacific NW for example), will they have to pay the medical devices tax on full-spectrum lights & light bulbs?

‘‘(b) INDOOR TANNING SERVICE.—For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘indoor tanning service’ means
a service employing any electronic product designed to incorporate
1 or more ultraviolet lamps and intended for the irradiation
of an individual by ultraviolet radiation, with wavelengths
in air between 200 and 400 nanometers, to induce skin tanning.
‘‘(2) EXCLUSION OF PHOTOTHERAPY SERVICES.—Such term
does not include any phototherapy service performed by a
licensed medical professional.

The answer to your question would appear to be no.

[wbond]

I have a related question that someone might be able to shed some light on.

For those suffering from SAD (think Pacific NW for example), will they have to pay the medical devices tax on full-spectrum lights & light bulbs?

‘‘(b) INDOOR TANNING SERVICE.—For purposes of this section—
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘indoor tanning service’ means
a service employing any electronic product designed to incorporate
1 or more ultraviolet lamps and intended for the irradiation
of an individual by ultraviolet radiation, with wavelengths
in air between 200 and 400 nanometers, to induce skin tanning.
‘‘(2) EXCLUSION OF PHOTOTHERAPY SERVICES.—Such term
does not include any phototherapy service performed by a
licensed medical professional.

The answer to your question would appear to be no.

Aha, a loophole.

Strongwork, Jack. I am incredibly impressed by your ability quote new law.

P.S. Is that a parody, or the real thing?

[Rick Ferri]

(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘indoor tanning service’ means
a service employing any electronic product designed to incorporate
1 or more ultraviolet lamps and intended for the irradiation
of an individual by ultraviolet radiation, with wavelengths
in air between 200 and 400 nanometers, to induce skin tanning.

What would 199 or 401 nanometer's do to skin?

[baw703916]

(1) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘indoor tanning service’ means
a service employing any electronic product designed to incorporate
1 or more ultraviolet lamps and intended for the irradiation
of an individual by ultraviolet radiation, with wavelengths
in air between 200 and 400 nanometers, to induce skin tanning.

What would 199 or 401 nanometer's do to skin?

401: make it look violet colored (the limit of visibility is right about 400 nm)

199: you really don't want to use that for tanning-very damaging to cells. In fact sunlight doesn't contain any wavelengths below about 290 (they get absorbed by ozone in the upper atmosphere). 193 is the wavelength used for lasik (there's a laser that operates at that wavelength). Wavelengths below 200 nm are absorbed by the oxygen in the air and make a nice ozone smell.

Brad

[paulob]

Lastly, from a tax-planning standpoint I am looking to move for the biggest tax break and the most cost-effective, George Hamiltonesque, suntan. Of the states without a state income tax and with significant natural sunshine year-round, that would seem to leave Nevada, Texas, and Florida as the best candidates. Boglehead thoughts?

In a little known admendment, Senator Irving Orville Udle of the great state of Iraq, was able to receive a special lifetime exemption from the tanning tax. This has been referred to by even his fellow Sunnis' as the "Cornholer Kickback". Since the specialized tanning salons are designed to tan between the eyewear protection and the Burka, its basically a one bulb machine, and a de minimus test was applied. Per a direct quote from Senator I.O.Udle, "whats up with that?"

[wbond]

Will this tax result in any underground tanning? Any, if so, would it be fair to label it the shadow tanning system?

(OK, I'm done. My apologies).