Are wigs and hairpieces for disease-related hair loss exempt from Connecticut sales tax as prostheses?

Note: DRS marks this Ruling "not current … provided for reference purposes only" and states it "has been obsoleted by AN 94(5)." Do not rely on it as current guidance. The summary below describes what the ruling said when issued, for historical reference; confirm the current treatment of wigs before acting.

Plain-English summary

A person who lost their hair because of a disease bought a wig custom-made for people with total hair loss. The question was whether wigs and hairpieces qualify for Connecticut's sales-and-use-tax exemption for medical devices and prostheses under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-412(19).

That exemption has two branches: (1) artificial devices individually designed as a "brace, support, supplement, correction or substitute for the bodily structure," and (2) "artificial limbs, artificial eyes and other equipment worn as a correction or substitute for any functioning portion of the body." A regulation (Conn. Agencies Regs. § 12-426-14(5)) excludes items "ordinarily used as cosmetics or beauty aids."

DRS said no. Applying the rule that tax exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer (Plastic Tooling Aids) and reading the statute's terms in light of their neighbors (noscitur a sociis, "known from its associates," State v. Roque), DRS concluded:

• "Bodily structure" was meant to cover devices substituting for or supporting the body's major movable components (torso, arms, legs, head) or internal organs — the regulation's own list runs to trusses and abdominal, uterine, kidney, and post-operative supports.
• A "functioning portion of the body" means a limb, organ, or other essential part — the companion exempt items are artificial limbs, eyes, dentures, eyeglasses, and lenses, while cosmetics and beauty aids are excluded.

A wig, DRS held, is a cosmetic-type item designed for topical application — not a substitute for the bodily structure or a functioning body part — so it does not qualify, even when bought by someone whose hair loss was caused by disease.

Effect on other guidance. This ruling revoked Ruling 90-53, and DRS later obsoleted this ruling by Announcement AN 94(5). Because the position has since been withdrawn, treat this page as history and confirm the current rule for wigs.

What this means for you

Treat this as historical, and check the current wig rule

DRS has flagged this ruling as not current and obsoleted by AN 94(5). If you sell wigs or hairpieces, or you're a patient buying one for medical hair loss, do not rely on the 1992 result — the Department itself withdrew it. Confirm how Connecticut treats wigs today before charging or paying tax.

How Connecticut read its prosthesis exemption in 1992

The durable lesson is the method: Connecticut's medical-device exemption was read to cover devices that replace or support a body structure or a functioning body part, with cosmetic and topical items excluded — and any doubt resolved against the exemption. That interpretive approach is why a wig fell outside the exemption at the time.

Exemptions are construed narrowly

Even sympathetic facts (disease-related hair loss, a custom medical wig) didn't overcome the rule that exemptions are strictly construed against the taxpayer. When an item's exempt status is uncertain, expect the narrow reading — and look for a specific statute, regulation, or later announcement that addresses it directly.

Common questions

Q: Can I rely on Ruling 92-12 today?
A: No. DRS marks it "not current … for reference purposes only" and says it was "obsoleted by AN 94(5)." It's kept here for historical reference only.

Q: What did it hold?
A: That wigs and hairpieces were not exempt as prostheses or medical devices under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-412(19), even for disease-related hair loss, because DRS treated them as cosmetic items for topical application.

Q: Did this ruling change any earlier guidance?
A: Yes — it revoked Ruling 90-53. It was then itself obsoleted by Announcement AN 94(5).

Q: So are wigs taxable in Connecticut now?
A: This 1992 ruling no longer states the current rule. Because it was obsoleted, confirm the present treatment with the current statute, regulations, and DRS guidance or a tax professional.

Citations and references

Statutes and regulations:

• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-412(19) (artificial devices and prostheses exemption); § 1-1(a) (statutory construction)
• Conn. Agencies Regs. § 12-426-14(4) (exempt artificial devices list); § 12-426-14(5) (excludes cosmetics and beauty aids)

Case law (as cited by the ruling):

• Plastic Tooling Aids Laboratory, Inc. v. Commissioner, 213 Conn. 365, 369 (1990); State v. Roque, 190 Conn. 143, 152 (1983)

Related guidance (described in prose, not linked):

• Ruling 90-53 (revoked by this Ruling); Announcement AN 94(5) (obsoletes this Ruling)

Source

• Landing page: Connecticut DRS Rulings
• Ruling: Ruling 92-12

Original ruling text

Ruling 92-12, Sales and Use Taxes / Prostheses

This information is not current and is being provided for reference purposes only

Ruling 92-12

Sales and Use Taxes Prostheses

This Ruling has been obsoleted by   AN 94(5)

FACTS:

A person incurs hair loss, as a direct or indirect result of a disease. The person purchases a wig that is custom-made for those suffering total hair loss

ISSUE:

Whether sales of wigs and hairpieces are exempt from sales and use taxes as medical devices or prostheses under Conn. Gen. Stat. §12-412(19).

DISCUSSION:

Conn. Gen. Stat. §12-412(19) provides an exemption from sales and use taxes for

sales of artificial devices individually designed, constructed or altered solely for the use of a particular handicapped person so as to become a brace, support, supplement, correction or substitute for the bodily structure, including the extremities of the individual; [and] sales of artificial limbs, artificial eyes and other equipment worn as a correction or substitute for any functioning portion of the body. . . .

Conn. Agencies Regs. §12-426-14(5) excludes from the exemption sales of "items ordinarily used as cosmetics or beauty aids, adjuncts or supplements."

The relevant inquiry in this Ruling is whether, for purposes of the Conn. Gen. Stat. §12-412(19) exemption, a wig or hairpiece is either a "supplement, correction or substitute for the bodily structure," or "a correction or substitute for any functioning portion of the body."

Initially, the principle of statutory construction governing tax exemptions should be noted. In Plastic Tooling Aids Laboratory, Inc. v. Commissioner, 213 Conn. 365, 369 (1990), the Supreme Court of Connecticut observed:

First, statutes that provide exemptions from taxation are a matter of legislative grace that must be strictly construed against the taxpayer. Second, any ambiguity in the statutory formulation of an exemption must be resolved against the taxpayer. . . .

Absent specific definitions of terms in a statute or regulation, it is reasonable to examine the words surrounding those terms for guidance. As the Supreme Court noted elsewhere:

"Assistance in ascertaining the legislative intent is afforded by resort to the familiar maxim of noscitur a sociis. Through use of this aid the meaning of a word or a particular set of words in a statute may be indicated, controlled or made clear by the words with which it is associated . . ." [Citations omitted.]

State v. Roque , 190 Conn. 143, 152 (1983). (Noscitur a sociis is a Latin phrase meaning, "it is known from its associates."

The term "bodily structure" is not defined in the statute or regulation; however, from the other terms used in association with it, it appears that the legislature intended to exempt only artificial devices designed to substitute for or support the major movable components of the human body (the torso, arms, legs and head) or the internal organs or appendages thereof. Conn. Agencies Regs. §12-426-14(4) lends support to this interpretation, in that its list of artificial devices is limited to items used in some way to support, correct, or substitute for major body components or internal organs or appendages: trusses, abdominal supports, uterine supports, maternity supports, obesity supports, kidney supports, postoperative supports.

A similar analysis is required for the exemption in the second half of the statute for sales of "artificial limbs, artificial eyes and other equipment worn as a correction or substitute for any functioning portion of the body." In addition to artificial limbs and artificial eyes, Conn. Agencies Regs. §12-426-14(5) lists, as exempt, artificial dentures, eyeglasses, lenses and frames, but excludes such items as cosmetics, beauty aids, cotton, gauze and adhesive tapes. The necessary implication here is that a "functioning" part of the body means a limb, organ or other essential body part, and that items designed for topical application or for cosmetic purposes are not exempt.

Viewing Conn. Gen. Stat. §12-412(19) in light of these principles of statutory construction, sales of wigs and hairpieces do not qualify for the exemption from sales and use taxes, even when sold to persons afflicted by a disease, a direct or indirect result of which is hair loss. Instead, wigs and hairpieces constitute cosmetic-type items designed for topical application.

RULING:

Wigs and other hairpieces are not included within the scope of the exemption provided in Conn. Gen. Stat. §12-412(19).

EFFECT ON OTHER DOCUMENTS:

Ruling 90-53 is revoked and may not be relied upon on or after the date of issuance of this ruling.

LEGAL DIVISION

July 21, 1992