Ezel / Tax Rulings / TX
TX 8503L0621B02 Sales and/or Use Tax (State,Local,MTA) 1985-03-05

Was dog grooming taxable when performed for cosmetic reasons versus as a necessary part of medical treatment?

Short answer: Cosmetic dog grooming was taxable regardless of who performed it. Shearing or clipping that was necessary to an actual medical treatment was not taxable.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1985. Ezel answers yours, under current Texas tax law, with citations.

Currency note: this ruling is from 1985
Subsequent statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later rulings may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, rate, or position mentioned here.
Disclaimer: This is an official Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts letter published on the State Tax Automated Research (STAR) system. Letters on STAR can be the basis of a detrimental reliance claim only for the taxpayer to whom the letter was directly issued (see 34 Tex. Admin. Code Rules 3.1 and 3.10); documents on STAR may no longer represent current policy even if not marked superseded. Taxpayer-identifying details are redacted. This summary is informational only and is not legal or tax advice. Consult a licensed Texas tax professional about your specific situation.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official state tax ruling. The original ruling (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

Dog grooming performed purely for cosmetic reasons was a taxable service, regardless of who performed the grooming.

By contrast, shearing or clipping a dog as a necessary part of an actual medical treatment was not taxable.

The Comptroller said the original letter had apparently been unclear about this distinction and instructed tax-policy personnel to reissue it.

Common questions

Did the provider's professional status control cosmetic grooming? No; cosmetic grooming was taxable no matter who performed it. Was every veterinarian-provided grooming service exempt? No. The nontaxable category was shearing or clipping necessary to actual medical treatment.

Citations and references

The reproduced letter cites no numbered statute or rule.

Source

Original ruling text

March 5, 1985

Dear ***:

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the possible discrepancy in the
taxability of dog grooming.

Dog grooming purely for cosmetic reasons is a taxable service no matter
who performs the grooming. Shearing or clipping of a dog as a necessary
part of an actual medical treatment is not taxable.

Our original letter was apparently unclear on this distinction. I have
instructed my tax policy people to reissue the letter.

Thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.

Sincerely,

BOB BULLOCK
Comptroller of Public Accounts

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1985 ruling on this question. Ezel checks current Texas tax law and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.