CALIFORNIA'S tax-meisters probably just saved themselves a world of pain. And maybe upped their chances for reelection.
Not since Proposition 187, maybe not since Proposition 13, would there have been such revolt, such a populist outcry. California's Board of Equalization was on the verge of taxing Botox.
A marmoreally immobile forehead or an exorcised set of crow's feet would still have been available -- but with state sales tax added to the price.
In California, cosmetic devices such as cheek and breast implants and "esthetic collagen" are already taxed -- the parts, not the labor. Botox is a wobbler, an FDA-approved prescription drug whose most frequent applications have nothing to do with medical ailments. Botox is marketed as a great Mother's Day gift: We love you, Mom, so get rid of those worry lines that we put on your face! Three million times in 2004, I read, someone got Botoxed for the same reason I put on lipstick -- to look better.
That huge potential tax take was as irresistible as Microsoft is to a computer virus. New Jersey launched the "Botax" in 2004, taxing not only the injectable muscle relaxer that smoothes wrinkles but hair transplants, dental veneers, chemical peels and face-lifts. (Somehow, when I put "New Jersey" and "face-lift" in the same sentence, all I can think of is Tony Soprano working a 12-gauge.)
Our state officials began demanding of dermatologists and cosmetic surgeons: Where's California's share? Medical Botox (for maladies such as migraines and sweaty hands and crossed eyes and uncontrolled blinking disorders) isn't taxable, but cosmetic Botox use should be, so pony up.
Then the lobbying and the letter writing began: If the FDA calls it a prescription drug (and prescription drugs aren't taxable), who are the guys in the green eyeshades to say otherwise? Who's to say what to tax when one vial of Botox (they come in multi-dose sizes) may be tapped for medical and cosmetic uses in the same office? Is some state tax examiner going to nose through patient files to decide? And can't aging itself be regarded as a medical disorder? (In these parts? You bet.)
The upshot is that when the tax board meets on Tuesday, it'll find (maybe to its relief) that its staff is recommending a "no" on the "Botax."
