A new House bill working its way through Congress includes a provision to repeal the 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services, a fee in place since 2010.
Implemented initially as part of the Affordable Care Act, the tax may soon be eliminated if the legislation passes the Senate, having already cleared the House.
Origins of the tanning tax
The 10% excise tax on indoor tanning services was introduced in 2010 as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.
This tax served a dual purpose: generating revenue to help offset healthcare law costs while discouraging a behavior linked to certain adverse health outcomes.
When implemented, the tax functioned essentially as a sales tax on tanning bed services. Businesses providing ultraviolet tanning services were required to collect the 10% tax, though certain exceptions existed.
Spray-on tans and phototherapy services for medical purposes were exempt. For bundled services, only the portion attributable to tanning was taxable, unless it was part of an inseparable gym or fitness center package.
Revenue versus results
The tax’s financial impact fell dramatically short of projections. It was initially expected to generate approximately $2.7 billion over its first decade but raised less than $500 million after five years. For instance, the Office of Management and Budget reported that only $92 million was collected in 2014.
Supporters of the tax interpret these numbers as evidence of success. Fewer people using tanning beds means less tax revenue and potentially fewer skin cancer cases. Health organizations, including the American Academy of Dermatology and the American Medical Association, have historically supported the tax for its public health benefits.
Conversely, the tanning industry has consistently argued that the tax has devastated their businesses. The numbers tell a striking story: tanning establishments across the United States plummeted from nearly 85,000 in 2011 to fewer than 21,000 by 2024.
While multiple factors contributed to this decline, including growing awareness of skin cancer risks and changing beauty trends, industry representatives point to the tax as a significant burden.
Previous repeal attempts
This isn’t the first attempt to eliminate the tanning tax. Similar efforts failed in both 2015 and 2018. The 2018 attempt faced powerful opposition from health organizations, which cited research suggesting that indoor tanning may cause upwards of 400,000 cases of skin cancer in the U.S. annually.
In a 2018 letter to congressional leadership, health organizations emphasized a key point: both the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the World Health Organization’s International Agency of Research on Cancer had classified ultraviolet radiation from tanning beds as a known carcinogen.
Cultural shifts in tanning practices
Beyond the tax impact, cultural attitudes toward tanning have transformed over the past decade. A 2023 National Institutes of Health study indicated that concerns about aging, skincare, and health risks have prompted a shift toward self-applied sunless tanning products and spray tanning options—methods exempt from the tax.
This cultural shift even showed up in popular entertainment. After the tax took effect, MTV’s Jersey Shore star Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi reportedly said she had stopped tanning because of the added cost. She later introduced her own line of sunless tanning products — reflecting a broader move toward alternatives to traditional UV tanning.
What happens next
The tanning tax repeal has received relatively little attention amid the broader House bill, which contains numerous other tax provisions. Despite its low profile, the repeal remains intact as the legislation moves to the Senate for consideration.
If passed, the repeal would remove a financial burden from remaining tanning businesses while potentially making indoor tanning services more accessible to consumers. However, health advocates may raise concerns about removing a disincentive for a practice linked to increased cancer risk.
The ultimate fate of this decade-old excise tax now rests with the Senate, which will determine whether it continues or becomes a footnote in tax policy history.
Add a Comment