Private ruling: Fringe Benefits Tax
Published: November 2011

Ruling: A1: Yes

Relevant facts and circumstances: This ruling is based on the facts stated in the description of the scheme that is set out below. If your circumstances are materially different from these facts, this ruling has no effect and you cannot rely on it. The fact sheet has more information about relying on your private ruling. You are a company limited by guarantee. You provided a copy of your Constitution which includes your objects. You have up to xx beds including: · in-patient beds · VIP rooms · intensive care and coronary care beds · full digital operating theatres · cardiac angiography suites · chemotherapy beds; and · surgical beds You employ doctors, nursing staff and a significant number of specialist medical practitioners. You provide the following services: · anaesthetics · cardio-procedural · cardio nonprocedural · cardiothoracic surgery · consulting physicians · dentistry · dermatology · ear nose and throat · ear nose and throat, ear surgery, skull base surgery, implantable hearing surgery · endocrinology · gamma knife · gastroenterology · general medicine · general surgery · gynaecology · haematology · hand surgeon · maxillofacial surgery · neurology · neurophysiology · neurosurgery · nuclear medicine · oncology · ophthalmology · oral surgery · orthopaedic surgery · orthopaedics and spinal surgery · paediatrics · pain management · pathology · physiotherapy · plastic surgery · radiation oncology · radiology · renal physician · respiratory · rheumatology · ultrasound · urology Are the benefits provided to your employees exempt benefits under subsection 57A(3) of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (FBTAA)? The benefits provided by the taxpayer are exempt benefits under section 57A(3) of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (FBTAA). Detailed reasoning The taxpayer will be entitled to Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) exemption if it is a public hospital. Section 57A(3) of the FBTAA provides as follows: A benefit provided in respect of the employment of an employee is an exempt benefit if: (a) the employer of the employee is a public hospital; In considering whether the employer is a public hospital it is necessary to consider the following issues: 1. Is the employer a hospital? 2. If the employer is a hospital, is it a public hospital? 3. Is the employer a hospital? As the term 'hospital' is not defined within the FBTAA, it is necessary to consider the ordinary meaning provided by several court cases. These decisions are summarised in the definition of a hospital contained on page 12 of the publication GiftPack which states: A hospital is an institution in which patients are received for continuous medical care and treatment for sickness, disease or injury. Providing accommodation is integral to a hospital's care and treatment. Clinics that mainly treat ambulatory patients who return to their homes after each visit are not hospitals. However, day surgeries that provide beds for patients to recover after surgery may be hospitals. Homes providing nursing car in respect of feeding, cleanliness and the like are not hospitals. However, nursing homes for people suffering from illness are accepted as hospitals. Hospices for the terminally ill will generally be hospitals. Minor outpatient and nursing care will not prevent an institution from being a hospital. In considering whether it satisfies the common characteristics contained within this definition it is necessary to consider the following three questions: 1. Is it an institution? 2. Is its dominant objective the provision of continuous medical care and treatment for sickness, disease or injury? 3. Does it provide associated accommodation and nursing services on its premises? 1. Is it an institution? Although there is no statutory definition of the term institution, there are a number of court cases, which provide guidance. An institution has been described as 'the body (so to speak) called into existence to translate the purpose as conceived in the mind of the founders into a living and active principle' ( Mayor of Manchester v. McAdam (1896) 3 TC 491 at 497; AC 500 at 511 ( Mayor of Manchester ) per Lord Nacnaghten). In Pamas Foundation (Inc) v. Deputy Commissioner of Taxation 92 ATC 4161; 23 ATR 189 the Full Federal Court applied the decision of Christian Enterprises Ltd v. Com of Land Tax (1968) 88 WN (Pt2) (NSW) 112 to conclude that the word institution is to be given a meaning greater than a structure controlled and operated by family members and friends. The fact that the foundation in that case was incorporated did not mean that it was also an institution. It was relevant that the foundation had a small and exclusive membership. Another case involving an organisation that was held not to be an institution despite being incorporated was the Federal Court decision of The Trustees of the Allport Bequest v. FCT 88 ATC 4436; 19 ATR 1335. In that case, the organisation's sole activities were to manage trust property and apply the income in donations to such other charitable organisations and objects as it determined. Northrop J characterised the organisation's activities as those of simple or mere trustees. They were insufficient to constitute the organisation as an institution. The fact that it had a recognised identity and permanent nature was not sufficient. An institution must have a separate identity. Constituent documents and separate accounts and records will help to indicate a separate identity. The need for a separate identity is illustrated by the decision in Case X33 90 ATC 308. In that case a gift of land was made to a church to facilitate the construction of an old peoples' home. Although there was some evidence that separate funds were held for a home, no institution existed separately from the church. Even though it is possible to consider an aged persons' home as a public benevolent institution it could not be established that the home was an institution outside of the church. These cases indicate that the question of whether an organisation is an institution depends upon a range of factors including its activities, size, permanence and recognition. Even if the organisation is incorporated this in itself is not sufficient for the organisation to be considered to be an institution. If the organisation is controlled and operated by family members and friends it will not be considered to be an institution. If another body controls the organisation the organisation will not be considered to be institution in its own right. Taxation Ruling TR 92/17 Income tax and fringe benefits tax: exemptions for 'religious institutions' states at paragraph 4: A body is an "institution" for the purposes of both the ITAA and the FBTAA if it is an establishment, organisation or association, instituted for the promotion of some object (especially one of public or general utility) that is religious, charitable, educational, etc… In applying these cases to your situation, it is accepted that the taxpayer is an institution for the following reasons: · It is a company limited by guarantee; · It has a separate constitution which sets out its objectives, powers and functions, and · It is required to keep separate accounts and records of its activities. 2. Is the dominant objective the provision of continuous medical care and treatment for sickness, disease or injury? In considering the dominant objective it is necessary to refer to both the company objects and the list of the services that are being provided. The primary objective as set out in the Constitution is to manage and control the taxpayer and any other Health Facilities under its control. The list of medical specialties that are provided by the taxpayer is set out in the facts. As this list indicates the taxpayer provides continuous medical care and treatment for sickness, disease or injury and the primary objective is to manage and control the hospital it is accepted that the dominant objective is the provision of continuous medical care and treatment for sickness, disease or injury. 3. Does the taxpayer provide associated accommodation and nursing services on its premises? As it has up to xx beds including in-patient beds this condition is satisfied. As each of the three conditions is satisfied it is accepted that the taxpayer is a hospital. Is the taxpayer a public hospital? As the term 'public hospital' is not defined within the FBTAA it is necessary to consider its ordinary meaning. In discussing the contemporary common understanding or ordinary meaning of the term 'public hospital', Merkel J in Australian Hospital Care (Latrobe) Pty Ltd v. Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 1509; (2000) 105 FCR 20; (2000) 45 ATR 593; 2000 ATC 4723 referred to the decisions in O'Connell v. The Council of the City of Greater Newcastle (1941) 41 SR (NSW) 190 and the Little Company of Mary (SA) Incorporated v. The Commonwealth (1942) 66 CLR 368 before stating at paragraph 51: The question of whether a particular institution is a public hospital according to common understanding is a question of fact to be resolved upon a consideration of all the circumstances. The institutions with which each of the above cases was concerned were different from the institution under consideration in the present case. Thus, the cases on the meaning of the term "public hospital" in other statutory context, while of assistance, cannot be treated as authorities on what constitutes a public hospital. On the basis of the relevant facts Merkel J concluded that the hospital was a privately owned and operated hospital that provided public hospital services to the public, rather than a public hospital as: · it was privately owned for the purpose of gain or profit for its members · the state regulation of the hospital's activities was indirect in the sense that it was pursuant to the voluntary undertaking of obligations under contract, rather than by statute or direct state control, and · the funding was in the form of payments based on a fee for the service provided. Further guidance as to the meaning of the word 'public' is provided by Taxation Ruling TR 2000/10 which discusses the meaning of the word 'public' in the context of what is a public library, public museum and public art gallery for purposes of gift deductibility under Division 30 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997). At paragraph 18, TR 2000/10 indicates that for an organisation to exist for the public benefit, it does not have to serve the entire community. It can serve a section of the community provided it is a wide and substantial section of the community. In paragraph 19, TR 2000/10 refers to the principles In re Income Tax Acts (No 1) [1930] VLR 211. In considering whether a benevolent institution was public, Lowe J at 222 said that the word public in relation to institutions connotes: …the carrying on of the institution for the benefit of the public generally, or at least of a definitely ascertainable section of the public, where the benefit of the institution is available without discrimination to every member of the public or of that section of it. In applying these comments it is accepted that the taxpayer is a public hospital as its services are available to any member of the public who requires medical treatment.



Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. If you have any concerns about this ruling you wish to discuss, you will find our contact details in the fact sheet. | Subject: Fringe Benefits Tax: Are benefits provided by the employer exempt benefits under section 57A(3) of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (FBTAA)?