Private ruling: Fringe benefits tax - capping threshold
Date of advice: 10 November 2025
Published: 19 January 2026
Ruling period: Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) Year Ending 31 March 20XX | FBT Year Ending 31 March 31 March 20XX | FBT Year Ending 31 March 31 March 20XX | FBT Year Ending 31 March 31 March 20XX
Date scheme commenced: 1 April 20XX

Ruling: Q1: Is the Employer considered a 'public hospital' for the purposes of paragraph (c) of Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 (FBTAA)? | A1: No. | Q2: Is the Employer a hospital described in subsection 57A(4) for the purposes of paragraph (d) of Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1) of the FBTAA? | A2: No. | Q3: Should the aggregate non-exempt amount for the Employer for the current and subsequent tax years be worked out under Step 3 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA? | A3: Yes.

Relevant facts and circumstances: This private ruling is based on the facts and circumstances set out below. If your facts and circumstances are different from those set out below, this private ruling has no effect and you cannot rely on it. Find out more about when you can rely on your private ruling at ato.gov.au/relyonprivateruling. The Employer is a not-for-profit healthcare organisation which exists to provide the highest standard of medical and nursing care and welfare activities in a Christian environment, as evidenced in the objects of its constitution. The Employer is an Australian incorporated entity which is registered as a charity with the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission (ACNC), with charity sub-types that include "Institution whose principal activity is to promote the prevention or control of diseases in human beings (Health Promotion Charity)", "Advancing Health", "Advancing social or public welfare", and "purposes beneficial to the general public that may reasonably be regarded as analogous to, or within the spirit of, any of the other charitable purposes". The Employer is endorsed as a Health Promotion Charity (HPC) and has applied to the ATO and received FBT exemption, income tax exemption and GST concession. All of the Employer's hospitals provide private health services which are paid for by patients on a "fee for service" basis. The Employer holds contracts with registered Australian Private Health Insurers ("PHIs") who sell products that provide various levels of insurance cover. The contracts held with each of these PHIs determine the terms and conditions and associated benefits paid on behalf of an insured patient. Most of the fees incurred by patients for private health services received at the Employer's hospitals are funded by way of partial or full reimbursement from a private health fund of the patient. Alternatively, fees are paid by the patients directly (but this does not occur very often). In limited cases, other third parties, provide payment to the Employer on behalf of patients who qualify for relevant financial support in relation to fees incurred by them for private health services provided by the entity. Other income is also received in the form of donations and grant income that arises from particular grants applied for (i.e., for specific projects or tasks, not ongoing general government funding). The entity does not provide any services for no consideration.

Relevant legislative provisions: Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 subsection 5B(1E) | Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 section 57A | Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 section 65J | Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 section 123D

Reasons for decision: Summary: No, the Employer is not considered to be a 'public hospital' for the purposes of paragraph (c) of Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: Under section 57A of the FBTAA, benefits provided by the following employers in respect of the employment of an employee are exempt from Fringe Benefits Tax (FBT) up to a specified cap: • registered Public Benevolent Institutions (PBI) endorsed under section 123C of the FBTAA • registered health promotion charities (HPC) endorsed under subsection 123D(1) • public hospitals • hospitals run by a rebatable employer (relevantly, charities that are not PBIs) • government employers whose employees work in public and not-for-profit hospitals, and • public ambulance services. | Detailed Reasoning - Endorsement by Commissioner as Health Promotion Charity (HPC): Section 123D of the FBTAA deals with the endorsement of a HPC, which states that: 123D(1) The Commissioner must endorse an entity as a health promotion charity if: (a) the entity is entitled to be endorsed as a health promotion charity (see subsection (2)); and (b) the entity has applied for that endorsement in accordance with Division 426 in Schedule 1 of the Taxation Administration Act 1935. 123D(2) An entity is entitled to be endorsed as a health promotion charity if the entity: (a) is a registered health promotion charity; and (b) has an ABN; and (c) is not an employer in relation to which step 2 of the method statement in subsection 5B(1E) applies. Benefits provided by the employers listed above will be exempt where the total grossed-up value of certain benefits (which are benefits not otherwise exempt) provided to each employee during the FBT year is equal to, or less than, the relevant capping threshold. If the total grossed-up value of certain benefits provided to an employee is more than that capping threshold, the employer will need to pay FBT on the excess. This amount is determined by reference to the employer's 'aggregate non-exempt amount' in accordance with the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA, which states: Step 2. If: (a) (Repealed by No. 142 of 2003) (b) the employer is a government body and the duties of the employment of one or more employees are as described in paragraph 57A(2)(b) (which is about duties of employment being exclusively performed in or in connection with certain hospitals); or (c) the employer is a public hospital; or (ca) the employer provides public ambulance services or services that support those services, and the employee is predominantly involved in connection with the provision of those services; or (d) the employer is a hospital described in subsection 57A(4) (which is about hospitals carried on by certain societies and associations that are exempt from income tax); subtract $17,000 from the individual grossed-up non-exempt amount for each employee of the employer referred to in paragraph (c), (ca) or (d), or each employee referred to in paragraph (b), for the year of tax. However, if the individual grossed-up non-exempt amount for such as employee is equal to or less than $17,000, the amount calculated under this step for the employee is nil. Step 3. If step 2 does not apply in respect of one or more employees of the employer, reduce the individual grossed-up non-exempt amount for each such employee by $30,000, but not below nil. Therefore, as per Steps 2 and 3 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA, registered HPCs which do not operate a public hospital have a higher FBT exemption cap of $30,000 grossed-up value (that is, the value of the benefit plus the notional FBT liability) per employee, while a $17,000 per-employee FBT exemption cap applies to employees of government and non-government public hospitals, and hospitals carried on by certain societies and associations that are exempt from income tax (relevantly, charities that are not PBIs or HPCs). As per section 123D of the FBTAA, a registered HPC cannot be endorsed as a HPC if it, amongst other things, is a 'public hospital'. As such, a registered HPC which operates a public hospital is subject to the $17,000 per employee FBT exemption cap. | Detailed Reasoning - Meaning of a 'public hospital' and a 'private hospital': The term 'public hospital' is not defined in the FBTAA. No cases have considered the meaning of 'public hospital' in the context of the FBTAA. Authorities dealing with the meaning of 'public hospital' in other statutes have held the determination is a question of fact. These authorities include Little Company of Mary (SA) Incorporated v Commonwealth [1942] HCA 26 ( Little Mary ) and Australian Hospital Care (Latrobe) Pty Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2000] FCA 1509 ( Latrobe ). Relevantly, the High Court held in Latrobe and Little Mary that not-for-profit hospitals carried on by religious orders were not 'public hospitals'. Those authorities considered the ordinary or common meaning of the term and equivalence between legislation in the same jurisdiction. In particular, the Court in Little Mary ruled that the hospital was not a 'public hospital', despite being non-profit, as: • it was under denominational control, being the Sisters in the State of South Australia of the Congregation of the Little Company of Mary, a congregation of nursing sisters of the Roman Catholic Church • there was no public control • the majority of patients paid for their medical treatment, and there was no offer of free or publicly funded services • it did not rely on public funding or grants, instead generating revenue from the fees it charged. The principles in Little Mary were followed in Latrobe, which despite providing public health care services, was ruled not to be a 'public hospital' based on the following factors: • The hospital was privately-owned and run to profit its members. • Whilst the hospital had obligations to provide free public health services to the public, and was controlled by the State, these controls arose out of voluntary undertakings under contracts entered into by the hospital. • Whilst the hospital received state funding, this funding was primarily in the form of payments for the free health services it was providing under contract. A range of indicia emerge from these cases that can assist in considering whether a hospital satisfies the ordinary meaning of a 'public hospital', which include: • the ownership of the hospital and whether it is run for profit • the level of public/government control over the hospital's operations (and whether any control is regulated or arises voluntarily by contract) • whether the hospital offers free/public-funded services to the public, or if it charges fees for its services • whether the hospital is funded by public grant or is self-funded. However, despite these indicia of a 'public hospital', the Full Federal Court in Commissioner of Taxation v Hunger Project Australia [2014] FCAFC 69 has, in the context of the FBTAA, abstained from approaching a question about the ordinary or common meaning of a word or expression '... as a legal question to be dealt with by the mechanical application of past authority, irrespective of the present current understanding of the expression in the currently spoken English language...' or whether its meaning could be gleaned from other statutes which may use the same term. Whilst acknowledging the Full Federal Court's comments, it is noted that Commonwealth legislation has, since at least 1953, distinguished between a 'public hospital' and a 'private hospital'. More recently, paragraph 121-5(8) of the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 requires that the Minister for Health's declaration that a facility is a 'hospital' must also include a statement as to whether the hospital is a public hospital or private hospital. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's Glossary, accessed 10 November 2025, contains the following definitions: Public hospital: A hospital controlled by a state or territory health authority. Public hospitals offer free diagnostic services, treatment, care, and accommodation to all eligible patients. Private hospital: A privately (non-government) owned and operated institution catering for patients who are treated by a doctor of their own choice. Patients are charged fees for accommodation and other services provided by the hospital and relevant medical and paramedical practitioners. Acute care and psychiatric hospitals are included in this category as are private free-standing day facilities. The term 'private hospital' is not used in the FBTAA, and such hospitals may be operated by not-for-profit or for-profit entities. The FBTAA does not provide any concessional treatment by way of a per-employee exemption cap for a for-profit entity that operates a private hospital. Aside from any legal meaning of a 'public hospital', there exists a dichotomy between 'public' ('jointly funded by the Commonwealth and the states and territories') and 'private' ('funded through private health insurance and individual out-of-pocket payments') health in Australia's health system. Such health services are provided through 'public' and 'private' hospitals, thus espousing a current ordinary or common understanding of those terms. | Detailed Reasoning - Application to your circumstances: The Employer is registered as a charity with the ACNC. The hospital is a registered HPC which is endorsed under section 123D of the FBTAA. The Employer is not a government body; as it is independently controlled, the Board is not subject to any governmental control or representation, and it is primarily funded through the collection of fees either through private health insurance or out of pocket expenditure. The Health Services Act 1988 provides the legal framework within which public health services are to be provided by hospitals and other health care agencies in Australia. A private hospital is defined in the Act to mean: 'premises where persons are provided with health services of a prescribed kind or kinds and for which a charge is made and includes a privately operated hospital.' The Employer is not considered to be a public hospital for the following reasons: • The Employer has a fully private ownership structure (being a not-for-profit structure). • The Employer is not bound to provide services to the public and any government or council regulation. • The Employer does not provide any services for no consideration and is self-funded. All services are fee-based either through private health insurance, out-of-pocket expenditure from patients, or admissions covered by a fee for service arrangement through DVA, TAC or WorkCover. • Additionally, in limited cases, payment is also provided via donations from the public and specific grants that may be applied for. • The hospital is considered to be a private hospital by the relevant State Department of Health. In the context of a HPC that operates hospitals, the Employer is not a 'public hospital' under the common meaning of the term and does not meet the definition of a 'public hospital' for the purposes of Step 2, paragraph(c) of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA. | Detailed Reasoning - Question 2: Is the Employer a hospital described in subsection 57A(4) for the purposes of paragraph (d) of Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1) of the FBTAA? | Summary: No, the Employer is not considered to be a hospital described in subsection 57A(4), for the purposes of paragraph (d) of Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: Paragraph (d) of Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA provides that "the employer is a hospital described in subsection 57A(4) (which is about hospitals carried on by societies and associations that are exempt from income tax ). " Subsection 57A(4) states : A benefit provided in respect of the employment of an employee is an exempt benefit if the employer of the employee is a hospital carried on by a society or association that: (a) is exempt from income tax under Division 50 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997; and (b) is not a company referred to in paragraph 65J(5)(a) or (b); and (c) is not a registered public benevolent institution or registered health promotion charity." Each of the conditions in subparagraph 57A(4) must be satisfied. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 57A(4)(a): The Employer is endorsed as being exempt from income tax under Division 50 of the 1997 Tax Act, and therefore paragraph 57A(4)(a) of the FBTAA will be satisfied. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 57A(4)(b): The special condition in subsection 65J(5) provides that: A society, association or club is not covered by table item 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 in subsection (1) of a year of tax if it is: (a) an incorporated company where all the stock or shares in the capital of the company is or are beneficially owned by: i. the Commonwealth, a State or Territory, or ii. an authority or institution of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory, or (b) an incorporated company where the company is limited by guarantee and the interests and rights of the members in or in relation to the company are beneficially owned by: i. the Commonwealth, a State or Territory, or ii. an authority or institution of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. The Employer is not a company referred to in subsection 65J(5) of the FBTAA as it is not beneficially owned by the government and therefore paragraph 57A(4)(b) of the FBTAA will be satisfied. | Detailed Reasoning - Paragraph 57A(4)(c): An organisation is a HPC if it is registered by the ACNC as a HPC. As above, the Employer is a registered charity and is a registered HPC with the ACNC. As such this criteria will not be satisfied and therefore, in turn, subsection 57A(4) of the FBTAA is not satisfied. Accordingly, the Employer is not considered to constitute a hospital as described in subsection 57A(4) for the purposes of paragraph (d) of Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA. | Detailed Reasoning - Question 3: Should the aggregate non-exempt amount for the Employer for the current and subsequent tax years be worked out under Step 3 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA? | Summary: Yes. Step 3 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA would apply as the Employer is not an employer under Step 2. | Detailed Reasoning - Detailed reasoning: Benefits provided by 'section 57A employers' will be exempt where the total grossed-up value of certain benefits (which are benefits not otherwise exempt) provided to each employee during the FBT year is equal to, or less than, the relevant capping threshold. If the total grossed-up value of certain benefits provided to an employee is more than that capping threshold, the employer will need to pay FBT on the excess. The capped benefit amount is determined by reference to the employer's 'aggregate non-exempt amount' in accordance with the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA, which states: Step 2. If: (a) (Repealed by No. 142 of 2003) (b) the employer is a government body and the duties of the employment of one or more employees are as described in paragraph 57A(2)(b) (which is about duties of employment being exclusively performed in or in connection with certain hospitals); or (c) the employer is a public hospital; or (ca) the employer provides public ambulance services or services that support those services, and the employee is predominantly involved in connection with the provision of those services; or (d) the employer is a hospital described in subsection 57A(4) (which is about hospitals carried on by certain societies and associations that are exempt from income tax); subtract $17,000 from the individual grossed-up non-exempt amount for each employee of the employer referred to in paragraph (c), (ca) or (d), or each employee referred to in paragraph (b), for the year of tax. However, if the individual grossed-up non-exempt amount for such as employee is equal to or less than $17,000, the amount calculated under this step for the employee is nil. Step 3. If step 2 does not apply in respect of one or more employees of the employer, reduce the individual grossed-up non-exempt amount for each such employee by $30,000, but not below nil. Therefore, as per Steps 2 and 3 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA, registered HPCs which do not operate a public hospital have a higher FBT exemption cap of $30,000 grossed-up value (that is, the value of the benefit plus the notional FBT liability) per employee, while a $17,000 per employee FBT exemption cap applies to employees of government and non-government public hospitals, and hospitals run by income tax exempt employers (relevantly, charities that are not HPCs). | Detailed Reasoning - Application to your circumstances: The Employer is endorsed as a HPC for the purposes of section 123D of the FBTAA. It was determined that the hospital operated by the Employer is not considered to be a 'public hospital' under paragraph (c) in Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA. It was determined that the Employer is not a hospital as described under paragraph d in Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA. Therefore, it is considered that Step 3 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA would apply in the current circumstances such that the individual grossed-up non-exempt amount of benefits provided to each employee would be reduced by the higher FBT exemption cap of $30,000 (but not below nil). | Detailed Reasoning - Conclusion: The Employer is an ACNC registered HPC and is endorsed by the Commissioner under section 123D of the FBTAA. The Employer is not a government body as it is independently controlled, (that is, the Board is not subject to any government control or representation) and primarily funded through the collection of fees either through private health insurance or out of pocket expenditure. The Employer is not an employer in relation to which Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA applies because it is not considered to be a public hospital. As such, the Employer will be entitled to apply the $30,000 reduction to the taxable FBT value for each eligible employee pursuant to Step 3 of the Method Statement contained in section 5B(1E) of the FBTAA.

Reasons for decision: These reasons for decision accompany the Notice of private ruling for the Employer. | This is to explain how we reached our decision. This is not part of the private ruling.