Private ruling: FBT - capping thresholds
Date of advice: 1 February 2023
Published: 20 March 2023
Ruling period: Year ended 31 March 20xx | Year ended 31 March 20xx | Year ended 31 March 20xx | Year ended 31 March 20xx/p>
Date scheme commenced: 1 April 20xx

Ruling: Q1: Is the organisation 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 organisation a rebatable employer for the purposes of paragraph (d) of Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA? | A2: No. | Q3: If the answer to question 1 and 2 are no, will Step 3 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA apply such that the individual grossed-up non-exempt amount of benefits provided to each employee of the organisation would be reduced by the higher FBT exemption cap of $30,000 (but not below nil)? | A3: Yes.

Relevant facts and circumstances: The organisation has been registered with the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC) since xxxx and the most relevant subtype registration that it has held since that date is that of a Public Benevolent Institution (PBI). The organisation is not a government body and has a fully private ownership structure (being a not-for-profit-structure). The organisation is not bound to provide services to the public by any government or council regulation. The organisation's primary revenue is from hospital fees, largely funded from private health insurance, self-funded patients and WorkCover. The remaining funding is largely government funding provided under service contracts voluntarily entered into by the organisation. The hospital is considered to be a private hospital by the relevant State Department of Health.

Relevant legislative provisions: Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Subsection 5B(1E) | Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Subsection 57A | Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Subsection 65J | Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 Section 123C

Reasons for decision: Summary: The organisation 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 (PBIs) endorsed under section 123C of the FBTAA • registered health promotion charities • public and not-for-profit hospitals • government employers whose employees work in public and not-for-profit hospitals, and • public ambulance services. 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. | 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 emerged 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 14 June 2021, 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 - Endorsement by Commissioner as public benevolent institution (PBI): Section 123C of the FBTAA deals with the endorsement of a PBI, which states that: (1) The Commissioner must endorse an entity as a public benevolent institution if: (a) the entity is entitled to be endorsed as a public benevolent institution (see subsection (2)); and (b) the entity has applied for that endorsement in accordance with Division 426 in Schedule 1 to the Taxation Administration Act 1953 . (2) An entity is entitled to be endorsed as a public benevolent institution if the entity: (a) is a registered public benevolent institution; 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. | Detailed Reasoning - Application to your circumstances: The organisation is a not-for-profit company which is registered as a charity with the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission (ACNC). The hospital is registered PBIs endorsed under section 123C of the FBTAA. The organisation 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. In the context of a PBI that operates hospital, the organisation is not considered a 'public hospital' under the common meaning of the term and does not meet the definition of a 'public hospital' for the purposes of paragraph (c) of Step 2 of the method statement in Subsection 5B(1) of the FBTAA. Also, a registered PBI cannot be endorsed as a PBI if it, amongst other things, is a 'public hospital'. The organisation is not considered a public hospital for the following reasons: • The organisation is privately owned. • The level of public/government control is nil. • The organisation charges fees for the majority of its services. • The organisation is predominantly self-funded. The organisation is Gazetted as a 'private hospital', it is not considered to be a 'public hospital' by definition under the Health Services Act 2016 (WA) or the Private Hospitals and Health Services Act 1927 (WA). Accordingly, the answer to Question 1 is no. | Detailed Reasoning - Question 2: Is the organisation a rebatable employer for the purposes of paragraph (d) of Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA? | Summary: The organisation is not considered a rebatable employer 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 rebatable employers). " Section 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 is a rebatable employer ." Section 65J of the FBTAA outlines the criteria required to be satisfied in order for an employer to be considered a rebatable employer, as follows: "(1) An employer is a rebatable employer for a year of tax if the employer: (a) Is exempt from income tax at any time during the year of tax under any of the provisions set out in the following table; and (b) Satisfies the special conditions (if any) set out in the following table." The table set out under section 65J includes the following types of employers: • Registered charities; • Scientific institutions; • Public educational institutions; • Specific societies, associations or clubs established for certain purposes; and • Specific trades or unions. | Detailed Reasoning - Application to your circumstances: The organisation is a registered charity with the ACNC and therefore meets the first-mentioned criteria of being considered one of the employer types set out under section 65J. In order to be considered a rebatable employer, the organisation is also required to satisfy the specific conditions attached to this particular employer type. These conditions are set out in the table in section 65J as follows: "The registered charity is not a rebatable employer for the year of tax if it: (a) is a registered public benevolent institution; or (b) is a registered health promotion charity; or (c) is an institution of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or (d) has not been endorsed under subsection 123E(1); or (e) is not an institution." In this case, the organisation is a registered charity and is a registered PBI with the ACNC. The organisation does not meet any of the other criteria under section 65J and, accordingly, is not a rebatable employer for the purposes of paragraph (d) of Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA. | Detailed Reasoning - Question 3: If the answer to question 1 and 2 are no, will Step 3 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA apply such that the individual grossed-up non-exempt amount of benefits provided to each employee of the organisation would be reduced by the higher FBT exemption cap of $30,000 (but not below nil)? | Summary: Yes. Step 3 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBT Act would apply 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 - Detailed reasoning: The exempt 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 societies and associations that are rebatable employers); 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 PBIs which do not operate a public hospital and are not rebatable employers 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 rebatable employers (relevantly, charities that are not PBIs). | Detailed Reasoning - Application to your circumstances: The organisation is endorsed as a PBI for the purposes of section 123C of the FBTAA. As outlined in question 1A they are not entitled to be endorsed if Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) applies to it. It was determined that the organisation is not considered to be 'public hospitals' under paragraph (c) in Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA. 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).

Is the organisation considered a 'public hospital' for the purposes of paragraph (c) of Step 2 of the Method Statement in subsection 5B(1E) of the FBTAA?