Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
45 CLR 224(Decision by: Dixon J)
Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
Court:
Judges:
Starke J
Dixon JEvatt J
McTiernan J
Subject References:
Taxation and revenue
Estate duty
Exemption
Institute for benefit of naval ratings
Legislative References:
Estate Duty Assessment Act 1914 (Cth) - Subsection 8(5)
Judgment date: 23 April 1931
SYDNEY
Decision by:
Dixon J
Section 8 (5) of the Estate Duty Assessment Act 1914-1928 provides that estate duty shall not be assessed or payable upon so much of the estate as is devised or bequeathed or passes by gift inter vivos or settlement for religious, scientific or public educational purposes in Australia, or to a public hospital or public benevolent institution in Australia, or to a fund established and maintained for the purpose of providing money for use for such institution, or for the relief of persons in necessitous circumstances in Australia.
The question upon this appeal is whether an institution called Royal Naval House is a public benevolent institution within the meaning of the exemption. The nature and the purposes of the institution are fully described in the case stated, and it cannot be denied that it is organized and conducted out of feelings of goodwill in order to promote the comfort and happiness of the lower ranks of the Royal Navy. Because of its association with the various Governments, and because it is concerned with the naval forces of the country, it would be difficult, if it be a benevolent institution, to deny it the description "public." But, in my opinion, it is neither promoted nor conducted for the relief of poverty, distress, suffering or misfortune, and the question is whether for this reason it lacks the qualities necessary to bring it within the meaning of the compound description "public benevolent institution." The words "benevolent institution" are commonly used in combination to denote bodies organized for the relief of poverty or of distress. Familiarity with the application of the expression to bodies of this kind inevitably tends to make the use of the phrase appear misplaced in relation to bodies which do not relieve poverty or misfortune and merit the description "benevolent" only because their objects are benignant. It is said, however, that after all "benevolent" is an ordinary English adjective, and that frequent application of a compound expression of which it forms a part to one or some of many classes of things possessing the attributes it connotes affords no sufficient reason for restricting the meaning of the expression. In such matters one must often be guided to a great degree by one's own experience in the use of terms. In the present case little help is provided by dictionaries, statutory usage, or judicial decision. For my part the application of the expression "benevolent institution" to such organizations as Royal Naval House seems odd and inappropriate.
Moreover, I agree with the suggestion of my brother Starke that the history of the provision in s. 8 (5) of the Estate Duty Assessment Act 1914-1928 is enough to show the word "benevolent" does not there possess its general descriptive meaning; because if it were given such an interpretation its application would extend in some ways far beyond the legal meaning of the word "charitable." After the expression "charitable purposes" in s. 8 (5) of the Estate Duty Assessment Act 1914 received in the Privy Council in Chesterman's Case [F4] its wide legal meaning, and after the observations of Isaacs J. in the Young Men's Christian Association Case [F5] , the present provision was substituted by s. 5 of Act No. 47 of 1928. Having regard to this history of the legislation and to the considerations I have mentioned, I am unable to place upon the expression "public benevolent institution" in the exemption a meaning wide enough to include organizations which do not promote the relief of poverty, suffering, distress or misfortune.
In my opinion the question in the case stated should be answered No.