Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
45 CLR 224(Decision by: Starke J)
Perpetual Trustee Co Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation
Court:
Judges:
Starke JDixon J
Evatt 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:
Starke J
The question stated for the opinion of the Court arises upon s. 8 (5) of the Estate Duty Assessment Act 1914-1928. It is as follows: "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 institutions or for the relief of persons in necessitous circumstances in Australia." This provision replaced a sub-section in the Act of 1914-1922 which read: "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, charitable or public educational purposes."
The amendment seems to have been made in consequence of the decision in Chesterman v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [F1] -where the Judicial Committee held that the word "charitable" in the earlier Act was used in its technical legal sense, as in the Statute of Elizabeth, and not in the narrower sense of the relief of poverty or destitution-and of the remarks of Isaacs J. in Young Men's Christian Association of Melbourne v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [F2] , at p. 359. In Adamson's Case [F3] the Judicial Committee also held that the expression "charitable institution" must be taken in its technical legal sense unless a contrary intention appear. Now we have to consider the expression "public benevolent institution." It cannot be said that this expression has any technical legal sense, and therefore it is to be understood in the sense in which it is commonly used in the English language. There is no definition in the Act of the composite expression, nor is it to be found in any dictionary. It is, however, found in the Act under consideration in association with such institutions as public hospitals and with funds established and maintained for the relief of persons in necessitous circumstances in Australia. In the context in which the expression is found, and in ordinary English usage, a "public benevolent institution" means, in my opinion, an institution organized for the relief of poverty, sickness, destitution, or helplessness. The Royal Naval House has none of these characteristics: it is organized for the accommodation and recreation of the naval forces of His Majesty and its hospitality is also extended to the naval forces of other countries. It would surprise English-speaking people, I think, to learn that in the Royal Naval House naval forces are accommodated and entertained at a public benevolent institution.
The question stated should be answered in the negative.