ATO Interpretative Decision
ATO ID 2003/130 (Withdrawn)
Income Tax
Medicare levy surcharge: policy has a nil excess but requires a co-payment in respect of claims made under the policy.FOI status: may be released
-
This ATO ID is withdrawn and replaced by ATO ID 2010/122This document incorporates revisions made since original publication. View its history and amending notices, if applicable.
This ATOID provides you with the following level of protection:
If you reasonably apply this decision in good faith to your own circumstances (which are not materially different from those described in the decision), and the decision is later found to be incorrect you will not be liable to pay any penalty or interest. However, you will be required to pay any underpaid tax (or repay any over-claimed credit, grant or benefit), provided the time limits under the law allow it. If you do intend to apply this decision to your own circumstances, you will need to ensure that the relevant provisions referred to in the decision have not been amended or repealed. You may wish to obtain further advice from the Tax Office or from a professional adviser.
Issue
Is the taxpayer liable to pay the Medicare levy surcharge under section 8D of the Medicare Levy Act 1986 (MLA 1986) where their private patient hospital cover policy requires a co-payment in the event they make a claim under the policy?
Decision
No. The taxpayer will not be required to pay the Medicare levy surcharge under section 8D of the MLA 1986 as the taxpayer has the appropriate level of private patient hospital cover.
Facts
The taxpayer and their spouse have a private health insurance policy, with a
registered health fund provider, which meets the requirements of section 5A of the National Health Act 1953 (NHA 1953).
The hospital cover provides for private patient public and private hospital cover.
The policy does not require an 'excess' payment to be made by the taxpayer.
The policy features a co-payment method. Under this co-payment method the health fund provider will pay 75% of the overall charge of hospital treatment and the member contributes towards the balance (ie 25%). The co-payment amount is capped at $2000 per member/$4000 per family per year.
The combined taxable income of the taxpayer and their spouse exceeds $100,000 in the year of income.
The taxpayer and their spouse do not have any dependent children.
Neither spouse is a prescribed person as defined in section 251U of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936).
Reasons for Decision
Section 8D of the MLA 1986 provides the amount of Medicare levy payable by a taxpayer is increased by 1% of their taxable income and reportable fringe benefits where, for the whole period:
- •
- they are a married person,
- •
- the family income (total taxable income and reportable fringe benefits) exceeds the family surcharge threshold,
- •
- they, or at least one of their dependants, are not covered by an insurance policy that provides private patient hospital cover, and
- •
- they are not a prescribed person as defined in section 251U of the ITAA 1936.
Section 3A of the MLA 1986 indicates that the family surcharge threshold for a family with one or less dependant children is $100 000.
Subsection 3(5) of the MLA 1986 states that a person is covered by an insurance policy that provides private patient hospital cover if the policy is an applicable benefits arrangement within the meaning of section 5A of the NHA 1953.
However, subsection 3(5A) of the MLA 1986 provides that a taxpayer will not have the appropriate level of private patient hospital cover for the purposes of subsection 3(5) of the MLA 1986 if the excess payable in respect of a family policy exceeds $1000 for the whole family for the income year.
The Revised Explanatory Memorandum to the Taxation Laws Amendment Act (No. 6) 2000 clearly distinguishes between a co-payment and an excess (front-end deductible). It states that:
'A co-payment, which is an out of pocket expense dependent on the cost of hospital treatment, is not a front-end deductible. A co-payment arises due to the difference between the amount the health fund is prepared to pay, as specified in the applicable benefits arrangement and the cost of treatment determined by the hospital.'
The taxpayer is married, has a family taxable income exceeding the family surcharge threshold for the relevant year of income and is not a prescribed person.
However, as discussed above, a co-payment is not an excess. The taxpayer's policy does not require an excess payment. The requirement to make co-payments in respect of claims made under the policy will not trigger the operation of subsection 3(5A) of the MLA 1986. Therefore, the taxpayer is covered by an insurance policy that provides private patient hospital cover for the purposes of subsection 3(5) of the MLA 1986.
Consequently, the taxpayer is not liable for the Medicare levy surcharge under section 8D of the MLA 1986 as all of the conditions of that section have not been met.
Date of decision: 21 January 2003Year of income: Year ended 30 June 2003
Legislative References:
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936
section 251U
section 8D
section 3A
subsection 3(5)
subsection 3(5A) National Health Act 1953
section 5A
Keywords
Medicare levy surcharge
ISSN: 1445-2782
| Date: | Version: | |
| 21 January 2003 | Original statement | |
| You are here | 4 June 2010 | Archived |