Lloyd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation

93 CLR 645
[1955] HCA 71
[1956] ALR 95
29ALJR 693

---

(Judgment by: McTiernan J)

Between: Lloyd
And: Federal Commissioner of Taxation

Court:

Judges: Dixon CJ

McTiernan JWebb J
Fullagar J
Kitto J

Subject References:
Succession
Estate duty
Exemption
Public educational purposes
Navy League Sea Cadet Corps

Legislative References:
Estate Duty Assessment Act 1914 (No 22) - the Act

Hearing date: MELBOURNE 13 October 1955; 14 October 1955
Judgment date: 15 December 1955

SYDNEY

---

Judgment by:
McTiernan J

The objects of the Navy League Sea Cadet Corps are essentially patriotic but are fit to be attained by educational means. The claim that the purposes of the Geelong branch of this organization are "public educational purposes" rests upon the instruction and training which it provides for the youths who join it. The rules of the central organization contain a curriculum of subjects and activities which is carried out by the branch. The constituents of this curriculum are set out in the case stated. The principal, if not the only, activity provided in the rules for attaining the aims of the organization is the carrying out of this curriculum. The methods mentioned are classes and camps conducted by officers of the corps for the benefit of the cadets. The Geelong branch follows the curriculum and these methods. The particulars of the educational activities which it carries out are contained in the case stated. It does not appear that it has any other activities. Looking at the particulars of the curriculum prescribed by the corps for the training of its cadets and at the particulars of the instruction and knowledge imparted by the branch's instructors and officers to the cadets I think that it is right to describe it as a body whose principal purposes are educational. If the subjects of the programme of instruction are taken individually it may be said with force that instruction in a number of them would not ordinarily be regarded as education. I think that the proper method is to consider the subjects as a combination designed as a preparation for the calling of a sailor and a way of teaching youths its traditions and ideals of service. Viewing the work of the corps in that way I think it is correct to say that its purposes are educational.

The next question is concerned with the meaning of "public". A guide is to be found in s. 8 (8) of the Act. I think that it can be inferred from this provision that the scope of the term "public educational purposes" in s. 8 (5) is not limited to education provided or recognized by the State, as the respondent contended. It is clear from s. 8 (8) that an admissible test under the former provision is whether the purposes are to the benefit of the public or a section of the public. I think that the Navy Cadet Corps and its Geelong Branch satisfy that test. Their objects are entirely public. Neither of them is carried on purely for private gain. Upon the facts stated in the case I think that the educational activities in which the central body of the organization and this branch engage are conducted for the public benefit and especially for the section of the public consisting of the youth who are training as cadets.

I think the question in the case should be answered "Yes".