| Disclaimer This edited version has been archived due to the length of time since original publication. It should not be regarded as indicative of the ATO's current views. The law may have changed since original publication, and views in the edited version may also be affected by subsequent precedents and new approaches to the application of the law. You cannot rely on this record in your tax affairs. It is not binding and provides you with no protection (including from any underpaid tax, penalty or interest). In addition, this record is not an authority for the purposes of establishing a reasonably arguable position for you to apply to your own circumstances. For more information on the status of edited versions of private advice and reasons we publish them, see PS LA 2008/4. |
Edited version of your private ruling
Authorisation Number: 1012016875693
This edited version of your ruling will be published in the public register of private binding rulings after 28 days from the issue date of the ruling. The attached private rulings fact sheet has more information.
Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. If you have any concerns about this ruling you wish to discuss, you will find our contact details in the fact sheet.
Ruling
Subject: Medicare levy surcharge
Question
Does the Commissioner have a discretion not to impose a Medicare levy surcharge?
Answer: No.
This ruling applies for the following period
Year ended 30 June 2009
The scheme commenced on
1 July 2008
Relevant facts and circumstances
In the 20XX-XX financial year you re-married.
You were unaware that your new spouse did not personally maintain private health cover.
Your spouse prepared their own income tax return and your tax agents were unaware that your spouse did not have the appropriate level of private health insurance cover.
You have always had, and still maintain, full private health insurance cover for yourself with Medibank Private.
Relevant legislative provisions
Medicare Levy Act 1986 Section 8D
Reasons for decision
Taxpayers without adequate private patient hospital cover through health insurance are liable to pay an additional 1% Medicare levy surcharge if their combined taxable income and reportable fringe benefits exceed the relevant threshold. For example for the 2008-09 financial year, a married person without private patient hospital cover will pay the Medicare levy surcharge if their own and their spouses combined taxable income and reportable fringe benefits exceed the family surcharge threshold of $140,000 (plus $1,500 for each dependent child after the first).
The Medicare levy surcharge is imposed by sections 8B to 8G of the Medicare Levy Act 1986 (MLA 1986).
Whether the Commissioner has any discretion in relation to the imposition of the Medicare levy surcharge was discussed in McCarthy v FC of T 2002 ATC 2204. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) held that the Commissioner has no power to remit the Medicare levy surcharge imposed on a taxpayer. The taxpayer argued that the imposition of the surcharge was unfair. The AAT held that the Commissioner had no choice but to impose the levy. The clear wording of the MLA 1986 required the 1% surcharge to be imposed on anyone with a taxable income exceeding the relevant threshold and where they satisfied the other criteria laid down in the MLA 1986. There was no dispute that the taxpayer satisfied those criteria. Further, legislation did not include the discretion to waive or modify the surcharge in cases of hardship or other special circumstances, and therefore the surcharge was payable.
As outlined above the legislation has no provision to remit the Medicare levy surcharge. Therefore you are liable for the Medicare levy surcharge as imposed on your 2008-2009 amended assessment.