Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 1
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
2016 National GST
Intensive
The tips and traps with little known
exemptions
Written by:
Rhys Guild
Partner
MinterEllison
Jane Spencer
Special Counsel
MinterEllison
Presented by:
Rhys Guild
Partner
MinterEllison
Hana Thorson Graduate
MinterEllison
National Division
8 – 9 September 2016
Four Points by Sheraton, Sydney
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 2
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
CONTENTS
1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 4
2 Why is affordable accommodation important?........................................................................... 5
3 Student accommodation ............................................................................................................... 6
3.1 When is a supply of student accommodation GST-free? ......................................................... 7
3.2 Case study – student housing .................................................................................................. 8
3.2.1 Traditional Model – outsourcing by way of lease .............................................................. 9
3.2.1.1 Traditional model - GST consequences....................................................................... 10
3.2.2 Alternative model – Manager acts as University's agent ................................................. 10
3.2.2.1 Alternative model - GST consequences ...................................................................... 12
3.2.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 14
4 Social housing .............................................................................................................................. 15
4.1 When is a supply of social housing GST-free? ....................................................................... 15
4.2 Case study – social housing ................................................................................................... 15
4.2.1 Traditional model ............................................................................................................. 16
4.2.2 Traditional model - GST consequences .......................................................................... 17
4.2.3 Alternative model ............................................................................................................. 20
4.2.4 Alternative model – GST consequences ......................................................................... 21
4.2.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 24
5 GST and health care – some interesting examples .................................................................. 26
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................. Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2 GST-free health services concessions .................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
5.2.1 Introduction of section 38-60 of the GST Act .................................................................. 28
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 3
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
5.2.2 Section 38-60 of the GST Act in practice ........................................................................ 29
5.2.3 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................... 31
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 4
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
1 Introduction
This paper considers some of the GST concessions that are not necessarily the most prominent or
debated, but are nonetheless of considerable import to those to whom they apply.
The issues around student and social housing are often referred to in the mainstream and financial
media and these sectors appear to be creating some element of 'buzz' over recent months. Less
commonly raised but equally as important are the recently introduced concessions regarding health
supplies that are funded by third parties. These provisions are likely to become increasingly important
given the recent experience in New South Wales where, for the first time, public healthcare services
will be provided by a private operator1.
Specifically, the concessions that are available in these areas are intended to ensure that these
supplies are provided without any embedded GST cost and therefore serve the public policy aim that
these supplies are provided to consumers at the lowest (tax) cost possible.
From an advisor's perspective, the policy considerations that underpin these concessions are of
particular relevance when considering the various commercial structures, largely developed by the
private sector, that underpin the ultimate provision of these services to consumers, particularly in the
context where the statutory framework is arguably unnecessarily narrow in its scope.
Accordingly, without careful consideration of each step of a transaction, it is often the case that the
policy intent is negated by an unintended (or unanticipated) GST cost arising at some point in the
supply chain, which in the author's experience is more often than not ultimately borne (either directly
or indirectly) by the consumer through the final pricing of the transaction.
1New Northern Beaches Hospital (see http://nbhsredev.health.nsw.gov.au/project/northern-beaches-hospital/)
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 5
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
2 Why is affordable accommodation
important?
The policy considerations underlying the concessions that are available for affordable accommodation
(for both lower income earners and students) is particularly worthy of consideration in the context of
the application of the applicable GST concession. First, it is important to recognise that the underlying
rationale of extending GST-free treatment to supplies made by charities for less than market value (or
cost) is to ensure that those supplies are provided without any embedded GST cost2.
In this context, the need for affordable accommodation, particularly in our major urban areas, has
never been higher. Newspapers regularly contain articles bemoaning the fact that a growing
proportion of residents are increasingly being priced out of the housing markets in these areas. For
example:
1. the Daily Telegraph noted a BankWest report has identified that 84% of Sydney suburbs had
average house prices that were more than five times the average earnings of police, fire fighters
and paramedics3;
2. the Sydney Morning Herald4 has reported that community housing provider Link Housing listed
81 affordable units for rent in Sydney and received 84,788 views and 4,037 applications. That
same article noted that the Department of Family and Community Services had more than 59,000
people on its waitlist for affordable housing;
3. the Herald Sun5 recently reported that analysis by SGS Economics concluded that for every $1
spent on social and affordable housing, the saving to the economy is $7; and
4. the Sydney Morning Herald6 has reported that only 2% of new developments in the City of
Sydney are reserved for affordable housing tenants, far short of the Council's target of 7.5%.
In this paper the GST issues around two common forms of affordable accommodation are considered,
namely student accommodation and social housing.
2 See paragraph 5.104 of the Explanatory Memorandum to the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Bill 1998. 3 Daily Telegraph, Prices put squeeze on crucial workers, Feb 27, 2014. 4 November 21, 2015, Slim Pickings for renters in Sydney. 5 July 26, 2016 – Lack of Housing hits society and the economy. 6 13 July 2015 – Housing affordability crisis has essential works fleeing Sydney.
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 6
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
3 Student accommodation
The characterisation of student accommodation for GST purposes has had a somewhat colourful
history. This is partly because, unlike most other supplies to which GST applies, it possible for this
supply to be classified as taxable, GST-free or input taxed without there necessarily being any
material difference in the substance or nature of the supply itself. Rather, the classification of the
supply is at least as dependent on the identity and characterisation of the supplier and the
consideration that is provided for the supply.
In 2010, the Commissioner of Taxation (Commissioner) released an Interpretive Decision expressing
the tax office view that the supply of student housing will normally be an input taxed, rather than
taxable, supply.7 That is, the Commissioner took the view (in the author's view appropriately) that the
provision of accommodation to students in halls of residence (albeit for terms of generally no more
than 52 weeks) was appropriately categorised as an input taxed supply of leasing of residential
premises.
The waters were muddied by the decision in ECC Southbank Pty Ltd v FCT8 where the Federal Court
found that certain supplies of accommodation in the facility in question (which included
accommodation provided to students) were supplies of 'commercial residential premises' and not
'residential premises' and therefore, taxable supplies attracting GST. While the facility in this case was
not run by a university and was not on campus, it was perhaps surprising that the court was not asked
to address (and did not chose to otherwise comment on) the exception to the definition of commercial
residential premises that normally applies to 'premises to the extent that they are used to provide
accommodation to students in connection with an education institution'.
Notwithstanding the decision in Southbank, there have since been a number of private rulings issued
by the Commissioner which confirm that the supply of accommodation to students in university halls
of residences is prima facie input taxed9.
Accordingly, while some in the private sector will adopt the position that they are making taxable
supplies (per Southbank) and will seek to mitigate their GST liabilities through the operation of
Division 87 of the GST Act, others will attempt to structure their offering to distinguish themselves
from Southbank and simply adopt input taxed treatment.
Ultimately, in the context of the above, it is submitted that student accommodation is, by its very
nature, a supply that should be considered as inherently suitable for GST-free treatment. This should
7 ATO ID 2010/194. 8 ECC Southbank Pty Ltd as trustee for Nest Southbank Unit Trust v Commissioner of Taxation [2012] FCA 795. 9 For example, see edited private binding ruling 1012373581323 which confirms that such supplies are input taxed pursuant to
section 40-35 of the GST Act.
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 7
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
be the case even when a university seeks to 'outsource' the management and operation of its student
accommodation facilities to the private sector.
3.1 When is a supply of student accommodation GST-free?
The supply of accommodation will be GST-free pursuant to subsections 38-250(1) and (2) of the GST
Act where the supply is:
1. made by an endorsed charity, gift deductible entity or government school; and
2. for consideration that is either:
a. less than 75% of the GST inclusive market value of the supply; or
b. less than 75% of the cost to the supplier of providing that accommodation.
In most cases, universities will satisfy the first requirement by virtue of being an endorsed charity or
gift deductible entity.
The issue therefore becomes whether the rents charged satisfy one of the criteria listed in paragraph
b. In our experience, the former category is the generally the most relevant – that is, that the rent is
less than 75% of market value.
The term 'market value of the supply' is not defined by the GST Act, however, the Commissioner has
published guidelines which, amongst other things, adopts the common law test that the market value
of a thing is 'the price that would be negotiated between a knowledgeable, willing, and not anxious
buyer and a knowledgeable, willing and not anxious seller acting at 'arm's length' in an appropriate
market'.10
To further assist in determining the market value of a supply, the Commissioner’s guidelines set out
the following successive tests to determine the market value of a supply:
1. the organisation must determine whether the same supply exists within the market it operates in
(the 'same supply' test). If the 'same supply' exists in the market, the price of this supply is the
market value that the organisation should use in its calculations;
2. if no 'same supply' exists, the organisation must then determine whether a similar supply exists
within the market it operates in (the 'similar supply' test). If there is a 'similar supply', and no
'same supply' exists in the market, the price of the 'similar supply' is the market value that the
organisation should use in its calculations; and
10 Charities Consultative Committee Resolved Issues Document (Market Value Guidelines).
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 8
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
3. if no 'same supply' or 'similar supply' exists, the organisation may seek the Commissioner's
approval to use another methodology to calculate the market value of the supply.
It is submitted (potentially controversially) that in the context of applying these principles to the supply
of student accommodation there can almost never be a 'same' supply. That is, by definition, one of the
key characteristics of the supply is the location from which it is provided. As such, it is simply not
possible (without breaking the laws of physics) for there to be a 'same' supply when determining the
market value of a supply of university accommodation. This is important, because it means that any
test of market value for accommodation must, by definition, apply the 'similar' supply test.
Once the 'similar supply' test is accepted as being appropriate, then it is also necessary to recognise
that there may be a variety of 'similar' supplies and this will often involve consideration of a number of
alternative accommodation supplies, each of which shares some characteristics of the underlying
supply. In the context of student accommodation, it is submitted that location and proximity to the
campus will often be as important as the nature of the types of rooms supplies. Accordingly, in our
experience, while the Commissioner's residential tool provides a form of 'safe harbour' for setting
rents under the 75% threshold, there will often be strong arguments to support a broader investigation
– that is, it will often be appropriate to determine market rents by reference to the residential leasing
market in the suburbs in which the facility is located, rather than attempting to compare rents in other
halls of residence located in other parts of the relevant town or city.
Accordingly, it is submitted that there are a number of situations where the supply of accommodation
in the higher education sector can and should be provided in a GST efficient manner. In this context,
set out below is a case study that considers the GST consequences arising from the 'traditional'
model that has been adopted by higher education institutions supplying student accommodation
facilities and an alternative structure for the holding and leasing of such facilities that produces a GST
neutral outcome.
3.2 Case study – student housing
The following case study illustrates the GST leakage that arises under a 'traditional' model of
outsourcing of student accommodation compared to a model that has the same substantive economic
outcome but which preserves the GST-free status that, it is submitted, appropriately applies to such
supplies.
For the purposes of this case study assume that:
1. a university owns land that it wishes to develop into a new student housing accommodation
facility;
2. the university is GST registered at all relevant times and is an endorsed charity and/or gift
deductible entity able to access the GST-free concession under section 38-250 of the GST Act;
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 9
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
$ $
3. to the extent that is commercially achievable, the university wishes to outsource the
management, development and on-going operations of the new facility.
Set out below are examples of a model that has historically be adopted, whereby the above
arrangements are effected by way of a lease to a manager / operator, compared to an alternative
model that involves an agency arrangement.
3.2.1 Traditional Model – outsourcing by way of lease
One of the models that has been historically adopted by some institutions involves granting a lease
over the entire residential properties to an accommodation manager that in turn, leases individual
units of accommodation to students. Under this lease arrangement, the manager is obliged to
sublease the premises to students of the institution and otherwise provide accommodation on certain
terms consistent with the university's charter etc.
Often the institution will seek some form of premium from the manager for the right to be granted the
lease, reflecting the inherent value of the facility to the university and the fact that the manager will
seek to run the operations for a profit (having a captive customer base).
This traditional model in the context of the case study facts noted above is represented
diagrammatically below.
Admin Costs (legal
accounting, etc.)
$ Rent
(+Premium?)
$
University
Manager
Students
Traditional model
Lease
Lease $ Rent
Builder
Land Owner
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 10
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
3.2.1.1 Traditional model - GST consequences
Lease of the premises to the manager
Under the traditional model, pursuant to section 40-35 of the GST Act, the lease of the premises by
the university to the manager is an input taxed supply. Accordingly, the university is unable to claim
input tax credits for GST on any costs incurred on the acquisition of the land, payments to builders or
any administration costs. Additionally, in the event that the university requires the accommodation
manager to pay a lease premium in addition to rent, the lease premium will also be input taxed.
Supply of student leases by manager
Likewise, the subsequent lease of the residential accommodation by the manager to students will be
input taxed (noting our comments above that the Commissioner has in our experience adopted the
position that the decision in Southbank can be distinguished where the accommodation in question is
located on campus). This is on the basis that the supply of most student accommodation provided in
relation to on-campus facilities will fall within the exception in the definition of 'commercial residential
premises set out in section 195-1 of the GST Act. That is, on-campus facilities generally are premises
that are used to provide accommodation to students in connection with an education institution that is
not a school, such that leases of these premises is specifically excluded from the definition of
commercial residential premises and so remains input taxed pursuant to section 40-35 of the GST
Act. The manager cannot claim credits for any GST incurred on any costs to run the facility and
accordingly incurs a GST cost on these inputs11. This arrangement produces a sub optimal GST
outcome and is wholly inconsistent with the policy intention that such supplies should be provided
without an embedded GST cost.
3.2.2 Alternative model – Manager acts as University's agent
Set out below is an alternative which produces a GST efficient outcome compared to the traditional
model. Rather than lease the building to a manager, the university appoints the manager to:
1. act as its agent to enter into leases with the students; and
11 It is noted that the supply of accommodation on a temporary basis during the holiday period (when students are not present)
will often be a taxable supply of commercial residential premises, such that in many cases the manager will be entitled to a
proportion of credits as a result of making such supplies. This is on the basis that the accommodation provided in most student
accommodation facilities will meet the definition of 'commercial residential premises' on that basis that it is similar to a 'hotel,
motel, inn, hostel or boarding house', and is not normally not provided to students in connection with an education institution.
As such, holiday accommodation generally does not fall within the exemption that otherwise excludes on-campus student
accommodation from the scope of commercial residential premises.
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 11
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
$ $ $
2. manage the property for the university.
For GST purposes, where an agent makes a supply on behalf of a principal, the supply is treated as if
it was made by the principal.12 Under this model, the university retains its position as the lessor and
the manager provides services to the university. Pursuant to this arrangement, the manager collects
rent from students on behalf of the university, enters leases with students acting as the university's
agent and supervises the day-to-day running of the residential accommodation facilities.
In exchange for these services, the university pays the accommodation manager a fee, funded by a
portion of the rental amounts collected from resident students. The management services fee is
calculated as an arm's length amount to reflect the cost of the provision of such services, plus an
additional mark-up. If required, the manager may also choose to outsource some or all of its
management functions to a different operator, for which it would pay an operator fee.
12 See public ruling GSTR 2000/37 and particularly paragraph 15.
$ Management
Fee
Enters lease as
Uni's agent
Management
services
University
Students
Builder Admin Costs (legal
accounting, etc.) Land Owner
Manager Lease
$ Rent (collected by Manager on
behalf of University)
Alternative model (stage 1)
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 12
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
3.2.2.1 Alternative model - GST consequences
Supply of student leases by the university
Under this arrangement, provided the rent charged to students is less than 75% of the GST inclusive
market value of the supply, the supply of accommodation by the university to the student will be GST-
free. Accordingly, the university will not be liable for GST on the leases supplied to the students.13
Furthermore, it will be entitled to full input tax credits for all costs it has incurred in relation to
developing the facility. For example, it will be entitled to a full credit for any GST incurred on the
acquisition of the land (assuming the margin scheme is not applied), a full credit for any GST on
building services acquired and a full credit for any GST on administrative services acquired.
Acquisition of management services
The acquisition of management services by the university from the manager will be a creditable
acquisition for the purposes of section 11-5 of the GST Act. As the university acquires these services
in the course of making GST-free supplies of accommodation to students or taxable commercial
residential premises during non-term time, the university will be entitled to claim input tax credits for
the GST payable on the management fee. As the manager is making taxable supplies to the
university, the manager will also be able to claim full credits for GST on all of its costs.
Outsourcing of management services by accommodation manager
In the event that the manager outsources some of its obligations to an unrelated external operator, for
example cleaning services may be outsourced, the supply of such services from the operator to the
manager will be a taxable supply. As the manager acquires the services in the course of making
taxable supplies of management services to the university, that is, for a creditable purpose, the
manager will also be entitled to an input tax credit for the GST payable on any fees paid to the
operator.
Using this alternative model, student accommodation is provided without any embedded GST costs
and there is no GST leakage for any party.
Alternative model - assignment of income stream instead of a lease premium
Finally, it is noted that the traditional model often involves the payment of a lease premium which the
manager believes it can recover through the efficient operation of the facility (i.e. effectively allowing
the university to realise the inherent economic value of its property).
13 Pursuant to subsection 38-250(1)(b)(i) of the GST Act.
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 13
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
$ $ $
In the context of the alternative model, the same economic outcome can be achieved by the manager
(or securitisation vehicle) paying a lump sum fee to the university as consideration for the university's
agreement to assign to the manager some or all of the remaining rental stream (i.e. the rent after the
manager's fee has been deducted).
Noting that the upfront payment is essentially consideration for the assignment of the excess
consideration from the rental supply, and provided that it appropriately represents arm's length
consideration for entry into that arrangement, the assignment of the income stream should be a
financial supply that is not subject to GST. Importantly, it should not otherwise have a material
adverse impact on the input tax credit entitlements of either the university or the manager in relation
to the on-going operation of the facility. That is:
1. the costs incurred by the university in relation to the acquisition and development of the village
are directly related to its GST-free supply of leases to students (or taxable supplies of commercial
residential premises during term breaks); and
2. the costs incurred by the manager during the on-going operation of the facility relate to its taxable
supply of services to the university.
The university can, as a commercial matter, determine the scope and term of securitisation, which will
ultimately impact on the amount of upfront payment that can be realised.
This second step is diagrammatically represented as follows:
$ Rent (collected by
Manager on behalf of
University)
Enters lease as
Uni's agent
Lease
$ Premium
Net rental
proceeds
Management
Services
Alternative model (stage 2)
Students
University
Builder Land Owner
Admin Costs (legal
accounting, etc.)
Manager Manager or
securitisation vehicle
$ Management
Fee
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 14
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
3.3 Conclusion
As highlighted above, student housing is one of those unique types of supplies that, depending on the
identity and characterisation of the supplier and the quantum of the consideration that is charged, can
potentially qualify for each of the three primary GST categorisations (i.e. taxable, GST-free and input
taxed). In an environment where there is a compelling policy argument that such accommodation
should be able to be provided without an embedded GST cost, it is incumbent on advisors to be
cognisant of these differing GST treatments depending on the commercial arrangements that are
implemented.
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 15
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
4 Social housing
As noted in above, affordable housing is one of the biggest challenges faced by Australia today. As
rental prices continue to rise, so does the possibility that a growing proportion of Australia's most
vulnerable populations will be pushed out of the market entirely. Accordingly, the provision of social
housing has become increasingly important in recent times.
Social housing is a form of affordable rental housing usually provided by not-for-profit, non-
government, or government organisations to assist those facing barriers entering the private rental
market. Under section 38-250, GST-free treatment is available for certain organisations that provide
social housing.
The GST treatment of traditional arrangements in relation to the development and supply of social
housing can be illustrated in the following case study.14
4.1 When is a supply of social housing GST-free?
Similarly, to the situation outlined at paragraph 3.1 in relation to student housing, social housing will
be GST-free where the supply of accommodation is made by an endorsed charity, gift deductible
entity or government school and for consideration that is less than (in our experience most usually)
75% of the GST inclusive market value of the supply.
In most circumstances social housing is provided by dedicated charitable housing providers (CHP)
whose goal is to provide long-term accommodation solutions to its clients. Most, if not all, of these
CHPs are endorsed charities or not for profit bodies.
4.2 Case study – Social housing
The following case study illustrates the different GST outcomes that can arise using different delivery
models to effectively provide the same social housing solution. For the purposes of this case study
assume that:
1. a housing authority owns or will acquire land that can be used to develop (or be renovated into)
appropriate social housing product;
14 For the purposes of this case study we have assumed that all parties involved in the project are GST registered at all relevant
times, and the relevant charitable institution is eligible to access the GST-free concessions under section 38-250 of the GST
Act.
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 16
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
2. the housing authority is registered for GST but is not an endorsed charity or not for profit
organisation;
3. a CHP is selected to manage this accommodation; and
4. the CHP is GST registered at all relevant times and is an endorsed charity and/or gift deductible
entity able to access the GST-free concession under section 38-250 of the GST Act.
4.2.1 Traditional model
While there are many variations on the models that have been used to deliver social housing
outcomes, in our experience the following outlines a common factual scenario that has been adopted
in situations where the underlying land is owned by the relevant government housing authority:
1. the housing authority will seek to appoint developers and builders to develop those premises;
2. the housing authority will seek to appoint CHP to manage the provision of social housing. To this
end, the housing authority will lease the properties to the CHP who will in turn sub-lease
individual residences to tenants – generally at a rent that is a significant discount to market (e.g.
less than 75% of market rent).
3. the CHP will effectively cover its costs under one of two scenarios:
the CHP will be entitled to charge a management fee to the housing authority (often deducted from
the rent collected from tenants); or
the rent charged on the lease of the property by the housing authority to the CHP is so low that the
rent derived from the tenants under the subleases effectively funds the CHP's activities.
The traditional model can be represented diagrammatically as follows:
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 17
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
$ Purchase price (incl.
GST – assuming
taxable supply)
$ Build cost
(plus GST)
Lease
Lease
$ Costs (plus
GST)
GST GST GST
$ (input taxed – no GST)
$ (GST-free)
4.2.2 Traditional model - GST consequences
The GST treatment of the relevant supplies in a traditional model are as follows.
Traditional model
Tenants
CHP
Housing authority
Builder 3rd party service
providers Land owner
ATO
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 18
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
Supplies by land owner, builder and third parties
The supplies to the housing authority by these parties will each prima facie be taxable supplies
(subject to GST). Under normal contractual arrangements the consideration paid or provided by the
housing authority to each relevant party will be 'grossed up' on account of the GST payable on these
supplies.
Supply of property by housing authority to CHP
As the housing authority is not an endorsed charity, it cannot access the GST concessions in
section 38-250. That is, this supply cannot qualify for GST-free treatment under section 35-250
because that section only applies to supplies made by:
1. endorsed charities;
2. gift-deductible entities; and
3. government schools.
Accordingly, as it will be supplying a lease of the residential premises to the charitable institution by
way of lease:15
1. its supply will be an input taxed supply of residential premises; and
2. it will not be eligible to claim input tax credits for GST it pays on expenditure related to the
acquisition of the associated land, building costs or administration costs.
Supply of leasing of housing by CHP to individuals
If the CHP is an endorsed charity and the supply of accommodation to tenants is for less than 75% of
the GST-inclusive market value of the supply, the supply of leases by the charitable institution to
tenants will be GST-free.16 If and to the extent that the leases by the CHP are GST-free, it should be
entitled to input tax credits for GST payable on acquisitions in relation to making these supplies.
Analysis of the GST consequences of the traditional model
Under the 'traditional' model as described above, a GST leakage will normally arise. Specifically, for
the reasons outlined above, the lease of the property (or properties) by the housing authority to the
15 Generally such leases are for terms well under 50 years and therefore do not qualify as long term leases (which would be
effectively be treated as a sale for GST purposes). If the lease does qualify as a long term lease (such that it is effectively
treated as a sale) then the GST consequences would be consistent with that outlined in in respect of a sale of property in
section 4.3 below. 16 Pursuant to section 38-250 of the GST Act.
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 19
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
CHP by way of lease will normally be an input taxed supply. Accordingly, it will be denied the ability to
claim input tax credits for GST on its acquisitions pursuant to section 11-15(2)(a) of the GST Act.
It is acknowledged that the housing authority might argue that it should be entitled to some proportion
of input tax credits in relation to the development of social housing to recognise that its acquisitions do
not just relate to the supply of leased residential premises to the CHP, but are more broadly related to
activities involving the provision and promotion of social housing and community development.
While we have some sympathy for this argument in the context of the policy objectives supporting the
provision of social housing, following the Full Federal Court's decision in Rio Tinto Services Ltd v
Commissioner of Taxation [2015] FCA 94, it would seem unlikely that this would be upheld by the
courts. In this case, Rio Tinto Services sought to argue that it was entitled to at least a proportion of
credits for GST incurred on costs to provide housing to its employees by virtue of the fact that these
activities also had a relationship to the broader taxable mining enterprise.
In rejecting this argument, the effect of the statutory denial (or 'blockage') of credits in section 11-
15(2)(a) was described by the Full Federal Court as follows:
'The application of s 11-15(2)(a) requires, therefore, the precise identification of the relevant
acquisition and a factual inquiry into the relationship between that acquisition and the making
of supplies that would be input taxed. An acquisition will not be for a creditable purpose to the
extent that the facts disclose that the acquisition relates to the making by the enterprise of
supplies that would be input taxed. Some acquisitions may relate to the making of supplies
that would be capable of distinct and separate apportionment as between an input taxed
supply and an otherwise taxable supply. In that case it may be possible to divide the
creditable purpose between the two. Other acquisitions may be indifferently both for supplies
that would be both input taxed and otherwise taxable generally. In that case some fair and
reasonable assessment of the extent of the relationship between the two may need to be
made. But, as is the case here, an acquisition which relates wholly to the making of supplies
that would be input taxed is not to be apportioned merely because that supply may also serve
some broader commercial objective of the supplier. The contrary construction is neither
required by the language of the provisions nor by its policy. It may, indeed, readily be
assumed that many taxpayers will make supplies 'that would be input taxed' as part of
carrying on an enterprise. The construction urged by Rio Tinto, however, would prevent the
operation of s 11-15(2)(a) in such cases. The words of the section do not say that and the
policy of denying a credit for tax that would be input taxed militates against it. What the words
require is that there be a factual identification of the acquisitions in question and a factual
inquiry into the extent to which those acquisitions relate to the making of supplies that would
be input taxed. The relevant inquiry called for by s 11-15(2)(a) is not into the relationship
between the acquisition and the enterprise more broadly. An acquisition for purposes which
are not distinct and severable or which does not relate to different supplies but which comes
wholly within the blocking provision is excluded from the definition of creditable purpose.'
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 20
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
Applying the above analysis to the 'traditional model' described above would leave very little room to
successfully argue for even a proportionate input tax credit entitlement to the housing authority. In any
event, even if Rio Tinto Services could somehow be distinguished it would only allow a proportion of
credits to be claimed in relation to the provision of social housing, meaning that in the context of the
traditional model, there will always be some level of embedded GST cost in relation to those supplies.
Accordingly, as a general proposition, some level of GST leakage will arise in respect of the traditional
model outlined above.
4.2.3 Alternative model
One of the commercial drivers of the traditional model is that the housing authority will generally seek
to retain ownership of the land and so, notwithstanding the lease to the CHP, is able to maintain a
degree of control of the ultimate use of land in the long term (e.g. if it believes the CHP is not
satisfying its obligations under the lease in relation to management or supply of affordable housing, so
that it has a right to terminate the lease and assume control of the properties).
For the reasons outlined above however, the traditional model will generally produce a level of GST
leakage that is otherwise inconsistent with the policy position that there should be no embedded GST
cost in relation to the supply of affordable (i.e. less than 75% of market rent) housing by endorsed
charitable entities.
In this context, set out below is a case study of an alternative structure involving a private investor that
produced an acceptable commercial position for the relevant housing authority in relation to its control
of the land, while allowing for a GST outcome consistent with the policy outlined above.
Contractual arrangements
The government land owner (GLO) owns existing residential stock that it is seeking to develop into
new affordable housing. It enters into an arrangement with a newly incorporated wholly owned
special purpose vehicle (SPV Co) under which:
1. the GLO grants access rights to SPV Co to allow it to enter the land to undertake the
development and operation of the properties upon completion. In consideration for these rights,
SPV Co will make development fee payments to the GLO during the operation phase of the
Project (Development Fee); and
2. SPV Co will undertake the project (i.e. operate and manage the affordable housing) in return for
service payments from the GLO (Service Fee).
SPV Co will engage the charitable housing provider (CHP), builder, facilities manager and all other
relevant subcontractors to carry out the project.
The GLO could provide land to the CHP for nil or nominal consideration either by way of:
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 21
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
sale;
a long term lease (i.e. 50-years or more); or
a lease (e.g. up to 50 years).
The CHP will obtain control of the land either at the beginning or end of construction for each phase of
the development. Upon completion of construction, the CHP will lease the completed properties to
tenants for a rent that is less than 75% of market value. The CHP will normally be required to pay a
proportion of the rental stream from tenancies to the GLO as consideration for its transfer of the
properties (whether by way of sale, long term lease or lease).
Securitised funding structure
The private sector counterparty will establish a unit trust as a securitisation vehicle (SV).
1. The SV is capitalised with debt and equity (initially from the Sponsor).
2. The SV uses the funds to purchase receivables from the GLO, being the income stream
generated from Development Fees payable by SPV Co (Receivables). The purchase price is
equal to the net present value of the total 'Service Fees' payable during the Project.
3. The SV will utilise the Development Fees over the life of the project to:
service and repay any borrowed funds and interest thereon; and
provide returns on equity to its investors.
4.2.4 Alternative model – GST consequences
The GST treatment of the above arrangements is set out below.
Transfer of land by GLO Co to CHP
The GST treatment of the sale of the land by GLO to CHP is the key to the overall GST outcome that
arises from the arrangements. As noted above, this may be effected commercially either via:
1. a lease (less than 50 years);
2. by way of an outright sale of land; or
3. a long term lease (greater than 50 years).
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 22
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
Lease of property by GLO to CHP (or sale prior to commencement of construction)
If the GLO leases the land to the CHP under a (less than 50 year) lease, then this will normally be an
input taxed supply of residential premises. For example, if the property comprised existing 'second
hand' residential premises and was leased to the CHP before development of the Project
commenced, it is likely that the transfer of property would be characterised as an input taxed lease of
residential premises under section 40-65 of the GST Act, and would therefore not be subject to GST.
Similarly, an outright sale of any existing 'old' residential premises prior to construction starting would
also likely be treated as an input taxed supply of residential premises under section 40-65 of the GST
Act.
Although no GST should be payable by the GLO in either case, it is likely that the GLO would be
denied input tax credits for some proportion of the costs it incurs in connection with the Project, in
particular, the GST on Service Fees payable over the term of the project. This could potentially
increase the project's overall net cost by up to 10%, impacting on the financial viability of the model.
Sale of property by GLO to CHP (after completion of construction)
If on the other hand the properties are transferred by the GLO to the CHP following completion of
construction, this will constitute a supply of 'new residential premises' for GST purposes. Accordingly,
the GLO would be liable for GST on any consideration provided by the CHP (which could be funded
from the rental stream received from tenants).
Importantly however, the CHP should be entitled to full input tax credits (on the basis that it makes
GST-free supplies of residential accommodation) so there should be no net GST cost to the GLO or
the CHP. Furthermore, transferring the land as a taxable supply should preserve the GLO's
entitlement to input tax credits on the Project Fees payable under the Project Deed.
Depending on exactly how the CHP funds this payment, there may need to be arrangements
implemented to address the attribution of GST on this supply (i.e. the GLO may have an 'up-front'
GST liability, triggering an up-front input tax credit entitlement to the CHP – which may require special
funding arrangements to the extent that the CHP otherwise pays for the transfer of the property by
way of transfer of the on-going rents received from tenants).
Outright sale of land with call option
As noted above, one of the key commercial drivers for the traditional structure is that GLOs and
housing authorities will often have a strong preference to retain legal ownership of the housing stock
(for a wide variety of reasons). As such, there is often a reluctance on the part of the GLO to transfer
ownership of the property to the CHP.
In the context of the present case study, one option for the GLO to maintain control over the
properties (for policy reasons or otherwise), is to sell the land to the CHP while at the same time
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 23
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
having the parties agree for the grant of a call option from the CHP in favour of the GLO to allow the
GLO to re-acquire the properties from the CHP under certain circumstances (such as in the event the
CHP becomes insolvent or is otherwise failing to satisfy specified performance measures in relation to
the supply of affordable housing).
The grant of a call option is a separate supply to the supply of the underlying property the subject of
the option. However, the GST treatment of a call option generally follows the GST treatment of the
underlying supply the subject of the option. For example, the supply of the property by the CHP might
be a GST-free supply if the provisions of section 38-250 are satisfied, such that the call option should
also be GST-free under section 9-30(1). Alternatively, if not GST-free, the underlying supply of
properties by the CHP to the GLO would likely be input taxed, meaning that the call option would also
be input taxed under section 9-30(2). The parties may also agree to include a corresponding put
option in favour of the CHP, allowing the CHP to 'put' the property back to the GLO in certain
circumstances (for example if the CHP lost its charitable status or was being wound up).
Long term lease (>50 years)
The GST implications under a lease with a term of 50 years or more will generally be similar to an
outright sale (except in the case of a long-term lease granted before construction – see below for
further discussion). This is because, for GST purposes, a 'long-term lease' is treated in a similar
manner as a sale.
The GST Act defines 'long-term lease' as follows:
'long-term lease means a supply by way of lease, hire or licence (including a renewal or
extension of a lease, hire or licence) for at least 50 years if:
1. at the time of the lease, hire or licence, or the renewal or extension of the lease, hire or
licence, it was reasonable to expect it would continue for at least 50 years; and
2. unless the supplier is an Australian government agency, the terms of the lease, hire or
licence, or the renewal or extension of the lease, hire or licence as they apply to the recipient
are substantially the same as those under which the supplier held the premises.'17
As with an outright sale, the timing of the granting of the lease will have different GST consequences
for the GLO, depending on the characteristics of the property (i.e. if the property comprises 'used'
residential premises prior to development, and whether the lease is granted before or after
construction).
17 Section 195-1 of the GST Act.
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 24
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
As a broad proposition therefore, if the long term lease is granted after construction is completed, it
will be treated as a taxable supply of new residential premises by the GLO to the CHP, and the GLO
will be liable for GST on that supply (which should be fully creditable to the CHP).
Development fees payable to GLO
The GLO will be liable for (and will therefore charge) GST on any Development Fees as these would
be consideration for a taxable supply to SPV Co of a right to enter the land to carry out the
development activities. Any GST payable should be fully creditable to SPV Co (on the basis it is
acquiring access from the GLO in order to make a taxable supply of works to GLO) so no net GST
cost should arise for the GLO or SPV Co.
Securitised financing arrangement – Assignment of Development Fee
The assignment of 'Development Fee' receivables by the GLO to the SV should be an input taxed
financial supply of an interest in a debt under Item 2 of r. 40-5.09(3) of the GST Regulations.
Therefore, the GLO should have no GST liability in respect of any consideration provided by the SV.
However, an issue may arise as to whether this will affect the GLO's entitlement to input tax credits on
the fees payable to SPV Co.
In the present case, it is submitted that the better view is that the assignment of receivables by the
GLO should not adversely affect the GLO's input tax credit entitlement on the fees payable to SPV
Co. This is because the assignment of receivable is simply a means for the GLO to obtain financing
for the project and as such, the GLO would not be acquiring services from SPV Co for the purpose of
making an input taxed supply. In other words, there is arguably no direct nexus between the
acquisition of services from SPV Co (which relate to the on-going operation and management of the
affordable housing) and the assignment of receivables.
4.3 Conclusion
By selling or granting a long term lease of the completed development (together with an option
arrangement to ensure the parties commercial interests are protected) so that the land is effectively
transferred to the CHP by way of a taxable supply (that is fully creditable to the SPV) while
maintaining an ability to retain long term control / rights over that that land, it may be possible to
achieve a GST neutral outcome that is consistent with the underling policy intention that there should
be no embedded GST cost on the supply of affordable housing.
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 25
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
GLO / Housing authority
SPV Co Securitisation
Vehicle
CHP
Tenants Builder Manager Investors
Sale/Lease
$ price/rent
Purchase Price Assign receivable to
Development Fee
$ $
Service Fee
Project Deed
Development Fee
Fee Fees
Access/Development
Rights
Lease $
rent
$ Services Return
$
Equity
$
Public
Private
Alternative arrangement
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 26
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
5 GST and health care – some interesting
examples
Similar to the above examples, from a policy perspective, the provision of healthcare is broadly
accepted as a service that should be provided without any embedded GST cost. In this regard, in
every OECD country except New Zealand, GST/VAT concessions (or exemptions) apply to supplies
of certain health services.18
Again however, the drafting of these concessions can limit their scope, meaning that an unintentional
GST cost can arise in relation to services that are otherwise broadly accepted as being of a category
that should qualify for GST-free treatment. Alternatively, where supplies are made on a 'business to
business' basis, the parties may opt for ease of compliance over GST-free treatment.
Set out below is a summary of recent amendments made to the concessions that apply to health care
to ensure that they are appropriately applied, particularly in the case of multi-party arrangements
where one party would pay for provision of those services on behalf of another.
5.1 When is a supply of health services GST-free
Subdivision 38-B of the GST Act sets out the rules relating to the GST-free treatment of health
services. Relevantly, under section 38-10 of the GST Act, a supply of a health service is GST-free if
all of the following apply:
1. it is a service of a kind specified in the table in that subsection, or of a kind specified in the GST
Regulations;19 and
2. the supplier is a recognised professional in relation to the supply of services of that kind; and
3. the supply would generally be accepted, in the profession associated with supplying services of
that kind as being necessary for the appropriate treatment of the recipient of the supply.
Prior to 2012, the Commissioner generally considered that when health supplies were made under
multi-party arrangements, if:
1. a health care provider supplied GST-free health related services to a person (for example under
section 38-10 of the GST Act); and
18 OECD (2014), Consumption Tax Trends 2014, OECD Publishing. 19 A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Regulations 1999 (Cth).
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 27
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
2. the health care provider received a payment from an insurer or a government entity –
then no taxable supply was being made by the health care provider to the insurer or government
entity. Rather, following his view in GST public ruling GSTR 2006/9,20 the Commissioner would
generally take the view that a third party payment (for example by an insurer) to a health care provider
in relation to a supply to a patient, was consideration for the initial supply to the patient by the health
care provider.21 That is, the payment was treated as third party consideration for a GST-free supply
made by the health professional to his or her patient.
However, in the Full Federal Court case of Commissioner of Taxation v Secretary to the Department
of Transport (Victoria)22 (Department of Transport case), the Court was required to consider the
GST treatment of arrangements entered into by the Victorian Department of Transport with taxi
operators for the provision of subsidised taxi services to disabled passengers. Broadly, under the
arrangements the Department agreed to pay taxi operators 50% of the fare for transporting eligible
disabled passengers.
The Commissioner originally denied input tax credits to the Department, on the basis that he
considered that there was no taxable supply being made by the taxi operators to the Department, only
a single supply in each case of a supply of transport to the relevant passenger. However, the
majority23 disagreed with the Commissioner and held that:
'On the contrary, there were two supplies: the supply of transport to the MPTP Member and
the supply to the [Department of Transport] of the transport of the MPTP Member.'24
The majority considered that, on the basis that the acquisition of the supplies by the Department
otherwise satisfied section 11-5 of the GST Act, the Department was eligible for input tax credits in
relation to the second supply by the taxi operators to it.25
Following this decision, the Commissioner amended GSTR 2006/9 to clarify that the decision in the
Department of Transport case is an example of the proposition in GSTR 2006/9 that one set of
activities may constitute the making of two (or more) supplies.26
This revised view had a broader impact on the operation of the GST-free provisions dealing with the
provision of health care services. Effectively this meant that where health care services were
contractually acquired by a third party payer (e.g. an insurer or an employer), GST-free treatment did
not necessarily follow because the 'second' supply (to the insurer or employer) did not satisfy the
criteria to be GST-free (i.e. the services in this instances could not be recognised as appropriate
20 GSTR 2006/9: Goods and services tax: supplies. 21 See for example paragraphs 192A – 192H in GSTR 2006/9 (as at 1 July 2009). 22 [2010] FCAFC 84. 23 Kenny and Dodds-Streeton JJ; Jessup J dissenting. 24 [2010] FCAFC 84 at 56 (Kenny and Dodds-Streeton JJ). 25 Ibid 71. 26 GSTR 2006/9A3 – Addendum 'Goods and services tax: supplies' (as at 14 December 2011).
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 28
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
treatment for the 'recipient of the supply'). Where insurers or employers were able to claim full input
tax credits, this did not introduce GST leakage. However, where an insurer or employer was not
entitled to full input tax credits (e.g. because it was not registered for GST, or carried on an enterprise
of that involved making input taxed supplies or due to any other specific provision in the GST Act)
then a GST cost arose.
5.1.1 Introduction of section 38-60 of the GST Act
Following the updated GST treatment following the Department of Transport case (as illustrated
above), Treasury noted that:
'This creates compliance issues and administrative costs for health care providers and
affected third parties as it requires them to account for a taxable supply when previously they
did not need to. These entities would also need to alter their arrangements and put systems in
place to account for GST on these supplies.'27
To address this issue, the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No.1) Act
2012 was subsequently introduced to insert 38-60 into the GST Act, with effect from 1 July 2012.28 In
the context of separate supplies made by health care providers to third party payers (such as
insurers), the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill (EM) states that the changes to the GST Act
would:
'… ensure that a supply made by a health care provider to an insurer, a statutory
compensation scheme operator, a compulsory third party scheme operator or a government
entity, is treated as a GST-free supply to the extent that the underlying supply from the health
care provider to an individual is a GST-free health supply.'29
In this regard, section 38-60 of the GST Act generally provides that a supply of a service to:
1. an insurer in settling a claim under an insurance policy;
2. an operator of a statutory compensation scheme;
3. a CTP operator under a CTP scheme; or
4. an Australian government agency,
is GST-free to the extent that supply relates to a GST-free supply by the provider to an individual
under subdivision 38-B.
27 Explanatory Memorandum to the Tax and Superannuation Laws Amendment (2012 Measures No.1) Bill 2012 [1.10]. 28 Except subsection 38-60(4), which also had effect prior to this date. 29 EM, page 3.
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 29
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
Notwithstanding the above, the reforms recognised that in some cases, it would be administratively
simpler if the payments could be treated as being subject to GST.
Accordingly, subsection 38-60(4) of the GST Act provides that health care providers and the recipient
of the supply (i.e. the insurer, the statutory compensation scheme or CTP scheme operator, or the
Australian government agency) may agree to treat the supplies as taxable.
The EM states in this regard that:
'It is expected that providing this option will reduce compliance costs, with no adverse effects
to the individual receiving these goods and services. A similar mechanism currently exists in
relation to supplies of medical aids and appliances, and goods declared by the Health
Minister to be GST-free.'30
In practice, parties may elect to proceed on this basis where, for example, there is a combination of
GST-free and taxable supplies being made, and determining the amounts for each supply may be
complex and administratively difficult.
5.2 Case study – health services
The following case study illustrates the different GST outcomes that can arise depending on the
structure of the contractual arrangements between the parties. For the purposes of this case study
assume that:
1. a government authority engages a private operator to deliver health services to public patients;
2. the private operator delivers these health services directly to public patients at premises owned
and operated by the private operator;
3. the private operator also provides additional non-patient related services to the government
authority such as car parking facilities for the government authority's employees that are required
to visit the health centre on occasion;
4. the private operator charges the government authority a fee for both the provision of the health
care services and the provision of the car parking facilities; and
5. both the government authority and the private operator are registered for GST.
30 EM [1.20].
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 30
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
5.2.1 Traditional model - provision of health services
The agreement between the government authority and the private operator will ordinarily provide for
the private operator to employ fully qualified personnel and adhere to strict service delivery standards.
In most circumstances the agreement between the parties will allow for payments to be made for both
the health services delivered to the patient and other non-patient related services, in this case study,
the availability of the car parking. In some circumstances the payments may be calculated as one
monthly lump sum or at least will allow for one tax invoice to be provided for all services provided by
the private operator in the month to be issued to the government authority.
5.2.1.1 Traditional model – GST consequences
Notwithstanding that there is one agreement covering the supplies made by the private operator to
the government authority there are two distinct supplies made under the agreement.
Supply of health services to patients
Whilst the supply by the private operator to the government authority is unlikely to be GST-free
pursuant to section 38-10(5) of the GST Act on the basis that the supply is not necessary for the
appropriate treatment of the recipient (i.e. the government authority), from 1 July 2012 the supply
should be GST-free pursuant to subsection 38-60(3) of the GST Act as:
a. the supply is a supply of a service to an Australian government agency; and
b. the service is the supplier making one or more supplies of services to an individual; and
c. at least one of the other supplies is wholly or partly GST-free under subdivision 38-B.
In this case study the private operator is making a supply of GST-free health services to the patient
and so paragraph b) and c) above should be satisfied.
Supply of car parking to employees of the government authority
The provision of the car parking facilities by the private operator to the government authority is not the
provision of health services that would be GST-free. On this basis this supply would be a taxable
supply by the private operator to the government authority. Whilst the government authority should
be entitled to an input tax credit for the GST incurred on the acquisition of the car parking the private
operator will be required to isolate the fee or otherwise apportion any lump sum fee, between the
GST-free health services and the taxable supply of car parking and issue a tax invoice accordingly.
Depending on the structure of the agreement between the parties and the calculation of the fees
payable for the various supplies this may create a compliance burden for the private operator.
Rhys Guild The tips and traps with little known exemptions
© Rhys Guild, MinterEllison 2016 31
ME_132149621_1 (W2013)
5.2.2 Alternative model – provision of health services
With similar facts to the above, the parties could simplify the GST compliance associated with the
arrangements by opting to tax all of the supplies made by the private operator under the agreement.
Subsection 38-60(4) of the GST Act provides that a supply of health services by the private operator
in these circumstances can be subject to GST notwithstanding section 38-60 of the GST Act if the
parties agree that the supply of the health services will not be treated as GST-free.
5.2.2.1 Alternative model – GST consequences
The consequence of an agreement between the parties to treat the supply of health services by the
private operator to the government authority as taxable means that both the supply of the health
services by the private operator and the supply of the car parking by the private operator will be
subject to GST. This will have implications for both parties. From the private operator's perspective
such a treatment will ease the administration burden associated with making two separate supplies
with different GST classifications under one agreement. From the government authority's
perspective, as it should be entitled to claim input tax credits for the GST that it incurs on the fee
charged by the private operator there should be no net additional cost in adopting this treatment.
However, depending on the terms of the agreement between the parties there may be a cash flow
implication that, like all things, will be a matter of negotiation.
5.3 Conclusion
The introduction of section 38-60 into the GST Act clarifies the GST treatment of supplies made by
health service providers to the classes of recipients in section 38-60 of the GST Act, in relation to a
supply of health care services to an individual. However, a careful analysis of the nature of the
supplies between all parties is required in order to ensure that an upstream supply to a recipient
described in section 38-60 of the GST is GST-free (unless the parties agree that the supply is taxable
under subsection 38-60(4) of the GST Act).
Rhys Guild and Jane Spencer
MinterEllison
September 2016