― 489 ―

38. Chapter 25 Charities

25.1. The term ‘charity’ does not readily lend itself to definition. The popular meanings of ‘charity’ and ‘charitable’ are not the meanings generally given to those words by the law. In its strict legal sense ‘charity’ comprises four principal divisions: the relief of poverty, the advancement of education, the advancement of religion, and other purposes beneficial to the community. In the field of taxation, however, ‘charity’ is not restricted to its technical legal definition.

25.2. In a number of earlier chapters passing reference has been made to the implications of the tax system for charities. The present chapter looks more closely at the treatment of charities under the Income Tax Assessment Act, the Gift Duty Assessment Act, and the Estate Duty Assessment Act.

I. Deductibility from Income of Gifts to Charities

25.3. Gifts to the funds, authorities and institutions listed in section 78 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act are deductible from the donor's income before income tax is assessed. The gift must not be testamentary and it must be to the value of two dollars or more; if in the form of property, the property must have been purchased by the taxpayer within twelve months of the gift being made.

25.4. The list of funds, authorities and institutions, set out in full in Appendix A to this chapter, covers a variety of categories, including public or non-profit hospitals, public benevolent institutions, public authorities engaged in research for certain purposes, public universities, and certain individual funds such as the Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust, the Australian Academy of Science, the National Trust of Australia, and the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia. Many are of long standing, dating back in some cases to the earliest years of Federal income tax. Since 1962, when a general review was made, no new categories have been added, though individual causes have been approved. Before launching an appeal involving a new fund, sponsors usually seek the opinion of the Commissioner on whether gifts to it will be an allowable deduction, and it is inevitable that some organisations which have failed to gain approval believe they have been harshly treated.

25.5. Institutions of a purely religious nature are not included in the list. Donations to a church as such are not deductible, though donations to organisations founded and supported by a church body, such as a home for the aged, may qualify.

25.6. In all the countries mentioned below, it appears to be generally accepted that gifts to charities, and the private philanthropy behind such giving, should be encouraged. The method of encouragement has been reviewed recently in several countries, leading in some instances to amendment of the law.

25.7. The general provisions in New Zealand are broadly similar to those in Australia, gifts to religious bodies not being deductible. But there are two significant differences: deductions are available only to individuals, and the maximum amount any individual may claim in a year is $100. The Ross Committee (1967) recommended no changes.

25.8. The system in Canada is similar in many respects to the Australian, the chief differences being that a taxpayer's total claim is limited to 20 per cent of his income,

  ― 490 ―
except in the case of a corporation where the limit is 10 per cent. The Carter Commission (1966) considered the possibility of substituting tax credits. The maximum credit suggested was 20 per cent for gifts totalling $1,000, the percentage to decline as the total gifts declined and no allowance to be made for gifts in excess of $1,000. The suggestion was rejected by the Commission, on the ground that a change would tend to stifle donations by high-income groups. It ended up recommending no fundamental changes to the system of deductions though it did propose that the limit of allowable claims be increased.

25.9. The origin of the treatment of gifts to charity in the United Kingdom, where the term is used in its legal sense, lies in annual payments made under covenant being treated for tax purposes as income of the recipient and in the general exemption of charities from income tax. The relief applies only if the subscriber covenants to pay a certain annual net sum for not less than seven years. The subscriber executes under seal a document committing him to pay a notional gross sum before tax which, when tax is deducted at the standard rate, leaves a net sum. Each year he gives the net sum to the charity which then claims from the Revenue the tax paid on the notional gross sum. The charity thus in effect receives the total gross sum: if, for example, the donor gives a net sum of £300 and the standard rate of tax on individuals is 40 per cent, the charity receives £300 directly from the donor plus £200 from the Revenue.

25.10. The United Kingdom Royal Commission (1955) had certain misgivings about the covenant system. It saw some merit in allowing a deduction from taxable income for gifts to charity, subject to a maximum limit. However, it did not feel able to recommend to this effect. It feared that the immediate result would be a sharp falling off in gifts to charities. Moreover, the administrative burden in checking claims for deductions would be much heavier than the work of returning tax on covenants to the charities themselves.

25.11. In the United States individuals may deduct up to 50 per cent of taxable income in the case of gifts to religious, educational and other non-profit organisations, and up to 20 per cent in the case of gifts to foundations and other organisations not regarded as ‘public’ institutions. A corporation's deductible gifts are limited to 5 per cent of net income. Before 1969 gifts could be claimed up to the total of taxable income.

II. Income of Charities

25.12. Section 23 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act exempts ‘the income of a religious, scientific, charitable or public educational institution’ from tax and section 23 (j) (ii) exempts a trust for charitable purposes. One major difference between section 23 (e) and section 78 (1) (a) is immediately apparent: the approved bodies listed in the latter section do not include religious institutions. The whole of the income of such institutions is exempt from income tax whatever its source or nature. These institutions are not infrequently associated with such activities as hospitals, bookshops, laundries and food processing, which have varying degrees of affinity with the essential aims of the institution and which may compete with ordinary trading firms not eligible for special tax treatment.

25.13. Income tax exemption for charities has attracted attention and comment in a number of other countries. In New Zealand, the Ross Committee recommended that the trading profits derived by charitable institutions should not, with some qualifications, be exempt from tax. It proposed that profits from trading and dividends from

  ― 491 ―
any company substantially owned should be assessable at normal rates; all other income, including normal investment income and rents from property, would remain exempt. A company substantially owned was defined as one in which the institution had an interest entitling it to 40 per cent or more of the company's income. However, these recommendations have not been adopted.

25.14. The Carter Commission in Canada came to the conclusion that charitable organisations should not be given a competitive advantage in business activity. It recommended that business income and income from non-portfolio investment should be assessed at the full rate of corporation tax, defining business income for this purpose as income flowing from any interest of 10 per cent or more in a business, and including the ownership of real property as a business. It seems, however, that as long as an institution has been established exclusively for charitable purposes and its funds used for such purposes, its total income continues to be exempt in Canada.

25.15. The Royal Commission in the United Kingdom appears to have been more concerned with limiting the application of the legal term ‘charity’ in relation to ‘other purposes beneficial to the community’ than with questioning the exemption from tax of the income of charitable institutions. As it is, a charity is exempt from tax in respect of the profits of a trade carried on by it provided the profits are applied solely to the purposes of the charity and either:

  • (a) the trade is exercised in the course of the actual carrying out of a primary purpose of the charity; or
  • (b) the work in connection with the trade is mainly carried on by the beneficiaries of the charity.

Any yearly interest or other annual payment forming part of the income of a charitable body is exempt: for this purpose, the profits of a trade paid over by trustees to a charity are regarded as an annual payment.

25.16. The United States law exempts the income of certain institutions from tax, except for that portion of the income known as ‘unrelated business income’. A trade or business is unrelated if the conduct of it is not substantially related to the exercise by the organisation of its essential charitable function. Unrelated income does not include: (i) the first $1,000 of business income; (ii) dividends, interest or annuities; (iii) royalties; and (iv) rents from real property.

III. Charities in Relation to Gift and Estate Duties

25.17. Section 14 (d) of the Gift Duty Assessment Act states that duty shall not be payable in respect of

‘any gift to, or wholly for the benefit of, an institution, organisation or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate not formed or carried on for the profit of any individuals.’

This sub-section in general covers religious, scientific, charitable or public educational institutions which are specifically mentioned in section 23 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. In addition, gifts to those institutions commonly known as ‘nonprofit organisations’ are exempt from duty.

25.18. Under section 8 (5) of the Estate Duty Assessment Act duty is not payable on so much of the estate as is devised or bequeathed or passes by gift inter vivos or settlement for various purposes or for the benefit of one or more of the institutions listed in

  ― 492 ―
Appendix B to this chapter. While the Act does not use the word ‘charity’, it more than covers the four divisions of charity noted in paragraph 25.1, but stops short of including all those non-profit organisations exempt from gift duty. Thus the test for exemption from estate duty is not simply that an organisation is non-profit-making, but that it falls into one of the listed categories.

25.19. In New Zealand gifts during life or on death to institutions of a charitable kind do not respectively attract gift or estate duty. Until the late 1960s, lifetime gifts were exempt from duty while charitable bequests formed part of the dutiable estate, one of the grounds for the different treatment being that during lifetime a donor loses possession of the property, whereas a gift made by will involves the donor retaining the property in his possession until he dies. In the United States, a deduction is allowed to the donor for the value of the property transferred to a charity, subject to certain qualifications. These qualifications are aimed at denying the exemption if the organisation contravenes certain regulations, including participating in a political campaign. The United Kingdom proposes to introduce a capital transfer tax. It is expected that bequests to charities, which are now exempt from estate duty up to a limit of $50,000, will not be treated any less favourably than at present.

IV. Issues of Principle

25.20. Charitable organisations are regarded in most developed countries as playing an important part in the social structure and many have existed for a long time. They perform community welfare services which State instrumentalities financed from revenue would otherwise be called on to provide. They are supported by a large amount of voluntary work by private citizens who are sufficiently public-spirited to devote a significant part of their time and resources to causes they espouse, incurring expenses for which no tax deduction is claimed.

25.21. It would not be denied, therefore, that there is a case for subsidising charitable organisations from public funds. Tax concessions, by way of allowable deductions from the tax base or exemption of the income of the charitable organisation, are forms of subsidy. It is important to consider, however, whether they are the most appropriate ways of encouraging and supporting private philanthropy.

Subsidy by Deduction

25.22. If gifts are deductible from income for tax purposes, the government in effect reimburses the donor for a larger share of the gift the higher the donor's income, and this may be thought vertically inequitable, even though the donor does not reap any personal material benefit from the making of the gift. A tax credit would overcome any suggested inequity between taxpayers, but there is no empirical evidence to show at what percentage rate the credit would have to be set if the present incentive effect of deductibility were not to be reduced for high-income donors. If the percentage were put at 67, the incentive to the top marginal rate taxpayer would be unchanged, lower marginal rate taxpayers would have greater tax incentive, and there would be an increase in the total subsidy. If the percentage were put at a figure lower than 67, some higher rate taxpayers would have less tax incentive to give, some lower rate taxpayers would have more, but the outcome for total contributions to charity, and the resulting total subsidy, would be difficult to estimate.

25.23. In the United States it has recently been proposed by some that, in place of the allowing of deductions to the donor, there should be a matching subsidy from

  ― 493 ―
public funds equal to the whole or part of the donor's gift, the subsidy going directly to the charity. This would be similar in principle to the United Kingdom system, but would have a wider operation. Under a deduction system, as already explained, a donor on a 60 per cent marginal rate who makes a gift of $100 in effect gives $40 to the charity himself and acts as agent in the giving of a further $60 from public funds. If the allowable deduction were withdrawn, the donor would presumably still be prepared to give $40; and in that he might give more than $40, say $50 or $60, the government grant to the charity could be reduced to $50 or $40 to produce the same yield to the charity. Surveys in the United States of the effect on donors of replacing deductibility by government grants have produced varying evidence, the point being to determine by how much of the tax subsidy the donor would reduce his gift in the absence of the subsidy. The donor might feel less secure about the direct grant than he does about the tax subsidy, and this factor, together with a fear of more government intervention, would affect the extent to which donors would reduce contributions in the changed circumstances envisaged. It should be borne in mind too that whenever a donor contributes, the charity receives the gift there and then. With pay-as-you-earn and deductibility, the donor waits until he is assessed before getting the subsidy, whereas under a direct grant system the charity must wait to receive the grant. The possibly greater administrative costs of a direct grant system over a deduction system must also be considered.

25.24. Similar considerations bear on the question of whether the exemptions of gifts from the gift and estate duties are appropriate ways of subsidising charities.

25.25. In summary, a change from the present deduction system to a rebate system would overcome the objection by some to the deduction system that it is vertically inequitable. A change to a direct grant system would not only overcome this objection but could give government much greater flexibility in settling the amounts of subsidies going to particular charities. However, any change is likely to involve a smaller subsidy than at present in the case of a gift by a high-income or large-fortune taxpayer, and he will thus have less encouragement to make gifts. And it is fair to assume that these taxpayers are the principal source of donations.

25.26. The objection in terms of vertical equity is, in the Committee's view, not a strong one, because a donor cannot be said to obtain a personal material benefit from the making of a gift. And the lesser flexibility in setting amounts of subsidies which a deduction system involves compared with a direct grant system may be seen as offset by the greater encouragement to make gifts which a deduction system may involve. Until empirical evidence is forthcoming showing how far a change would encourage or discourage the making of gifts, the Committee believes that the present deduction system should be retained.

Subsidy by Exemption of Income

25.27. Two objections might be made to exemption of income as a method of subsidising the activities of a charity. The first is that the amount of subsidy given by the exemption depends on the amount of income derived by the charity and not on a judgment as to the charity's worth and needs. The second relates to the case where commercial activities are undertaken by charities: other organisations engaging in similar commercial activities are placed at a competitive disadvantage.

25.28. The first objection is answered by saying that, except in the special cases with which the second objection is concerned, charities are non-profit organisations with

  ― 494 ―
little or no income apart from investment income. The exemption of investment income is a further encouragement to donors whose gifts when invested generated that income, and an addition to the subsidy from public funds which accompanied the gifts to the charities.

25.29. In the Committee's view the exemption of the investment income of a charity can be justified as flowing from the encouragement to donors to give to charities and the supporting of the subsidies which are the method of encouragement.

25.30. The objection in terms of competitive disadvantage of other organisations engaged in similar commercial activities has led, as mentioned in paragraphs 25.13–25.16, to measures being considered, and in some countries taken, to tax certain parts of the income of charities.

25.31. In considering the points for and against levying tax on income, the Committee is aware that some charities conduct activities such as schools, hospitals and laundries which are staffed wholly or partly by those whose everyday work reflects both their charitable calling and their professional training, supported in some cases by those who need rehabilitation or special supervision. Other charities conduct distinct activities such as food processing or book selling which are business undertakings though they may have some features distinguishing them from their competitors.

25.32. In many instances an element of unfair competition no doubt exists, but dealing with it poses problems. One method would be to bring to tax all income of all business activities. This would be inappropriate, however: it would cover, for example, the income of a public hospital conducted by a charity, when such a hospital is unlikely to be competing in any significant way with a private enterprise.

25.33. A second method would be to bring to tax income from business operations not carried on as part of the principal activities of the charity. On this basis, the public hospital income might escape but the income from a sheltered workshop manned by the physically handicapped, whose gainful employment is necessary for medical therapy, might not.

25.34. A third method would seek to tax income from activities competing with ordinary enterprises. Such a basis would be undesirable: the Commissioner would be required to rule on competition which might vary from one situation to another and over the course of time.

25.35. A fourth method would tax business income not applied for the main purposes of the institution. This method accords with the British law referred to in paragraph 25.15. It would tend to limit the business activities of charities generally.

25.36. Any method which brings to tax part of the income of a charity will involve difficulties, both for the charity and for the Commissioner, in segregating those items of expenditure to be allowed as deductions.

25.37. There is, however, a need for a close examination of the activities of charities to determine whether business income should continue to be exempt. If it appears that unfair competition with non-exempt persons results from exemption, specific measures should be introduced to qualify the exemption. These measures would limit the exemption to income from business activities directly related to the carrying out of the purpose for which the charity was established and which is the reason for its exemption from tax. There might be a proviso which would allow the exemption

  ― 495 ―
where the work in connection with the business is mainly carried out by the beneficiaries of the charity. If such measures are adopted, it will be necessary to qualify the exemption of investment income so that it does not extend to income received from another body in which the charity holds more than a specified interest; and it might also be necessary to deny a deduction to that body for gifts to the charity. Otherwise a company might be set up by the charity to conduct business activity and its profits escape tax because of interest payments to the charity or because of gifts made to the charity. There would not be any need to deny the exemption in relation to dividend income received from that company. The income from which that dividend will have been paid would have been taxed in the hands of the company. In any case to deny the exemption would bring about a discrimination between a trust for charitable purposes which would pay tax on its dividend income and a charity which is a company which would be entitled to a rebate of tax on dividends received.

V. Uniformity of Tax Treatment

25.38. There are differences between the categories of institutions accorded tax assistance under the various statutes referred to in this chapter. Appendix A sets out the funds, authorities and institutions, gifts to which are deductible under section 78 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Section 23 (e) of the Act exempts the income of a religious, scientific, charitable or public educational institution from tax. Thus under this section religious bodies are put on the same footing as the institutions listed in section 78 (1) (a). Section 14 (d) of the Gift Duty Assessment Act, exempting from duty gifts to non-profit institutions, covers many bodies such as sporting and political associations which fall outside the scope of charities. Section 8 (5) of the Estate Duty Assessment Act, reproduced in part in Appendix B to this chapter, lists institutions and funds bequests to which are exempt from estate duty: they differ from those listed in section 78 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. Appendix C summarises the main features of the different statutes.

25.39. Complete uniformity of treatment would be difficult to achieve. The differences may reflect deliberate choices about the amount of subsidies it is thought proper that different charities should receive. One of the chief problems is that section 78 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act does not include religious bodies. Another is that section 14 (d) of the Gift Duty Assessment Act, covering all non-profit organisations, exempts from duty gifts to political organisations and sporting bodies. The Committee expresses no opinion on whether it is appropriate that an exemption as wide as that in the Gift Duty Assessment Act should be included in the other statutes dealing with charities, or whether it is appropriate that gifts to religious bodies should be deductible under section 78 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Assessment Act. It would, however, be convenient if a common list of organisations which it is thought should be entitled to all the concessions given to charities by the Income Tax Assessment Act, the Gift Duty Assessment Act and the Estate Duty Assessment Act were established and adopted by each of these Acts.

  ― 497 ―

39. Chapter 25: Appendix A: Extract from Income Tax Assessment Act

78 (1). The following shall, subject to section 77B, sub-section (11) of section 77D and section 79C, be allowable deductions:—

  • (a) Gifts (not being testamentary gifts) of the value of Two dollars and upwards of money or of property other than money which was purchased by the taxpayer within twelve months immediately preceding the making of the gift, made by the taxpayer in the year of income to any of the following funds, authorities or institutions in Australia:—
    • (i) a public hospital, or a hospital which is carried on by a society or association otherwise than for the purposes of profit or gain to the individual members of that society or association;
    • (ii) a public benevolent institution;
    • (iii) a public fund established before 23rd October, 1963 and maintained for the purpose of providing money for hospitals or institutions specified in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii), or for the establishment of such hospitals or institutions, or a public fund established and maintained for the relief of persons in Australia who are in necessitous circumstances;
    • (iv) a public authority engaged in research into the causes, prevention or cure of disease in human beings, animals or plants, where the gift is for such research, or a public institution engaged solely in such research;
    • (v) a public university or a public fund for the establishment of a public university;
    • (vi) a residential educational institution affiliated under statutory provisions with a public university, or established by the Commonwealth;
    • (vii) a public fund established and maintained for providing money for the construction or maintenance of a public memorial relating to the war that commenced on 4th August, 1914 or to the war that commenced on 3rd September, 1939, being a fund that was established on or before 21st August, 1973;
    • (viii) a public institution or public fund established and maintained for the comfort, recreation or welfare of members of the armed forces of any part of His Majesty's dominions, or of any allied or other foreign force serving in association with His Majesty's armed forces;
    • (ix) the Commonwealth or a State, when made for purposes of defence;
    • (x) a university, college, institute, association or organization which is an approved research institute for the purposes of section 73A, where the gift is for purposes of scientific research as defined in that section;
    • (xi) the United Nations Appeal for Children [before 1 July 1963];
    • (xii) the Queen Elizabeth the Second Coronation Gift Fund;
    • (xiii) the Australia Elizabethan Theatre Trust;
    • (xiv) the Australian Academy of Science;

    •   ― 498 ―
      (xv) a public fund established and maintained exclusively for providing money for the acquisition, construction or maintenance of a building used or to be used as a school or college by a government or public authority or by a society or association which is carried on otherwise than for the purposes of profit or gain to the individual members of that society or association;
    • (xvi) the Duke of Edinburgh's Study Conference Account maintained by the Department of Labour and National Service;
    • (xvii) the Australian and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science;
    • (xviii) the Australian Administrative Staff College;
    • (xix) the Commonwealth, when made for the purposes of research in the Australian Antarctic Territory;
    • (xx) the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons;
    • (xxi) the Royal Australasian College of Physicians;
    • (xxii) the Australian Regional Council of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists;
    • (xxiii) the New South Wales College of Nursing;
    • (xxiv) the College of Nursing, Australia;
    • (xxv) the Council for Christian Education in Schools;
    • (xxvi) the National Trust of Australia (New South Wales), the National Trust of Australia (Victoria), The National Trust of Queensland, The National Trust of South Australia, The National Trust of Australia (W.A.), the National Trust of Australia (Tasmania), the Northern Territory National Trust and the Australian Council of National Trusts;
    • (xxvii) a public library, public museum or public art gallery, or an institution consisting of a public library, public museum and public art gallery or of any two of them;
    • (xxviii) the Sydney Opera House Appeal Fund;
    • (xxix) the Sidney Myer Music Bowl Trust;
    • (xxx) the Industrial Design Council of Australia;
    • (xxxi) a public fund established and maintained exclusively for the purpose of providing money to be used in furnishing persons in Australia with marriage guidance through a voluntary organization or through a branch or section of such an organization, being an organization, branch or section that the Attorney-General, upon being satisfied that the organization, branch, or section is willing and able to engage in marriage guidance and that marriage guidance constitutes or will constitute the whole or the major part of its activities, has approved in writing for the purposes of this sub-paragraph;
    • (xxxii) the Australian National Committee for World Refugee Year [before 1 July 1963];
    • (xxxiii) the Council for Jewish Education in Schools;
    • (xxxiv) the Art Gallery Society of New South Wales;
    • (xxxv) the Productivity Promotion Council of Australia;

    •   ― 499 ―
      (xxxvi) the Australian Postgraduate Federation in Medicine, the College of Radiologists of Australasia, the Australian College of General Practitioners and the College of Pathologists of Australia, where the gift is for the purpose of education or research in medical knowledge or science;
    • (xxxvii) the Ian Clunies Ross Memorial Foundation;
    • (xxxviii) the Australian National Committee for the Freedom from Hunger Campaign [before 1 July 1964];
    • (xxxix) the Australian Institute of International Affairs;
    • (xl) the Australian National Travel Association;
    • (xli) the National Safety Council of Australia;
    • (xlii) the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust;
    • (xliii) a prescribed institution of advanced education, where the gift is for certified purposes of the institution or for the provision of certified facilities for the institution;
    • (xliv) the Australian Conservation Foundation Incorporated…’.

  ― 501 ―

40. Chapter 25: Appendix B: Extract from Estate Duty Assessment Act

8.–(5) 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—

  • (a) for religious, scientific or public educational purposes in Australia;
  • (b) to or for the benefit of any of the following institutions in Australia:—
    • (i) a public hospital;
    • (ii) a hospital which is carried on by a society or association otherwise than for the purposes of profit or gain to the individual members of that society or association;
    • (iii) a public benevolent institution;
    • (iv) a public library;
    • (v) the Australian Council for Educational Research;
    • (vi) The National Trust of Australia (New South Wales), National Trust of Australia (Victoria), The National Trust of Queensland, The National Trust of South Australia, The National Trust of Australia (W.A.), National Trust of Australia (Tasmania) or Australian Council of National Trusts; or
    • (vii) the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust; or
  • (c) for the establishment and maintenance of a Fund, or to a fund established and maintained:—
    • (i) for the purpose of providing money for the benefit of an institution referred to in the last preceding paragraph; or
    • (ii) for the purpose of providing money for the relief of persons in necessitous circumstances in Australia.

  ― 503 ―

41. Chapter 25: Appendix C: Tax Treatment of Charities

Income tax (a)   Gift duty (b)   Estate duty (c)  
1.  2.  3.  4. 
ITAA 78 (1) (a) 9  ITAA 23 (e)  GDAA 14 (d)  EDAA 8 (5) 
Contributions to listed bodies deductible from income  Income of listed bodies exempt from tax, viz:  Duty on lifetime gifts to bodies exempt as under:  Duty on bequests to listed bodies exempt 
Categories listed: e.g. public hospitals; ‘non-profit’ hospitals; public benefit institutions; public fund for relief of persons in Australia in necessitous circumstances;  religious, scientific, charitable and public educational institutions  ‘any gift to, or wholly for the benefit of, an institution, organisation or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, not formed or carried on for the profit of any individuals’  Categories listed: e.g. religious, scientific, or public educational; public hospitals; ‘non-profit’ hospitals; public benevolent institutions; 
public university; public library, museum or art gallery  ITAA 23 (ea) Income of public and ‘non-profit’ hospitals exempt  Note: This clause gives exemption to all ‘non-profit’ bodies: those listed in columns 1 and 2 together with other sporting bodies and political associations are thus covered  public libraries; funds for relief of persons in necessitous circumstances in Australia 
Individual bodies listed: e.g. Australian Elizabethan Theatre Trust;  ITAA 23 (j) Income exempt of: (i) a fund for public charitable purposes; (ii) a fund for scientific research in conjunction with public university or hospital  Individual bodies listed: e.g. Australian Council for Educational Research; 
Sydney Opera House Appeal;  Winston Churchill Memorial Trust; 
Industrial Design Council; Australian National Travel Association  National Trust in the States 
Note: Religious bodies not listed  Note: This section has much the same coverage as column 2. 
note note