Birmingham University v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1938] HCA 57

572 HIGH COURT (1938.

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.]

THE UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM AND

ANOTHER APPELLANTS;

AND

THE FEDERAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXA-

TION ps % ' ' : } ResPoNDENT.

THE EPSOM COLLEGE AND ANOTHER . APPELLANTS ;

AND

THE FEDERAL COMMISSIONER OF TAXA-

ENT. TION, 93: | "} asroxo H.C. or A. Income Tax (Cth.)—Assessment—Exemption—Charitable or public educational 1938. 'institution—Institution not in Commonwealth—Income derived from sources in onaie Australia—Income Tax Assessment Acts 1936 (Nos. 27 and 88 of 1936), set. MELBOURNE, — 33. (e)—Acts Interpretation Act 1901-1937 (No. 2 of 1901—No. 10 of 1937), sec. 21 (b).

ree Sa Sec. 23 (e) of the Income Tax Assessment Acts 1936 exempts from income oe nea? tax "the income of a religious, scientific, charitable or public educational ws. institution." Held that the exemption given by that provision is not limited to the income of such institutions as carry on operations in Australia, but extends also to the income of institutions which carry on their operations outside Australia.

Cases Sratep.

On appeals by the University of Birmingham and Frederick Arthur Moule and by the Epsom College and Frederick Arthur Moule (beneficiaries and trustee respectively of. the estate of

60 C.L.R.] OF AUSTRALIA.

Thomas Aubrey Bowen deceased) to the High Court from assess- ments to Federal income tax for the year ended 30th June 1936 Rich J. stated cases for the opinion of the Full Court.

Neither the University of Birmingham nor the Epsom College was at any time conducted for profit or gain; each was at all times during its existence a charity within the meaning and interpretation of the preamble to the Act 43 Eliz. c. 4 and a public educational institution ; all the activities of each institution were at all times conducted in England, where they were incorporated, and not else- where. ach of the institutions was entitled to income derived in Australia from trust funds in the estate above mentioned. The first question submitted by each of the cases stated. which was the only question the court found it necessary to answer, was: