❓ A parliamentary question probes the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's GST practices on medical reports, specifically whether ICWA is avoiding GST responsibilities and how many injured people are affected. The Minister's response defends ICWA's practices, stating they comply with ATO rulings and GST law.
AnsweredQoN 348Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Will the minister table the advice that the Insurance Commission of Western Australia purports to have received from the federal Commissioner of Taxation to the effect that ICWA does not have to pay the goods and services tax component on the cost of medical reports requested by solicitors acting for an injured party? (2) As a result of ICWA’s stance on this issue, has this practice now become widely accepted by the legal profession? (3) If ICWA has been wrongfully avoiding its legal responsibilities, how will this matter be rectified? (4) How many injured people have been affected by ICWA’s decision to not reimburse the GST component on the cost of its medical reports? Mr E.S. RIPPER
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The Insurance Commission has provided the following advice - (1) The Insurance Commission of Western Australia has obtained a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the GST treatment of medical-legal reports. Follow-up with the ATO on the ruling resulted in the Insurance Commission’s indirect tax adviser, KPMG, preparing an analysis of the ATO’s ruling for the Insurance Commission. This analysis clearly indicates that when a solicitor pays for a medical-legal report directly to the medical provider, and then refers the invoice to the Insurance Commission for reimbursement, the provision of the report by the solicitor to the Insurance Commission is not a supply or a taxable supply, and therefore reimbursement to solicitors will be paid on a net of GST basis. When a solicitor is registered for GST, the Insurance Commission assumes that the solicitor is able to claim an input tax credit for the GST paid. In all other cases, such as when the claim is paid for a medical-legal report directly, the Insurance Commission reimburses the full amount of medical-legal reports, including the GST; and, where appropriate, the Insurance Commission will regard the amount of the payment as a settlement expense and claim any GST tax credits it is entitled to claim. (2) The Insurance Commission does not know whether this practice has become widely accepted by the legal profession. This question is best directed to legal practitioners. (3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
(2) As a result of ICWA’s stance on this issue, has this practice now become widely accepted by the legal profession? (3) If ICWA has been wrongfully avoiding its legal responsibilities, how will this matter be rectified? (4) How many injured people have been affected by ICWA’s decision to not reimburse the GST component on the cost of its medical reports? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The Insurance Commission has provided the following advice - (1) The Insurance Commission of Western Australia has obtained a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the GST treatment of medical-legal reports. Follow-up with the ATO on the ruling resulted in the Insurance Commission’s indirect tax adviser, KPMG, preparing an analysis of the ATO’s ruling for the Insurance Commission. This analysis clearly indicates that when a solicitor pays for a medical-legal report directly to the medical provider, and then refers the invoice to the Insurance Commission for reimbursement, the provision of the report by the solicitor to the Insurance Commission is not a supply or a taxable supply, and therefore reimbursement to solicitors will be paid on a net of GST basis. When a solicitor is registered for GST, the Insurance Commission assumes that the solicitor is able to claim an input tax credit for the GST paid. In all other cases, such as when the claim is paid for a medical-legal report directly, the Insurance Commission reimburses the full amount of medical-legal reports, including the GST; and, where appropriate, the Insurance Commission will regard the amount of the payment as a settlement expense and claim any GST tax credits it is entitled to claim. (2) The Insurance Commission does not know whether this practice has become widely accepted by the legal profession. This question is best directed to legal practitioners. (3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
(3) If ICWA has been wrongfully avoiding its legal responsibilities, how will this matter be rectified? (4) How many injured people have been affected by ICWA’s decision to not reimburse the GST component on the cost of its medical reports? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The Insurance Commission has provided the following advice - (1) The Insurance Commission of Western Australia has obtained a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the GST treatment of medical-legal reports. Follow-up with the ATO on the ruling resulted in the Insurance Commission’s indirect tax adviser, KPMG, preparing an analysis of the ATO’s ruling for the Insurance Commission. This analysis clearly indicates that when a solicitor pays for a medical-legal report directly to the medical provider, and then refers the invoice to the Insurance Commission for reimbursement, the provision of the report by the solicitor to the Insurance Commission is not a supply or a taxable supply, and therefore reimbursement to solicitors will be paid on a net of GST basis. When a solicitor is registered for GST, the Insurance Commission assumes that the solicitor is able to claim an input tax credit for the GST paid. In all other cases, such as when the claim is paid for a medical-legal report directly, the Insurance Commission reimburses the full amount of medical-legal reports, including the GST; and, where appropriate, the Insurance Commission will regard the amount of the payment as a settlement expense and claim any GST tax credits it is entitled to claim. (2) The Insurance Commission does not know whether this practice has become widely accepted by the legal profession. This question is best directed to legal practitioners. (3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
(4) How many injured people have been affected by ICWA’s decision to not reimburse the GST component on the cost of its medical reports? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The Insurance Commission has provided the following advice - (1) The Insurance Commission of Western Australia has obtained a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the GST treatment of medical-legal reports. Follow-up with the ATO on the ruling resulted in the Insurance Commission’s indirect tax adviser, KPMG, preparing an analysis of the ATO’s ruling for the Insurance Commission. This analysis clearly indicates that when a solicitor pays for a medical-legal report directly to the medical provider, and then refers the invoice to the Insurance Commission for reimbursement, the provision of the report by the solicitor to the Insurance Commission is not a supply or a taxable supply, and therefore reimbursement to solicitors will be paid on a net of GST basis. When a solicitor is registered for GST, the Insurance Commission assumes that the solicitor is able to claim an input tax credit for the GST paid. In all other cases, such as when the claim is paid for a medical-legal report directly, the Insurance Commission reimburses the full amount of medical-legal reports, including the GST; and, where appropriate, the Insurance Commission will regard the amount of the payment as a settlement expense and claim any GST tax credits it is entitled to claim. (2) The Insurance Commission does not know whether this practice has become widely accepted by the legal profession. This question is best directed to legal practitioners. (3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The Insurance Commission has provided the following advice - (1) The Insurance Commission of Western Australia has obtained a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the GST treatment of medical-legal reports. Follow-up with the ATO on the ruling resulted in the Insurance Commission’s indirect tax adviser, KPMG, preparing an analysis of the ATO’s ruling for the Insurance Commission. This analysis clearly indicates that when a solicitor pays for a medical-legal report directly to the medical provider, and then refers the invoice to the Insurance Commission for reimbursement, the provision of the report by the solicitor to the Insurance Commission is not a supply or a taxable supply, and therefore reimbursement to solicitors will be paid on a net of GST basis. When a solicitor is registered for GST, the Insurance Commission assumes that the solicitor is able to claim an input tax credit for the GST paid. In all other cases, such as when the claim is paid for a medical-legal report directly, the Insurance Commission reimburses the full amount of medical-legal reports, including the GST; and, where appropriate, the Insurance Commission will regard the amount of the payment as a settlement expense and claim any GST tax credits it is entitled to claim. (2) The Insurance Commission does not know whether this practice has become widely accepted by the legal profession. This question is best directed to legal practitioners. (3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The Insurance Commission has provided the following advice - (1) The Insurance Commission of Western Australia has obtained a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the GST treatment of medical-legal reports. Follow-up with the ATO on the ruling resulted in the Insurance Commission’s indirect tax adviser, KPMG, preparing an analysis of the ATO’s ruling for the Insurance Commission. This analysis clearly indicates that when a solicitor pays for a medical-legal report directly to the medical provider, and then refers the invoice to the Insurance Commission for reimbursement, the provision of the report by the solicitor to the Insurance Commission is not a supply or a taxable supply, and therefore reimbursement to solicitors will be paid on a net of GST basis. When a solicitor is registered for GST, the Insurance Commission assumes that the solicitor is able to claim an input tax credit for the GST paid. In all other cases, such as when the claim is paid for a medical-legal report directly, the Insurance Commission reimburses the full amount of medical-legal reports, including the GST; and, where appropriate, the Insurance Commission will regard the amount of the payment as a settlement expense and claim any GST tax credits it is entitled to claim. (2) The Insurance Commission does not know whether this practice has become widely accepted by the legal profession. This question is best directed to legal practitioners. (3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
(1) The Insurance Commission of Western Australia has obtained a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the GST treatment of medical-legal reports. Follow-up with the ATO on the ruling resulted in the Insurance Commission’s indirect tax adviser, KPMG, preparing an analysis of the ATO’s ruling for the Insurance Commission. This analysis clearly indicates that when a solicitor pays for a medical-legal report directly to the medical provider, and then refers the invoice to the Insurance Commission for reimbursement, the provision of the report by the solicitor to the Insurance Commission is not a supply or a taxable supply, and therefore reimbursement to solicitors will be paid on a net of GST basis. When a solicitor is registered for GST, the Insurance Commission assumes that the solicitor is able to claim an input tax credit for the GST paid. In all other cases, such as when the claim is paid for a medical-legal report directly, the Insurance Commission reimburses the full amount of medical-legal reports, including the GST; and, where appropriate, the Insurance Commission will regard the amount of the payment as a settlement expense and claim any GST tax credits it is entitled to claim. (2) The Insurance Commission does not know whether this practice has become widely accepted by the legal profession. This question is best directed to legal practitioners. (3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
(2) The Insurance Commission does not know whether this practice has become widely accepted by the legal profession. This question is best directed to legal practitioners. (3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
(3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
(4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
(2) As a result of ICWA’s stance on this issue, has this practice now become widely accepted by the legal profession? (3) If ICWA has been wrongfully avoiding its legal responsibilities, how will this matter be rectified? (4) How many injured people have been affected by ICWA’s decision to not reimburse the GST component on the cost of its medical reports? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The Insurance Commission has provided the following advice - (1) The Insurance Commission of Western Australia has obtained a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the GST treatment of medical-legal reports. Follow-up with the ATO on the ruling resulted in the Insurance Commission’s indirect tax adviser, KPMG, preparing an analysis of the ATO’s ruling for the Insurance Commission. This analysis clearly indicates that when a solicitor pays for a medical-legal report directly to the medical provider, and then refers the invoice to the Insurance Commission for reimbursement, the provision of the report by the solicitor to the Insurance Commission is not a supply or a taxable supply, and therefore reimbursement to solicitors will be paid on a net of GST basis. When a solicitor is registered for GST, the Insurance Commission assumes that the solicitor is able to claim an input tax credit for the GST paid. In all other cases, such as when the claim is paid for a medical-legal report directly, the Insurance Commission reimburses the full amount of medical-legal reports, including the GST; and, where appropriate, the Insurance Commission will regard the amount of the payment as a settlement expense and claim any GST tax credits it is entitled to claim. (2) The Insurance Commission does not know whether this practice has become widely accepted by the legal profession. This question is best directed to legal practitioners. (3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
(3) If ICWA has been wrongfully avoiding its legal responsibilities, how will this matter be rectified? (4) How many injured people have been affected by ICWA’s decision to not reimburse the GST component on the cost of its medical reports? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The Insurance Commission has provided the following advice - (1) The Insurance Commission of Western Australia has obtained a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the GST treatment of medical-legal reports. Follow-up with the ATO on the ruling resulted in the Insurance Commission’s indirect tax adviser, KPMG, preparing an analysis of the ATO’s ruling for the Insurance Commission. This analysis clearly indicates that when a solicitor pays for a medical-legal report directly to the medical provider, and then refers the invoice to the Insurance Commission for reimbursement, the provision of the report by the solicitor to the Insurance Commission is not a supply or a taxable supply, and therefore reimbursement to solicitors will be paid on a net of GST basis. When a solicitor is registered for GST, the Insurance Commission assumes that the solicitor is able to claim an input tax credit for the GST paid. In all other cases, such as when the claim is paid for a medical-legal report directly, the Insurance Commission reimburses the full amount of medical-legal reports, including the GST; and, where appropriate, the Insurance Commission will regard the amount of the payment as a settlement expense and claim any GST tax credits it is entitled to claim. (2) The Insurance Commission does not know whether this practice has become widely accepted by the legal profession. This question is best directed to legal practitioners. (3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
(4) How many injured people have been affected by ICWA’s decision to not reimburse the GST component on the cost of its medical reports? Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The Insurance Commission has provided the following advice - (1) The Insurance Commission of Western Australia has obtained a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the GST treatment of medical-legal reports. Follow-up with the ATO on the ruling resulted in the Insurance Commission’s indirect tax adviser, KPMG, preparing an analysis of the ATO’s ruling for the Insurance Commission. This analysis clearly indicates that when a solicitor pays for a medical-legal report directly to the medical provider, and then refers the invoice to the Insurance Commission for reimbursement, the provision of the report by the solicitor to the Insurance Commission is not a supply or a taxable supply, and therefore reimbursement to solicitors will be paid on a net of GST basis. When a solicitor is registered for GST, the Insurance Commission assumes that the solicitor is able to claim an input tax credit for the GST paid. In all other cases, such as when the claim is paid for a medical-legal report directly, the Insurance Commission reimburses the full amount of medical-legal reports, including the GST; and, where appropriate, the Insurance Commission will regard the amount of the payment as a settlement expense and claim any GST tax credits it is entitled to claim. (2) The Insurance Commission does not know whether this practice has become widely accepted by the legal profession. This question is best directed to legal practitioners. (3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
Mr E.S. RIPPER replied: I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The Insurance Commission has provided the following advice - (1) The Insurance Commission of Western Australia has obtained a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the GST treatment of medical-legal reports. Follow-up with the ATO on the ruling resulted in the Insurance Commission’s indirect tax adviser, KPMG, preparing an analysis of the ATO’s ruling for the Insurance Commission. This analysis clearly indicates that when a solicitor pays for a medical-legal report directly to the medical provider, and then refers the invoice to the Insurance Commission for reimbursement, the provision of the report by the solicitor to the Insurance Commission is not a supply or a taxable supply, and therefore reimbursement to solicitors will be paid on a net of GST basis. When a solicitor is registered for GST, the Insurance Commission assumes that the solicitor is able to claim an input tax credit for the GST paid. In all other cases, such as when the claim is paid for a medical-legal report directly, the Insurance Commission reimburses the full amount of medical-legal reports, including the GST; and, where appropriate, the Insurance Commission will regard the amount of the payment as a settlement expense and claim any GST tax credits it is entitled to claim. (2) The Insurance Commission does not know whether this practice has become widely accepted by the legal profession. This question is best directed to legal practitioners. (3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
I thank the member for Alfred Cove for some notice of this question. The Insurance Commission has provided the following advice - (1) The Insurance Commission of Western Australia has obtained a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the GST treatment of medical-legal reports. Follow-up with the ATO on the ruling resulted in the Insurance Commission’s indirect tax adviser, KPMG, preparing an analysis of the ATO’s ruling for the Insurance Commission. This analysis clearly indicates that when a solicitor pays for a medical-legal report directly to the medical provider, and then refers the invoice to the Insurance Commission for reimbursement, the provision of the report by the solicitor to the Insurance Commission is not a supply or a taxable supply, and therefore reimbursement to solicitors will be paid on a net of GST basis. When a solicitor is registered for GST, the Insurance Commission assumes that the solicitor is able to claim an input tax credit for the GST paid. In all other cases, such as when the claim is paid for a medical-legal report directly, the Insurance Commission reimburses the full amount of medical-legal reports, including the GST; and, where appropriate, the Insurance Commission will regard the amount of the payment as a settlement expense and claim any GST tax credits it is entitled to claim. (2) The Insurance Commission does not know whether this practice has become widely accepted by the legal profession. This question is best directed to legal practitioners. (3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
(1) The Insurance Commission of Western Australia has obtained a private ruling from the Australian Taxation Office in relation to the GST treatment of medical-legal reports. Follow-up with the ATO on the ruling resulted in the Insurance Commission’s indirect tax adviser, KPMG, preparing an analysis of the ATO’s ruling for the Insurance Commission. This analysis clearly indicates that when a solicitor pays for a medical-legal report directly to the medical provider, and then refers the invoice to the Insurance Commission for reimbursement, the provision of the report by the solicitor to the Insurance Commission is not a supply or a taxable supply, and therefore reimbursement to solicitors will be paid on a net of GST basis. When a solicitor is registered for GST, the Insurance Commission assumes that the solicitor is able to claim an input tax credit for the GST paid. In all other cases, such as when the claim is paid for a medical-legal report directly, the Insurance Commission reimburses the full amount of medical-legal reports, including the GST; and, where appropriate, the Insurance Commission will regard the amount of the payment as a settlement expense and claim any GST tax credits it is entitled to claim. (2) The Insurance Commission does not know whether this practice has become widely accepted by the legal profession. This question is best directed to legal practitioners. (3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
(2) The Insurance Commission does not know whether this practice has become widely accepted by the legal profession. This question is best directed to legal practitioners. (3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
(3) The Insurance Commission has not been and is not avoiding its legal responsibilities. (4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
(4) The Insurance Commission does not have the information to answer the question.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.