Gracesgran It hadn't really occurred to me that some private hospitals are classified as charities, so thank you for that. I investigated further and found a Daily Express report:
"According to a report by London’s Cass Business School, Nuffield Health, The London Clinic and King Edward VII’s Hospital saved £28.6 million in tax in 2011 by taking advantage of their charitable status, even though they operate and charge fees similar to private hospitals...
"The hospitals named in the Cass report have a combined income of more than £760 million. Under their charitable status, they benefit from relief on corporation tax, business rates and VAT."
The King Edward, which saved £900,000 in tax because of its charitable status, is well known for treating members of the Royal family, with the Duchess of Cambridge spending time there during her pregnancy.
The commercial director of HCA, a private hospital that does not have charitable status, said “The public may be unaware that they are helping to fund some private hospitals while being unable to access the benefits. These hospitals are actively competing with other top private hospitals but they aren’t paying the same amount of tax as the others. It is financially and competitively unfair, and unfair on the taxpayer.”
Some people are beginning to question what activities a private hospital must undertake in order to qualify for charitable status and whether all hospitals that have been awarded charitable status meet the criteria.
This is yet another example, on top of that of public schools, of tax relief being given to institutions that almost exclusively benefit the wealthy. I think the whole subject of charitable status needs to be examined as I feel it is being misused.
Is it me or am I getting mixed messages