iAdvice Financial Services | Super Death Benefits – Who Is a Dependant For Tax Purposes?
35512
post-template-default,single,single-post,postid-35512,single-format-standard,ajax_fade,page_not_loaded,,qode_grid_1300,qode-theme-ver-14.4,qode-theme-bridge,disabled_footer_top,wpb-js-composer js-comp-ver-5.4.7,vc_responsive
 

Super Death Benefits – Who Is a Dependant For Tax Purposes?

Super Death Benefits – Who Is a Dependant For Tax Purposes?

Tech Strategic Update

A lump sum superannuation death benefit paid to someone who is not a death benefits dependant for tax purposes can be subject to significant tax (refer to Appendix 1 for details). In contrast, lump sum death benefits paid to someone who does qualify as a death benefits dependant for tax purposes are entirely tax free. 


As a result, clients often want to claim that certain beneficiaries e.g. parents,
adult disabled children, siblings and grandchildren are dependants for tax
purposes.

Whether someone is a death benefits dependant or not is a
question of fact; the super fund trustee or the executor of the estate (where
death benefit paid via estate) is required to make an assessment at the time of
payment. The onus is then on the individual making the claim to provide
evidence to establish that they were a tax “dependant” at the time of death.

Where the beneficiary is a spouse, former spouse or minor child it is clear they qualify as a tax dependant. However for beneficiaries who are looking to qualify under the “interdependent relationship” or “financial dependant” criteria, the outcome is less certain.

A good understanding of the qualification criteria is useful for advisers when guiding clients through the claim process. Furthermore, preparation such as obtaining statutory declarations and keeping records of financial transactions and support may become imperative at claim time.

It’s important to note that “dependant” is defined differently under the SIS Act (super law) and the Income Tax Act (taxation law). Broadly speaking, super law sets out who a death benefit can be paid to directly from a super fund and taxation law sets out how the benefits will be taxed. The focus of this article is on the definition of a dependant for tax purposes. Refer to Appendix 2 for a comparison of SIS dependants and tax dependants.

Death benefits dependant for tax purposes

For tax purposes1, a person is a death benefits dependant of a deceased member if that person was:

  1. a) The deceased’s spouse or former spouse; or
  2. b) The deceased’s child (aged less than 18); or
  3. c) Any other person with whom the deceased person had an interdependency relationship just before he or she died; or
  4. d) Any other person who was a dependant of the deceased just before he or she died (it is generally accepted that, to be a “dependant” of someone, it refers to financial dependency).

Note, anyone who receives a lump sum superannuation death benefit as a result of the death of defence personnel or police killed in the line of duty is treated as a death benefits dependant regardless of their relationship to the deceased. Refer to Appendix 3 for further details.

In order for someone other than the spouse, former spouse or minor child of the deceased to qualify as a tax dependant, they must be either be in an “interdependency relationship” with the deceased, or a “financial dependant” of the deceased just before the deceased died.

A key difference between the two is that under an “interdependency relationship”, either the beneficiary or the deceased could have been providing financial and domestic support to the other party as long as they were living together and there was a close personal relationship2. This differs from the definition of “financial dependant”, in this case the beneficiary must be the one that receives substantial financial support from the deceased, the roles cannot be reversed.

For example, the superannuation death benefits of an adult disabled person were paid to their parents via their estate. The parents were looking after the deceased prior to their death. The parents in this situation could not qualify as a “dependant” as they were not the ones in receipt of financial support from the deceased. However, they may meet the criteria for an “interpendency relationship”.

Whether someone meets the definition of a tax dependant or not is usually determined by the trustee of the super fund if they are paying the death benefit directly to the beneficiary or the trustee of the estate if paying indirectly via the estate. If the trustee of the super fund or the estate deems the beneficiary to be a non-dependant for tax purposes, they must withhold an estimate (in the case of the fund paying a beneficiary directly) or pay tax (in the case of the estate) on the taxable component (both taxed and untaxed elements) of the lump sum death benefits. If in doubt or dispute, the trustee or beneficiary can apply to the ATO for a private ruling. In the event that the beneficiary disagrees with an unfavourable ruling from the ATO, they can appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Australian Federal Court for review.

Interdependency relationship

If a beneficiary is able to establish that he or she was in an ”interdependency relationship” with the deceased at the time of death, the beneficiary will qualify as a dependant for tax purposes. Under section 302-200(1) of the ITAA 1997, two individuals have an “interdependency relationship” if:

  1. They have a close personal relationship; and
  2. They live together; and
  3. One or each of them provides the other with financial support, and
  4. One or each of them provides the other with domestic support and personal care normally.

It is important to note that all of the above requirements must be met for someone to be in an interdependency relationship, except in the case of disability.

If the deceased and/or the beneficiary suffer from a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability, the two parties can satisfy the interdependency relationship criteria if they have a close personal relationship, without meeting the other requirements if the reason they are not satisfied is because either or both of them suffer from a disability. In addition, the interdependency relationship criteria can also be met if they have a close personal relationship and they are temporarily living apart (ITAA 97s302-200; ITAR 97 s302-200.02).

This is very important in situations such as parents caring for adult disabled children or adult children caring for elderly parents where the illness or disability prevented the deceased or the beneficiary from being able to live with each other. For example, in an ATO private ruling3, the parent of a deceased son was able to satisfy the interdependency relationship criteria despite the fact that they were not living with the son at the time of death. In this case, they demonstrated via statements from a legally qualified medical practitioner that due to the nature of the illness it was not possible for the parent to live with the deceased son.

When determining whether an interdependency relationship exists, it is also important to look at the nature of the arrangement. If one party provides domestic support and personal care to the other under an employment contract or contract for services, or on behalf of an organisation such as a government agency, a body corporate or a benevolent or charitable organisation, the interdependency relationship criteria will not be met.

When determining whether an interdependency relationship exists, the Income Tax Regulation 1997 (s302-200.01) includes all of the circumstances of the relationship between the two individuals, including:

  • The duration of the relationship
  • Whether or not a sexual relationship exists
  • The ownership, use and acquisition of property
  • The degree of mutual commitment to a shared life
  • The care and support of children
  • The reputation and public aspects of the relationship
  • The degree of emotional support
  • The extent to which the relationship is one of mere convenience
  • Any evidence suggesting that the parties intend the relationship to be permanent, and
  • The existence of a statutory declaration signed by one of the persons to the effect that the person is (or was) in an interdependency relationship with the other person.

Furthermore, section 302-200.02 of the Income Tax Regulation 1997 sets out the circumstances in which two persons have, or do not have, an interdependency relationship. Under that section, two persons have an interdependency relationship if:

  • they satisfy the requirements of paragraphs 302-200(1)(a) to (c) of the Act (they have a close personal relationship, they live together, and one or each of them provides the other with financial support), and
  • one or each of them provides the other with support and care of a type and quality normally provided in a close personal relationship, rather than by a mere friend or flatmate.

Examples of care normally provided in a close relationship rather than by a friend or flatmate:

  1. Significant care provided for the other person when he/she is unwell.
  2. Significant care provided for the other person when he/she is suffering emotionally.

When making a death benefit claim, the client may wish to address any or all of these factors with the trustee or the ATO (if applying for a private ruling) and provide relevant supporting evidence.

Each of the four qualification criteria are discussed in more detail below:

  1. Close personal relationship

In discussing the meaning of close personal relationship, the SEM5 states: a close personal relationship will be one that involves a demonstrated and ongoing commitment to the emotional support and well-being of the two parties. Indicators of a close personal relationship may include:

  • The duration of the relationship;
  • The degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;
  • The reputation and public aspects of the relationship (such as whether the relationship is publicly acknowledged).

However the above indicators do not form an exclusive list, nor are any of them a requirement for a close personal relationship to exist. Generally, a close personal relationship will be one that involves a demonstrated and ongoing commitment to the emotional support and well-being of the two parties.
When assessing whether a close personal relationship exists, the ATO often applies the test of whether there was evidence of commitment to a shared life between the two parties, as opposed to one of caring family members who led lives independent of each other.

Adult children and parents

Generally speaking, children are not expected to be in an interdependency relationship with their parentsas the relationship must be more than that of a normal family relationship.

When determining whether the relationship is an interdependency relationship factors such as “duration of the relationship” or “reputation and public aspects of the relationship” are not relevant. In this case, emphasis is put on considerations such as the “degree of emotional support”.

In the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Case [2016] AATA 264, the parents of a deceased son appealed to the Tribunal after being ruled by the ATO (via private ruling) that both parents were not death benefit dependants. Their son (aged 22) was killed in a motorcycle accident and was employed as a pilot. The superannuation scheme included a life insurance policy of $500,000. At the time of death, the son was living in the family home and the parents were in the process of converting the garage into a separate living area for the son. The parents provided the deceased with financial support during the years that he was studying to be a pilot and also made substantial contributions towards the cost of the garage conversion. However, the AATA affirmed the ATO’s decision in the private ruling that there was no interdependency relationship between the deceased and the parents.

In this case, the parents asserted that there was “emotional support” provided to the deceased, however the AATA member presiding over the case stated that the evidence did not support this as the parents didn’t outline “the degree of emotional support” nor did the assertion refer to any individual instances of emotional support. Therefore an important learning from this case is that that any claim of “emotional support” should be backed up with specific incidences.

Siblings

Similar to a child/parent relationship, it can be difficult to establish a “close personal relationship” between siblings.

In the Federal Court case of Friar v Brown [2015] FCA 135, the sister of a deceased member was unable to establish that she had a close personal relationship with the deceased that constituted an interdependency relationship. The sister submitted that she and her brother (deceased) had such a relationship throughout their life due to their sibling relationship and an “extremely close bond that they developed growing up in a household with parents who were mentally unstable and violent and who used drugs, alcohol, gambling and violence on a daily basis”. She said they supported each other whenever personal relationships broke down or they lost jobs or were evicted, which happened frequently. The siblings shared rental accommodation on and off for 10 years at one address.

The Judge agreed with the decision of the AAT which concluded that the relationship was one of convenience and there was insufficient evidence for a claim of interdependency.

However it’s interesting to note that at the end of the judgement the Judge stated that: “it should not be assumed, that the Court takes the view that an interdependency relationship can never be established in a household where siblings live together and one also happens to be married to, and lives with, a third person. Every case has to be looked at according to its particular circumstances.”

  1. Living Together

It is relatively easy to determine whether the beneficiary and the deceased were living together at the time of death. It is important to note that if the beneficiary and the deceased were not living together at the time of death and the reason was because they were temporarily living apart or either or both of them suffer from a disability, then this requirement does not have to be met.

In many cases, a deceased may have been staying in hospital at the time of death as they were too unwell to be at home. In those instances, the fact that the two parties weren’t living together at the time of death would not cause a beneficiary to fail the interdependency relationship definition.

Furthermore, this requirement is also ignored if at the time of death the two parties are temporary living apart because one is overseas or in goal.

There is also no legislated minimum amount of time that the beneficiary and deceased had to live together prior to death to qualify. For example, in a private ruling7 the ATO commented that the requirement to live together was satisfied despite the fact that the deceased and beneficiary had resided at separate residences for the last four and a half years and only lived together in the last month immediately prior to death.

  1. Financial Support

Under this requirement one or each of the parties need to provide the other with financial support. Financial support as part of the qualification criteria for interdependency, is satisfied if some level of financial support (not necessarily substantial) is provided by one person (or each of them) to the other. It’s important to note that the level of financial support required to determine whether there’s an interdependency relationship is different to the level of financial support required to determine whether a beneficiary was a “financial dependant” of the deceased under s302-195(1)(d) of ITAA 1997 (see ‘Financial Dependency’ below for more details).

For an interdependency relationship, it is usually sufficient for the beneficiary to demonstrate some level of financial support has been provided. Examples include the payment of household expenses such as groceries, utilities and medical expenses.

In a private ruling8 , the ATO ruled that the deceased and the beneficiary, who were siblings, were providing financial support to each other. In that particular ruling, the siblings purchased a house together through a joint mortgage, and they held a joint bank account which was used to pay the mortgage and expenses associated with their house.

  1. Domestic support and personal care

In discussing the meaning of domestic support and personal care, the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum9 provides the following guidance:

“Domestic support and personal care will commonly be of a frequent and ongoing nature. For example, domestic support services will consist of attending to the household shopping, cleaning, laundry and like services. Personal care services may commonly consist of assistance with mobility, personal hygiene and generally ensuring the physical and emotional comfort of a person.”

In ATO ID 2005/143, when assessing whether an interdependency relationship existed between the deceased son and his surviving mother, the ATO looked at the different household chores performed by the deceased son including mowing the lawn, gardening, laundry, and cooking. In this case, the level of household chores performed was deemed sufficient to meet the domestic support requirement. The ATO considered in the determination that the personal care requirement was also met after taking into account the emotional support provided by the deceased when her other son was seriously injured, and in particular during the period of her separation and her husband’s illness.

However it is unclear the exact quantity of household chores that needs to be performed before the “domestic support” requirement is satisfied. In a private ruling10, the ATO ruled that a deceased parent’s contribution to the operation of the household in terms of preparing meals and house maintenance was not sufficient to meet the personal care requirement.

Precedents

The following table provides a summary of cases where a beneficiary asked either the ATO or the Court to assess whether an “interdependency relationship” existed at the time of death.

It’s important to note that public rulings can be relied upon in good faith where the circumstances are the same as what’s discussed in the ruling. However, private rulings are not binding and provide no protection to anyone other than the applicant.

Reference Beneficiary’s relationship to the deceased Summary of circumstances Was there an interdependency relationship at the time of death?
Friar v Brown 2015 FCA 135 Sibling of the deceased Deceased (aged 37) died of a drug overdose on holiday. The deceased had lived with the beneficiary for many years in a shared rental accommodation arrangement. The sister claimed that they have a strong sibling bond due to growing up in a dysfunctional family environment. No.

The evidence provided wasn’t sufficient to support the existence of an interdependency relationship as the “close personal relationship” and the “personal care” requirements were not satisfied.

Case 2 AATA [2016] 264 Parents of the deceased Deceased was killed in an accident at age 22. At the time of death he was employed as a pilot. He lived at home with his parents who were in the process of converting their garage into a separate living area for him. No.

The evidence provided wasn’t sufficient to support the existence of an interdependency relationship as the “close personal relationship” and the “personal care” requirements were not satisfied.

ATO Private binding ruling 1051348994495 Sibling of the deceased Deceased lived with the beneficiary rent-free in the family home for over 10 years. Deceased received Centrelink payments and the beneficiary continued to support the deceased financially by paying for meals and utilities. Yes – interdependency relationship.
Private binding ruling (March 2018) 1051346759852 Parents of the deceased In the few years prior to death, the deceased suffered an illness and was eventually diagnosed with a terminal illness. The deceased lived with the applicant for substantial periods of time.

The beneficiary supported the deceased financially by allowing them to live rent-free and pay for their meals and utilities.

The beneficiary provided the deceased with emotional support, including palliative care.

Yes.

Based on the evidence, the parents were able to establish that there was a close family relationship at the time of the deceased’s death due to the significant degree of support provided to the deceased throughout the course of their illness.

Private binding ruling (January 2018) 1051324249319 Relative of the deceased The beneficiary is a relative and executor of the deceased’s will. A month prior to client’s death, they moved into the deceased’s home to care for the deceased.

The beneficiary provided ongoing domestic support, emotional and financial support including: cleaning, laundry, assistance with showing etc.

The deceased was in receipt of WorkCover payments.

The beneficiary provided all financial support with funds obtained from the beneficiary’s employment.

 

No.

While the ATO acknowledged there was a close familial relationship in existence demonstrated through the ongoing financial, personal and emotional support provided by the beneficiary to the deceased, it was not the type of close personal relationship envisaged by the legislation. The deceased and beneficiary had resided in separate residences excluding the month prior to the deceased’s death. The deceased and beneficiary held no joint assets. The beneficiary was not in receipt of a Carer’s Pension or Allowance.

Private binding ruling (April 2017) 1051213003587 Adult child of the deceased Deceased was diagnosed with a serious medical condition and was in and out of hospitals. The beneficiary provided the deceased with domestic support in the form of organising nursing care, filling scripts, taking the deceased to medical appointments and providing personal care such as grooming. The beneficiary deferred study to care for the deceased and applied for Centrelink carer allowance. Yes.

The ATO was satisfied that there was a close personal relationship due to the significant amount of care and support provided to the deceased by the beneficiary given the seriousness of the illness of the deceased. There was evidence of a mutual commitment to a shared life between the deceased and beneficiary after the onset of the deceased’s illness.

Financial dependency

If a beneficiary fails to meet the interdependency relationship criteria, he or she may still be able to qualify as a dependant for tax purposes if they were a “dependant” of the deceased just before death. However the Tax Act does not define the term “dependant” nor does it stipulate the nature or degree of dependency. In the absence of a legislative definition, the term takes its common law meaning. “Dependant” according to the Macquarie Dictionary is “a person to whom one contributes all or a major amount of necessary financial support”.

Over the years, courts have emphasised financial dependency when determining whether someone is a “dependant” of another individual11. It is therefore generally accepted that, to be a “dependant” of someone, it refers to financial dependency.

It must be established that the level of financial support provided by the deceased, up to the time of the deceased’s death, was substantial in that the deceased contributed all or a major amount of the beneficiary’s financial support. If the level of financial support is insignificant or minor, then the beneficiary cannot be regarded as a dependant.

In the Victorian Supreme Court case of Fenton v Batten [1949] VLR 422, Justice Fullager made the following comments regarding dependency:

“The word dependant is, in a true sense a technical term. If the evidence established that the alleged dependant relied on or relies on another as the source wholly or in part of his or her existence then dependence is established. Questions of scale of living do not enter into the matter in the absence of some such statutory enactment.”

To be successful, the evidence supplied by the beneficiary must be able to demonstrate that the financial support received from the deceased was significant. The point to be considered is whether the facts show that a person depended on the deceased for their day to day sustenance. However, the financial support provided doesn’t have to be the dependant’s only source of income.

In Malek’s case12 which is frequently cited as an authority on this subject, the deceased was aged 25 when he died. At the time of death he was single, had no children and lived with his widowed elderly mother. The mother was ruled to be a financial dependant of the deceased son despite the fact that she was in receipt of a Centrelink pension at the time of death.

When reviewing this case, Senior Member Pascoe of the AAT further clarified the meaning of the word dependant:

“In my view, the question is not to be decided by counting up the dollars required to be spent on the necessities of life for [Mrs Malek], then calculating the proportion of those dollars provided by the son and regarding her as a dependant only if that proportion exceeds 50%… In my view, the relevant financial support is that required to maintain the person’s normal standard of living and the question of fact to be answered is whether the alleged dependant was reliant on the regular continuous contribution of the other person to maintain that standard.”

In Malek’s case, the evidence supplied by the mother was able to demonstrate that the financial support received from her deceased son had been significant. The son had accepted responsibility for mortgage repayments, maintenance and other expenses of the unit in which the mother lived.

It is generally accepted that if the financial support provided merely supplements the person’s income and represents “quality of life” payments, then it would not be considered substantial support. What needs to be determined is whether or not the person would be able to meet their daily basic necessities (e.g. shelter and food etc.) without the additional financial support. This is stated in ATO ID 2002/73113, where a same-sex partner who did not derive an income was considered to be a dependant of the deceased.

The following table provides a summary of cases where a beneficiary asked either the ATO or a court to assess whether a beneficiary qualified as a “financial dependant” at the time of death.

Reference Beneficiary’s relationship to the deceased Summary of circumstances Is the beneficiary a financial dependant for tax purposes?
ATO ID 2014/6 Adult child over 18 years of age Beneficiary was in recept of Centrelink Youth Allowance and was living at home with the parents (deceased member) at the time of death. Yes.
The ATO determined that there was substantial financial support or maintenance as the Youth Allowance payments the child was receiving were calculated at a lower “at home” rate as opposed to the higher “independent” rate. This was sufficient to indicate that the child was substantially financially dependent.
ATO ID 2014/22 Adult child over 18 years of age Beneficiary had given up work to care for the terminally ill parent and received no financial support from anyone, other than the parent during that time. Yes.

The ATO determined that the child was financially dependent on the deceased at the time of death.
The ATO also commented that the child also satisfied the interdependency relationship requirement.

ATO private binding ruling 1051231612657 There were three applicants who were adult children (over 18 years of age) of the deceased At the time of death, the deceased provided the beneficiaries with ongoing financial support including the following:

  • Regular payment of tertiary education course fees for the first beneficiary;
  • Provision of supplementary income to the second beneficiary for living expenses; and
  • Provision of supplementary income to the third beneficiary for living expenses.
Yes.
The ATO determined that all three beneficiaries were financial dependant of the deceased.

Without the financial support the deceased provided, the First and Second beneficiaries would be unable to continue their tertiary studies. The Third beneficiary was taking a gap year and was reliant on the deceased for supplementary income.

ATO private binding ruling
1051330262893
Applicant was an adult child over 18 years of age At the time of death, the adult child was unemployed and had been unemployed for a number of years. He was in receipt of the Centrelink Newstart Allowance.

The beneficiary had not lived with the deceased.

The beneficiary claimed he was a dependant on the basis that the deceased:

  • Provided at least 2 meals per week
  • Purchased appliances
  • Gifted $5,000 for the purchase of a car
  • Making financial contributions to assist with the cost of a beneficiary’s child
  • Provided small amounts of cash on an ad hoc basis
No.

The ATO accepted that the deceased did provide some financial support to the beneficiary in the form of cash, appliances, clothes and other necessities on an ad hoc basis as the need arose. However, the beneficiary did not rely on regular continuous financial support from the deceased to maintain their normal standard of living.

Appendices

Appendix 1: Taxation of lump sum superannuation death benefits

Recipient Tax treatment of taxable component (taxed element) Tax treatment of taxable component (untaxed element)
Death benefits dependant (including where paid indirectly via estate) No tax (Non-assessable non-exempt income) No tax (Non-assessable non-exempt income)
Death benefit non-dependant paid directly from the super fund Assessable income with a tax offset so that maximum tax is 17% (including Medicare levy) Assessable income with a tax offset so that maximum tax is 32% (including Medicare levy)
Death benefit non-dependant paid indirectly via the deceased’s estate Assessable income with a tax offset so that maximum tax is 15%* Assessable income with a tax offset so that maximum tax is 30%*

*Note, Medicare levy does not apply when superannuation death benefits are paid via the estate as the deceased estate is a trust and is not subject to Medicare levy.

Appendix 2: comparison of dependant for SIS purposes and dependant for tax purposes

Dependant Super (SIS Act) Tax (ITAA 1997)
Spouse Yes Yes
Former Spouse No Yes
Child under age 18 Yes Yes
Child aged 18 or over Yes No
Financial Dependant (including dependent adult child) Yes (full or partial) Yes (full)
Interdependent relation Yes Yes
Individual who receives death benefit because of
death of someone who died in the line of duty as
a member of Australian Defence Force, Australian
Federal police, or a protective service officer
No Yes

Appendix 3: Deceased died in line of duty

From 1 July 2007, non-dependants of Australian Defence Force personnel, Australian Federal Police or the police force of a State or Territory; or a protective service office who die in the line of duty (or as a result of injuries sustained in the line of duty) are to be treated in the same way as a death benefits dependant for tax purposes. This means there will be no tax on lump sum superannuation death benefits. For example, the parents of a deceased police officer who died in line of duty will not pay any tax on the lump sum superannuation death benefit are paid to them via the deceased’s estate.

Circumstances that constitutes an individual being killed in the line of duty is set out in the regulations (ITAR 302-195) and Reg 302-195A specifies the circumstances in which a person is not to have died in the line of duty. These circumstances include, for example, the deceased was off-duty at the time of his/her death, the death was from committing suicide, or from natural causes or disease, or was after retirement.

endnotes

  1. ITAA 1997 s302-195
  2. Note, if either or both the deceased or the beneficiary suffer from a physical, intellectual or psychiatric disability, then the two parties can still have an interdependency relationship if they have a close personal relationship but do not meet the other criteria. See “Interdependency relationship” below for more information.
  3. Private ruling no. 1012745500087
  4. ITAR 97 s302-200.02(5)
  5. In the Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) Act 2004 which inserted former section 27AAB of the ITAA 1936
  6. In the explanatory statement to the Income Tax Amendment Regulations 2005 (no.7) which inserted regulation 8A of the Income Tax Regulations 1936, it is stated that: “generally speaking, it is not expected that children will be in an interdependency relationship with their parents.”
  7. ATO private ruling no. 1051324249319
  8. ATO private ruling no. 1051299214586
  9. Paragraph 2.16 of the Supplementary Explanatory Statement to the Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Choice of Superannuation Funds) bill 2003
  10. Private binding ruling 1051368369281
  11. Full high court case Kauri Timber Co (Tax) Pty Ltd v Reeman [1973] 47 ALJR 184
  12. Malek v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation 42 ATR 1203, 99 ATC 2294
  13. This ATO interpretive decision has now been withdrawn because it referred to the previous section of legislation. Also, same-sex partners are now covered specifically by legislative provisions. However, the Commissioner’s view of the test for dependency remains current.

Disclaimer
The information contained in this update is based on the understanding Colonial First State Investments Limited ABN 98 002 348 352, AFS Licence 232468 (Colonial First State) has of the relevant Australian laws as at the article date. As these laws are subject to change you should refer to our website at colonialfirststate.com.au or talk to a professional adviser for the most up-to-date information. The information is for adviser use only and is not a substitute for investors seeking advice. While all care has been taken in the preparation of this document (using sources believed to be reliable and accurate), no person, including Colonial First State or any other member of the Commonwealth Bank group of companies, accepts responsibility for any loss suffered by any person arising from reliance on this information. This update is not financial product advice and does not take into account any individual’s objectives, financial situation or needs. Any examples are for illustrative purposes only and actual risks and benefits will vary depending on each investor’s individual circumstances. You should form your own opinion and take your own legal, taxation and financial advice on the application of the information to your business and your clients.
Taxation considerations are general and based on present taxation laws and may be subject to change. You should seek independent, professional tax advice before making any decision based on this information.
Colonial First State Investments Limited is also not a registered tax (financial) adviser under the Tax Agent Services Act 2009 and you should seek tax advice from a registered tax agent or a registered tax (financial) adviser if you intend to rely on this information to satisfy the liabilities or obligations or claim entitlements that arise, or could arise, under a taxation law.

https://www3.colonialfirststate.com.au/firsttech/topics/super/strategic-updates/super-death-benefits-who-is-a-dependant-for-tax-purposes.html

No Comments

Post A Comment