In a recent Full Federal Court decision, Wan v BT Funds Management Limited, the Court clarified the rules surrounding the payment of a deceased member’s superannuation entitlements. The case centered around whether the superannuation death benefit should be paid solely to the deceased member’s career or to their estate.
The decision hinged on the definition of a ‘dependant’ for superannuation purposes, examining the concepts of a ‘spouse’ and an ‘interdependency relationship’. The Court also considered whether the term ‘dependant’ should be interpreted more widely to include ’emotional dependency’, as argued by the deceased’s career.
Table of Contents
Background
When a fund member passes away, their superannuation entitlements must be paid out of their fund as soon as possible. This is known as a compulsory cashing event. The member’s entitlements can be paid as a lump sum or as a pension to eligible recipients.
Eligibility to Receive Super Death Benefits
Under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations, a deceased member’s entitlements can generally be paid to two categories of recipients: their ‘dependents’ or the Legal Personal Representative (
‘LPR’) of the deceased. The definition of a ‘dependant’ is outlined in Section 10 of the SIS Act and includes a spouse, children, and any person with whom the deceased had an interdependency relationship.
An interdependency relationship exists when two people have a close personal relationship, live together, provide each other with financial support, and provide domestic support and personal care to each other. The duration of the relationship, mutual commitment, care of children, and other factors are considered when determining if an interdependency relationship exists.
Wan’s Case – The Full Federal Court’s Decision
In the case of Wan v BT Funds Management Limited, the Full Federal Court dismissed Ms. Wan’s appeal, upholding the decision to pay the deceased’s death benefit to his estate rather than solely to his carer. The Court determined that the trustee’s decision was fair and reasonable.
The Court clarified several key issues in the case:
- Misapplication of SIS definitions – The Court confirmed that the definition of an interdependency relationship does not require a permanent or full-time living arrangement. Two people can live together and maintain their own residences while still meeting the criteria for an interdependency relationship.
- Common residence – The Court rejected the argument that the inquiry should focus on whether a common residence exists rather than whether the individuals lived together as ‘spouses’. The Court stated that the common residence was just one of several factors considered, and the fact that Ms. Wan had another home did not undermine the analysis.
- Emotional dependency – While Ms. Wan argued for a broader definition of dependency that includes emotional dependency, the Court found no error of law in the assessment. Emotional dependency was not specifically considered in this case, as it was not raised during the initial proceedings. The decision in Wan’s case highlights the importance of proving that someone is a ‘dependant’ of the deceased in order to be eligible to receive superannuation death benefits. It also confirms that the definition of a ‘dependant’ primarily focuses on financial dependency, at least for now.
It is crucial to carefully consider the definition of ‘dependent’ when planning for the distribution of superannuation death benefits and to seek expert advice to ensure compliance with the regulations.
Conclusion
The recent Full Federal Court decision in Wan v BT Funds Management Limited has shed light on the rules surrounding the payment of superannuation death benefits. The Court clarified the definition of a ‘dependant’ for superannuation purposes, including the concepts of a ‘spouse’ and an ‘interdependency relationship’. The decision underscores the importance of understanding these definitions in order to determine who is eligible to receive a deceased member’s superannuation entitlements.
The Court’s ruling in Wan’s case affirms that the definition of ‘dependant’ primarily focuses on financial dependency, although it does not preclude the consideration of other forms of dependency in the future. It also highlights the significance of providing evidence to prove the existence of an interdependency relationship or spousal status.
About Us
At MintSuper, we specialize in providing top-tier SMSF auditing services for trustees, accountants, and financial advisors. Our team of experienced professionals can guide you through the intricacies of superannuation regulations and help ensure that your SMSF remains compliant. To learn more, visit our website at mintsuper.com.au.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What is the definition of a 'dependant' for superannuation purposes?
A: The definition of a 'dependant' for superannuation purposes is outlined in Section 10 of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act. It includes a spouse (which encompasses de facto partners), children, and any person with whom the deceased had an interdependency relationship. Financial dependency is also considered in determining dependant status.
Q: What is an interdependency relationship?
A: An interdependency relationship exists when two people have a close personal relationship, live together, provide each other with financial support, and offer domestic support and personal care to each other. The duration of the relationship, mutual commitment, and other factors are taken into account.
Q: Can emotional dependency be considered for dependant status?
A: The recent decision in Wan's case did not directly address emotional dependency. While emotional support is a relevant factor in determining an interdependency relationship, whether emotional dependency alone is sufficient to establish dependant status remains a topic of debate.
Q: How are superannuation death benefits distributed if there are no dependants?
A: If there are no eligible dependants, the superannuation death benefits may be paid to the Legal Personal Representative (LPR) of the deceased member. The LPR will then distribute the benefits in accordance with the member's Will or the intestacy laws of the applicable State or Territory.
Q: What are the implications for tax on superannuation death benefits?
A: The taxation of superannuation death benefits depends on whether the recipient is considered a 'death benefits dependant' under the Income Tax Assessment Act. Death benefits paid to a dependant are generally taxed more concessionally than those paid to a non-dependant. It is important to seek professional advice to understand the tax implications in your specific situation.
