The ruling (1052471764879) deals with a beneficiary who is a parent of the deceased. The facts presented to the tribunal were that the beneficiary and the deceased had an exceptionally close relationship which was evidence by a demonstrated and ongoing commitment to each other’s well-being.
The deceased suffered from a condition that impaired their work, relationship and daily functions and the beneficiary was their primary emotional support. The deceased regularly took part in activities that exacerbated their disability and led to situations in which the beneficiary provided care for and was committed to the deceased’s long term well-being.
The beneficiary cared for the deceased during extended depressive episodes ensuring their needs were met by providing food and maintaining the household and managing their health. The deceased and the beneficiary lived together for most of the deceased’s life, with only several short periods of separation due the deceased’s health issues.
The beneficiary provided extensive domestic and personal care as well as financial and emotional support throughout the deceased’s life.
In its ruling, the tribunal stated that a close personal relationship as specified in subsection 302-200(1) of the ITAA 1997 would not normally exist between a parent and an adult child because there would not be a mutual commitment to a shared life between the two. In addition, the relationship between parents and their adult children would be expected to change significantly over time. It would be expected that the adult child would eventually move out and secure independence from their parents.
“However, where unusual and exceptional circumstances exist, a relationship between a parent and an adult child may be treated as an interdependency relationship for the purposes of subsection 302-200(1) of the ITAA 1997,” it stated.
“The relationship between the beneficiary and the deceased was not over and above a normal family relationship between a parent and an adult child. No evidence has been provided to suggest a mutual commitment to a shared life existed between the beneficiary and the deceased.”
The ruling continued that the matters that indicate the beneficiary and the deceased did not have a close personal relationship before the deceased’s death are firstly that the beneficiary provided significant care and support to the beneficiary throughout their illness, regardless of whether they were living together or separately.
“The beneficiary provided the deceased with ongoing domestic and financial support. This level of care did not exceed the care and comfort that would usually be provided by a parent to an adult child. They did not have an exceptionally close relationship that goes above and beyond that of a normal parent and child relationship,” the ruling stated.
Secondly, the beneficiary and the deceased had lived together since the deceased struggled with their illness. Due to their disability, the deceased continued to be significantly dependant on the beneficiary for ongoing care and support for the remainder of the deceased’s life.
“It is difficult to ascertain if they had continued to live together if the deceased did not struggle with their disability. They did not have a strong mutual commitment to having a shared life,” the ruling added.
“Therefore, a close personal relationship did not exist between the beneficiary and the deceased and the first requirement specified in paragraph 302-200(1)(a) of the ITAA 1997 has not been satisfied in this case. The evidence provided indicates that the beneficiary and the deceased generally resided together for most of the time.
“However, as evidence supports periods of separation which the beneficiary explained these periods resulted from personal choices fitting an adult child and parent relationship rather than circumstances preventing a shared life. This suggests that the arrangements did not reflect a continuing commitment to a shared life as required under section 302-200.”
