SMSF adviser logo
subscribe to our newsletter

Legal disputes feared with uncertainty around death benefits

By Miranda Brownlee
12 February 2019 — 1 minute read

One of the major accounting bodies is concerned that members who rolled over death benefits to spouses without cashing the benefit could incur legal disputes down the track despite the safe harbour that was provided by the ATO.

Following the introduction of the super reforms, there was a lot of confusion about what the appropriate practice was in relation to the commutation of a death benefit income stream.

To continue reading the rest of this article, create a free account
Already have an account? Sign in

Before the ATO clarified its views on the matter, the SMSF industry believed that section 307-5(3) of the ITAA 1997 provided a mechanism for the spouse of a deceased member to roll over a death benefit income stream and retain the amounts as their own superannuation interest without the need to immediately cash out that benefit.


The ATO then established that the commissioner’s view was that the rollover by a spouse of a deceased member’s death benefit income stream did not change a superannuation provider’s regulatory requirement to cash the deceased member’s superannuation interest as soon as practicable.

The ATO acknowledged, however, that this did not align with the common industry practice of commuting death benefits, rolling them over and treating them as the spouse’s own superannuation interest.

It released Practical Compliance Guideline (PCG) 2017/6 in May 2017 which provided compliance relief for death benefit income streams that had already been treated in this way.

The PCG stated that the ATO would not apply compliance resources to reviewing whether an SMSF had complied with the compulsory cashing requirements relating to a death benefit as set out in regulation 6.21.

The relief applied to death benefit income streams that were commuted and rolled over before 1 July 2017.

In a pre-budget submission, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand said that while the PCG provides someone in this situation protection from regulator action, it does not necessarily protect them from action commenced by other parties, such as aggrieved relatives who did not benefit from a fund applying PCG 2017/6.

“CA ANZ is concern[ed] about the lack of regulatory certainty for those who provided advice and completed transactions on behalf of clients as allowed by the PCG,” it stated.

“A safe harbour via a regulatory amendment to permit the ATO’s administrative concession is essential not only for super fund trustees but also their advisers such as accountants and financial advisers who have acted in good faith.”

Legal disputes feared with uncertainty around death benefits
ca anz smsf
smsfadviser logo
Miranda Brownlee

Miranda Brownlee

Miranda Brownlee is the deputy editor of SMSF Adviser, which is the leading source of news, strategy and educational content for professionals working in the SMSF sector.

Since joining the team in 2014, Miranda has been responsible for breaking some of the biggest superannuation stories in Australia, and has reported extensively on technical strategy and legislative updates.
Miranda also has broad business and financial services reporting experience, having written for titles including Investor Daily, ifa and Accountants Daily.

You can email Miranda on: [email protected]momentummedia.com.au
You need to be a member to post comments. Register for free today


Get the latest news and opinions delivered to your inbox each morning

Website Notifications

Get notifications in real-time for staying up to date with content that matters to you.