Additional documentation in support of the statements made by the beneficiary regarding the relationship between them and the deceased included photos of the shared residence depicting their living arrangements, social media photos showing the relationship duration and shared family events over time.

The tribunal heard the beneficiary and the deceased met at work and spent an increasing amount of time socialising over many years. The beneficiary’s spouse purchased a farm with the deceased as business partners although there was no evidence to support this statement.

The beneficiary stated that when the deceased's health declined, this limited their social contact outside of the beneficiary's family, but they accompanied the deceased to their medical appointments and became their main support during this time.

The beneficiary and their family moved into the house at the farm and lived together with the deceased making a commitment to a shared life and intended to live together permanently. No evidence was provided regarding the sale of this property as mentioned.

It was also stated the beneficiary and their spouse shared all the domestic tasks of running the combined households, including caring for the beneficiary's children and running the farm.

The tribunal ruled that firstly, as the beneficiary is not a biological adult child of the deceased, paragraphs 302-195(1)(a) and (b) of the ITAA 1997 are not applicable. Additionally, the beneficiary was not financially dependent on the deceased and therefore, paragraph 302-195(1)(d) of the ITAA 1997 is not applicable.

Furthermore, it stated that even though two persons, whether or not related by family can have an interdependency relationship, in this case there was no evidence provided to substantiate a close personal relationship existed between the beneficiary and deceased prior to their death.

“All information provided in the application suggesting a close personal relationship were only statements without supporting evidence, therefore, the facts cannot be established based on statements,” the ruling stated.

“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 ruling stated that the requirement of living together had been met, as had the requirement for financial support, however, in relation to the fourth requirement of domestic care again, no evidence was provided to support the claim.