PBR emphasises importance of interdependency regulations

The regulator was asked to determine whether an adult child of the deceased, who had been their primary carer after terminating their employment to do so, qualified as being in an interdependency relationship with the deceased under section 302-200 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997.

The beneficiary provided documentation to the regulator including bank statements, and a medical certificate from the deceased’s doctor confirming the deceased was receiving medical treatment for a terminal condition and, at the time of their passing, was in the full-time care of the beneficiary.

X

Continue to Website

The evidence also included a list of payments the beneficiary advised they received from the deceased marked as “carer’s payments”. There was also an affidavit from the executor of the deceased’s estate that stated the beneficiary and the deceased had a close relationship, the beneficiary ended their employment to care for the deceased, and the deceased and their spouse arranged with the beneficiary to end their employment and instead be paid by them to provide care to the deceased.

The court was also provided with an aerial photograph of the deceased’s property showing house A and house B and several unsigned statements from the beneficiary that stated they, their spouse and child lived with the deceased in house A due to financial difficulties.

The deceased and their partner requested the beneficiary, their spouse, and children to move into house A at the deceased’s property while the deceased moved into a newly built house, house B, at the same property. This request was made so the beneficiary could help maintain the property of the deceased and their spouse.

Following a terminal illness diagnosis, the deceased moved into house A with the beneficiary and remained living with the beneficiary until their death.

The beneficiary provided care and support for the deceased including providing overnight care, paying for a meal subscription, preparing meals, administering medication and attending medical appointments.

The deceased paid for the beneficiary’s lawyer fees during their divorce and provided childcare for the beneficiary’s children. However, it was stated that the beneficiary was not financially dependent on the deceased as they received sufficient financial support and income from employment and investments including trust distributions.

According to the ruling, the beneficiary was not financially dependent on the deceased person and 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 stated.

“Although the beneficiary and the deceased lived together at the time of the deceased’s death, this was due to the relationship issues being experienced by the deceased and not due to an ongoing commitment to a shared life.”

The ruling continued that before the deceased moved into house A, the beneficiary and the deceased lived in separate houses on the same property.

“Had the deceased not experienced these relationship issues, the deceased and the beneficiary would have continued to live in separate houses with their spouse and children, respectively. 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.”

“As all of the requirements in section 302-200 of the ITAA 1997 have not been satisfied, the deceased and beneficiary were not in an interdependency relationship in the period just before the deceased’s death.”