Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 335

SMSFs the new battleground in family disputes

SMSFs are often the forgotten part of the succession-planning puzzle and are becoming a battleground for family disputes in Australia. SMSFs often hold the greatest pool of assets for the people in question. 

We see cases where there has been little thought on key issues such as succession of control or passing of death benefits. These have the potential to snowball into major problems, as demonstrated by several recent court cases. 

Many believe their affairs can be dealt with simply via a standard Death Benefit Nomination (DBN). These are easy to prepare, and while they work well in ‘happy family’ scenarios, they may not offer adequate protection when contested.

There are two main issues which have the most potential to create family disputes over an SMSF:

1. SMSF control

SMSF control is exercised by the fund’s trustee(s), as appointed under the terms of the trust deed. But who is best to sit in this position?

A corporate trustee can make succession a smoother transition, provide a clear separation of assets, and give greater protection for directors and shareholders when compared to an individual acting as trustee. The corporate trustee should only act as trustee for the SMSF, to avoid confusion.

It is dangerous to assume a member’s legal personal representative will take control of the SMSF, as superannuation law does not automatically require a legal personal representative to become a trustee in place of the deceased person.

Ensuring control passes with the intended beneficiary (where possible) is key. When using a corporate trustee, this means leaving the shares in the trustee company directly to the intended beneficiary, under the member’s will.

This alleviates the intended beneficiary from having to handle complications, which may arise with a third-party trustee or, in some cases, no trustee at all.

2. Superannuation death benefit nomination

Many SMSFs are comfortable to permit the trustee, which is often the surviving spouse or partner, to decide where the super will be paid. In this case, a non-binding nomination is usually the best option.

When might a binding nomination be more appropriate? First, some questions:

  • Are there children from an earlier or later relationship, which the SMSF wishes to give super?
  • Do you want to give your super to a surviving partner or child, which might become problematic if the gift is made through your Will?
  • Is the estate likely to be subject to a claim or litigation after death?
  • Is there any chance that a trustee might not abide by your wishes?

If it’s YES to any of these questions, a Binding Death Benefit Nomination (BDBN) may be more appropriate.

Importantly, the trust deed’s terms must be complied with if the nomination is to be legally effective and valid.

Whatever your wishes, a DBN should sit together with your will so both documents work together and account for your assets as a whole, ensuring the intended beneficiaries inherit what they are entitled to.

Consequences of not having a clear BDBN 

Let’s consider two examples of the consequences of not having a clear and technically compliant BDBN.:

1. Re Marsella: The case Re Marsella, from 2019, shows a greater willingness by the Court to intervene.

Helen Marsella was survived by her husband and two children from her first marriage, Caroline and Charles. Helen and Caroline had established an SMSF as trustees, with Helen as the sole member. When Helen died, Caroline became the sole trustee of the SMSF.

After Helen’s death, Caroline resolved as surviving trustee to pay the entire death benefit to herself, and also purported to appoint her husband as a trustee.

The Court intervened on the basis that Caroline had failed to inform herself of the relevant matters and thus had failed to actively and genuinely exercise her discretion. This situation could have been avoided if the right person was trustee, and a valid binding nomination was in place.

2. Munro v Munro: The 2015 case of Munro v Munro also shows how missing details in a BDBN’s technical requirements can bring things undone. Precision is vital, and errors may be minimised by seeking independent advice.

Munro left a will naming his daughters as his executors, and a document, prepared by his accountants, purporting to be a BDBN, and nominating the ‘Trustee of Deceased Estate’ to receive the benefits.

A binding nomination can only specify dependants or the member’s legal personal representative. This is required to fulfil Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 (SIS) legislation purposes, and for the purposes of the trust deed. A legal personal representative for SIS purposes means the executor of the deceased person’s will (or the administrator of their deceased estate). This created a problem for Munro.

Munro’s document did not nominate either a dependant of Mr Munro or his legal personal representative, which meant it did not comply with either the terms of the trust deed or the SIS legislation. It was therefore not a binding nomination for the purposes of the trust deed. This left the trustee (his wife from his second marriage) with discretion how to pay the death benefits.

If you are in doubt as to whether an appropriate structure is in place, we recommend seeking professional advice.

Adapting to changes

The introduction of the Transfer Balance Caps (TBC) from 1 July 2017 has potential to introduce more complexity into SMSF estate planning.

SMSFs are now limited by the TBC, and members have to consider what to do with the excess. Every situation is different but may involve

  • reversionary pension nominations
  • DBNs dealing with accumulation balances
  • benefits passing to an estate or an individual
  • testamentary trusts and superannuation proceeds testamentary trusts
  • life interest pensions, and
  • child pensions.

These options need to consider the family dynamic, including concerns about estate litigation and the ability of beneficiaries to manage their affairs. In some cases, the best strategy is one that does not provide the best tax outcome.

The key message for avoiding family disputes over an SMSF is to remember it’s not as simple as having a death benefit nomination.

 

William Moore is a Partner and Sam Baring a Senior Associate at Hall & Wilcox Private Clients. This article contains general information only and does not consider the reader’s individual circumstances.

 

RELATED ARTICLES

Three areas SMSFs should consider outsourcing

SMSFs and the control over estate planning

6 quick SMSF tips for the 2021/22 financial year

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

10 reasons wealthy homeowners shouldn't receive welfare

The RBA Governor says rising house prices are due to "the design of our taxation and social security systems". The OECD says "the prolonged boom in house prices has inflated the wealth of many pensioners without impacting their pension eligibility." What's your view?

House prices surge but falls are common and coming

We tend to forget that house prices often fall. Direct lending controls are more effective than rate rises because macroprudential limits affect the volume of money for housing leaving business rates untouched.

Survey responses on pension eligibility for wealthy homeowners

The survey drew a fantastic 2,000 responses with over 1,000 comments and polar opposite views on what is good policy. Do most people believe the home should be in the age pension asset test, and what do they say?

100 Aussies: five charts on who earns, pays and owns

Any policy decision needs to recognise who is affected by a change. It pays to check the data on who pays taxes, who owns assets and who earns the income to ensure an equitable and efficient outcome.

Three good comments from the pension asset test article

With articles on the pensions assets test read about 40,000 times, 3,500 survey responses and thousands of comments, there was a lot of great reader participation. A few comments added extra insights.

The sorry saga of housing affordability and ownership

It is hard to think of any area of widespread public concern where the same policies have been pursued for so long, in the face of such incontrovertible evidence that they have failed to achieve their objectives.

Latest Updates

Strategy

$1 billion and counting: how consultants maximise fees

Despite cutbacks in public service staff, we are spending over a billion dollars a year with five consulting firms. There is little public scrutiny on the value for money. How do consultants decide what to charge?

Investment strategies

Two strong themes and companies that will benefit

There are reasons to believe inflation will stay under control, and although we may see a slowing in the global economy, two companies should benefit from the themes of 'Stable Compounders' and 'Structural Winners'.

Financial planning

Reducing the $5,300 upfront cost of financial advice

Many financial advisers have left the industry because it costs more to produce advice than is charged as an up-front fee. Advisers are valued by those who use them while the unadvised don’t see the need to pay.

Strategy

Many people misunderstand what life expectancy means

Life expectancy numbers are often interpreted as the likely maximum age of a person but that is incorrect. Here are three reasons why the odds are in favor of people outliving life expectancy estimates.

Investment strategies

Slowing global trade not the threat investors fear

Investors ask whether global supply chains were stretched too far and too complex, and following COVID, is globalisation dead? New research suggests the impact on investment returns will not be as great as feared.

Investment strategies

Wealth doesn’t equal wisdom for 'sophisticated' investors

'Sophisticated' investors can be offered securities without the usual disclosure requirements given to everyday investors, but far more people now qualify than was ever intended. Many are far from sophisticated.

Investment strategies

Is the golden era for active fund managers ending?

Most active fund managers are the beneficiaries of a confluence of favourable events. As future strong returns look challenging, passive is rising and new investors do their own thing, a golden age may be closing.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2021 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. Any general advice or ‘regulated financial advice’ under New Zealand law has been prepared by Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892) and/or Morningstar Research Ltd, subsidiaries of Morningstar, Inc, without reference to your objectives, financial situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide (AU) and Financial Advice Provider Disclosure Statement (NZ). You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.

Website Development by Master Publisher.