Latest News

Hot Issues
spacer
Aged care report goes to the heart of Australia’s tax debate
spacer
Removed super no longer protected from creditors: court
spacer
ATO investigating 16.5k SMSFs over valuation compliance
spacer
The 2025 Financial Year Tax & Super Changes You Need to Know!
spacer
Investment and economic outlook, March 2024
spacer
The compounding benefits from reinvesting dividends
spacer
Three things to consider when switching your super
spacer
Oldest Buildings in the World.
spacer
Illegal access nets $637 million
spacer
Trustee decisions are at their own discretion: expert
spacer
Regular reviews and safekeeping of documents vital: expert
spacer
Latest stats back up research into SMSF longevity and returns: educator
spacer
Investment and economic outlook, February 2024
spacer
Planning financially for a career break
spacer
Could your SMSF do with more diversification?
spacer
Countries producing the most solar power by gigawatt hours
spacer
Labor tweaks stage 3 tax cuts to make room for ‘middle Australia’
spacer
Quarterly reporting regime means communication now paramount: expert
spacer
Plan now to take advantage of 5-year carry forward rule: expert
spacer
Why investors are firmly focused on interest rates
spacer
Super literacy low for cash-strapped
spacer
Four timeless principles for investing success
spacer
Investment and economic outlook, January 2024
spacer
Wheat Production by Country
spacer
Time to start planning for stage 3 tax cuts: technical manager
spacer
Millions of Australians lose by leaving savings in default MySuper funds
spacer
Vanguard economic and market outlook for 2024: A return to sound money
spacer
An investment year of ups and downs
spacer
How to tame the market's skewness
spacer
The Countries that Export the Most Wine in the World
spacer
Tips for preparing for the best tax outcomes
Article archive
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2023
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2023
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2023
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2023
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2022
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2022
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2022
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2022
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2021
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2021
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2021
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2021
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2020
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2020
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2020
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2020
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2019
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2019
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2019
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2019
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2018
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2018
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2018
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2018
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2017
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2017
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2017
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2017
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2016
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2016
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2016
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2016
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2015
spacer
Quarter 3 July - September 2015
spacer
Quarter 2 April - June 2015
spacer
Quarter 1 January - March 2015
spacer
Quarter 4 October - December 2014
Quarter 1 of, 2019 archive
spacer
When super isn't compulsory
spacer
Investors brace for Brexit - deal or no deal
spacer
ATO identifies SMSF contravention red flags
spacer
Extra website resources and tools is one way we offer you and your family more.
spacer
Tax and estate planning traps flagged with pension restructures
spacer
A checklist for a healthy financial year
spacer
High-risk LRBAs, TBAR on the ATO’s radar this year
spacer
All you need to know about how Australia is going.
spacer
Royal Commission report makes super fee recommendations
spacer
Four tips for boosting your super balance
spacer
New Year resolutions, New Year strategies
spacer
Part 4 - The major benefit of ‘behavioural coaching'
spacer
3 tips for weathering the market's bumpy ride
spacer
Common BDBN ‘pitfalls’ flagged in wake of ASIC action
spacer
Case law points to ‘growing importance’ of SMSF document chain
spacer
How Australia is performing.
spacer
Global outlook summary: Down but not out
spacer
Australia - a comprehensive run-down of our vital statistics.
spacer
Your guide to smarter holiday reading
spacer
Verifying asset values in a SMSF.
spacer
Admin, BDBN errors flagged for SMSFs this year
spacer
ATO targets non-arm's length income - NALI
spacer
Retiring in their 30s or 40s?
Common BDBN ‘pitfalls’ flagged in wake of ASIC action

An industry law firm has identified some of the common traps with BDBNs that can land advisers and their clients in trouble.  One example being a recent case of incorrect witnessing of binding nominations.

       

 

DBA Lawyers director Daniel Butler said that while binding death benefit nominations (BDBNs) can be a powerful and important tool for a member’s succession planning, they are still a relatively new legal instrument, with the law still continuing to develop and evolve over time.

“Cases such as Munro v Munro [2015] QSC 61 and Wooster v Morris [2013] VSC 594 show that effecting a valid BDBN is no simple task,” Mr Butler warned.

“More specifically, as BDBNs are a creature of the particular deed, the process of effecting a valid BDBN depends on a number of interrelated factors.”

SMSF deeds that include BDBN provisions from the SISA and SISR through wide deeming provisions of regulatory compliance are one of the key problem areas, Mr Butler warned.

“One important lesson to take away from Donovan v Donovan is that the presence of a broad deeming clause can have far-reaching consequences such as including the three-year limitation,” he explained.

“The ATO in SMSFD 2008/3 considers that s 59(1A) of the SISA and reg 6.17A of the SISR have no application to SMSFs, subject to the terms of the SMSF deed. Accordingly, an appropriately drafted SMSF deed should expressly exclude these provisions.”

SMSF professionals and trustees should also look out for SMSF deeds that rely on a three-year BDBN or contain sloppy wording, he cautioned.

SMSFs that contain poor wording such as “the BDBN is only binding if it’s to the trustee’s satisfaction” can be easily challenged, he said.

“This type of wording can easily give rise to argument if, say, the trustee is the second spouse who decides to reject the BDBN when their spouse dies,” he explained.

It is also important that the chain of previous SMSF deeds, not just the current one, is reviewed, as this can affect whether the BDBN is actually valid.

“The most recent deed must have been varied in accordance with the prior variation power, the relevant consent of each party to effect a variation must be obtained, and relevant notifications under the deed made and any other appropriate legal formalities complied with,” he explained.

“Also, all or some deeds may have required stamping in accordance with the relevant state/territory stamp duty legislation. All these formalities must have been complied with in the document trail, or the fund’s latest deed may not be valid and effective.”

Imprecise wording in a BDBN can also give rise to a number of legal hurdles, such as in the case of Munro v Munro, which used the wording the “trustee of his deceased estate”.

“It is interesting to also note that Mr Munro, who practised as a solicitor during his working life, did not pick up on the numerous legal issues in the documents provided by his accountant and financial planner,” Mr Butler said.

Recent cases such as the Cantor decision and Perry v Nicholson [2017] QSC 163 highlight the problem of how notification and service requirements in relation to BDBNs may give rise to legal challenge.

In the Cantor decision, the trustee of the Cantor Management Superannuation Fund contended on appeal that a BDBN executed by a fund member in 2012 was ineffective because it had not been given to the corporate trustee of the fund in its capacity as trustee in accordance with the terms of the SMSF deed, the director said.

“The court examined the governing rules of the fund and accepted the proposition that the governing rules did indeed require the BDBN in question to be given to the trustee to be effective. However, the court held that this requirement was satisfied in this case by the member leaving the BDBN document at the registered office of the trustee company pursuant to general law standards of service and the specific statutory framework for serving companies set out in s 109X(1)(a) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).”

In Perry v Nicholson, a requirement in the SMSF deed that BDBNs must be given to the trustee was the likely motivation behind the daughter of the deceased member, Ms Perry, bringing litigation contesting the validity of a 2015 change of trustee.

“Ms Perry submitted that, notwithstanding documentation that purported to change the trustee of the fund in 2015, she was still a trustee of the fund and had not been validly removed,” he said.

“Accordingly, Ms Perry submitted that the relevant BDBN purporting to distribute all of the member’s death benefits in the fund to the deceased’s de facto spouse, Ms Nicholson, was invalid. Presumably, this was on the basis that the BDBN had not been provided to the ‘true trustee’ of the SMSF.”

Although the change of trustee was ultimately held to be valid in Perry v Nicholson, the case illustrates that service and notification requirements can provide further ammunition for an aggrieved beneficiary to scrutinise a fund’s document trail, as an invalid change of trustee may provide an avenue to challenge a purported BDBN where these requirements exist.

“The notification or service requirements for BDBNs are generally inappropriate as they give rise to too many issues and prevent members from making effective private BDBNs,” he advised.

Mr Butler cautioned that getting a BDBN right is no easy task and many who mistakenly believe their BDBN is secure will have that complacency exposed after their death when their BDBN is rendered invalid.

Advisers, he said, need to give serious consideration to managing BDBNs as part of each client’s integrated estate and succession planning.

“Our recommendation is for advisers to institute a ‘best practice’ approach to ensure that they only use quality documents and procedures. Ideally, this should be done with the engagement of experienced SMSF lawyers. Otherwise, advisers may be open to significant legal liability when disputes arise,” he warned.

ASIC has increasingly been ramping up its focus on the conduct of advisers in relation to binding nominations in the past 12 months.

A financial adviser was permanently banned after an ASIC investigation found they had dishonestly backdated advice documents and incorrectly witnessed binding nomination of beneficiary forms.

ASIC stated that they have engaged in “misleading and deceptive conduct” by allowing the “incorrectly witnessed binding nomination forms to be submitted to insurers on behalf of two of his clients”.

In January last year, ASIC said that it has discovered widespread examples of improper and unethical practices in relation to death benefit nomination forms.

One of the common practices that concerned the regulator was financial advisers witnessing or having staff members witness client signatures on binding death nomination forms without being in the presence of the signatory. In other cases, it said forms had been backdated.

“Each of these practices fails to comply with the law and may lead to the nominations being invalid,” ASIC said.

 

Miranda Brownlee
25 January 2019
smsfadviser.com

 

Site by Plannerweb