ByLawyers News and Updates

Trusts – All states

by

For the assistance of practitioners acting in trusts matters, a new precedent Trust Deed Review Checklist has been added to the matter plan in the By Lawyers Trusts publication. The new precedent was developed in response to a request from a practitioner.

The checklist is a useful tool for lawyers when:

  • preparing a new trust deed on a client’s instructions;
  • reviewing an existing trust deed in the course of trust administration;
  • reviewing an existing trust deed when acting for the trustees in a transaction involving trust property;
  • acting for a client in a transaction where the other party is a trustee’ or
  • acting for parties in a dispute over a trust, or trust property.

The new Trust Deed Review Checklist is found in folder B. Trusts generally in the By Lawyers Trusts guide.

At By Lawyers we love feedback from the firms using our content and are always ready to add new precedents that practitioners need. It’s part of our commitment to practicality and helping lawyers enjoy practice more.

New succession cases – QLD

by

New succession cases have been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (QLD) reference manual. These helpful recent cases fall under the Estates and Family provision claims sections of the publication.

Costs in Family provision claims

Shelly v Prager (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1553 concerned the court assessing the overall justice of a case when determining whether special provision for costs should be made in a family provision claim. Williams J at [18] stated the following factors may be relevant:

– whether one party has engaged in unreasonable conduct in the commencement or maintenance of the proceedings which has resulted in the other party (or parties) to the proceeding incurring unnecessary costs;

– whether an applicant’s claim for provision out of an estate is frivolous, vexatious or made without reasonable prospects of success;

– whether an applicant’s claim, although unsuccessful, was otherwise reasonable, meritorious or borderline; and

– the relative size of the deceased estate.

Judicial advice for trustees

Re Perpetual Trustee Company Limited as a trustee for the Joseph Banington Davis Settlement [2020] NSWSC 1574 concerned the dual purpose of an application for judicial advice by an executor/ trustee. Robb J at [72] noted that:

It is…not right to see a trustee’s application for judicial advice about whether to sue or defend proceedings as directed only to the personal protection of the trustee. Proceedings for judicial advice have another and no less important purpose of protecting the interests of the trust.

The addition of these recent cases to 101 Succession Answers (QLD) is part of By Lawyers continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

New succession cases – VIC

by

New succession cases have been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (VIC) reference manual. These helpful recent cases fall under the Estates and Family provisions claims sections of the publication.

Costs in Family provision claims

Shelly v Prager (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1553 concerned the court assessing the overall justice of a case when determining whether special provision for costs should be made in a family provision claim. Williams J at [18] stated the following factors may be relevant:

– whether one party has engaged in unreasonable conduct in the commencement or maintenance of the proceedings which has resulted in the other party (or parties) to the proceeding incurring unnecessary costs;

– whether an applicant’s claim for provision out of an estate is frivolous, vexatious or made without reasonable prospects of success;

– whether an applicant’s claim, although unsuccessful, was otherwise reasonable, meritorious or borderline; and

– the relative size of the deceased estate.

Judicial advice for trustees

Re Perpetual Trustee Company Limited as a trustee for the Joseph Banington Davis Settlement [2020] NSWSC 1574 concerned the dual purpose of an application for judicial advice by an executor/trustee. Robb J at [72] noted that:

It is…not right to see a trustee’s application for judicial advice about whether to sue or defend proceedings as directed only to the personal protection of the trustee. Proceedings for judicial advice have another and no less important purpose of protecting the interests of the trust.

The addition of these recent cases to 101 Succession Answers (VIC) is part of By Lawyers continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

New succession cases – NSW

by

New succession cases have been added to the By Lawyers 101 Succession Answers (NSW) reference manual. These helpful recent cases fall under the Estates and Family provision claims sections of the publication.

Proof of death by inference

The Estate of Alan Bruce Beeby [2020] NSWSC 1512 concerned proof of death by inference. A court may declare a missing person dead, without a death certificate and before the seven-year period relating to the presumption of death is met. At [53] Hallen J explained:

…an inferred death is one where, although a body is not found or recovered, the death can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, and where it can be inferred that it is more probable that the person has died, rather than that he, or she, is living.

Judicial advice for trustees

Re Perpetual Trustee Company Limited as a trustee for the Joseph Banington Davis Settlement [2020] NSWSC 1574 concerned the dual purpose of an application for judicial advice by an executor/trustee. Robb J at [72] noted that:

It is…not right to see a trustee’s application for judicial advice about whether to sue or defend proceedings as directed only to the personal protection of the trustee. Proceedings for judicial advice have another and no less important purpose of protecting the interests of the trust.

Intermeddling by executors

The Victorian case of Re Abat [2020] VSC 560 contains a discussion of when intermeddling in an estate might deprive an executor of the right to renounce. It should be read in conjunction with the NSW case of Mulray v Ogilvie [1987] 9 NSWLR 1 which is already in 101 Succession Answers.

Costs in Family provision claims

Shelly v Prager (No 2) [2020] NSWSC 1553 concerned the court assessing the overall justice of a case when determining whether special provision for costs should be made in a family provision claim. Williams J at [18] stated the following factors may be relevant:

– whether one party has engaged in unreasonable conduct in the commencement or maintenance of the proceedings which has resulted in the other party (or parties) to the proceeding incurring unnecessary costs;

– whether an applicant’s claim for provision out of an estate is frivolous, vexatious or made without reasonable prospects of success;

– whether an applicant’s claim, although unsuccessful, was otherwise reasonable, meritorious or borderline; and

– the relative size of the deceased estate.

The addition of these recent cases to 101 Succession Answers (NSW) is part of By Lawyers continuing commitment to enhancing our content and helping our subscribers enjoy practice more.

De Facto – The Tension Between Family law, succession law and Superannuation

by

By Guy Dawson, CEO

It is generally accepted that when two people get together there are circumstances that exist, or a period of time that has elapsed, before they can be considered life partners – before their financial lives are joined and divided in an equitable manner on separation or death.

In order to investigate whether there is in fact a de facto relationship in family, succession and superannuation law, the interpretation acts such as the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act 1901 section 2F sets out the matters to consider as follows:

(a) the persons are not legally married to each other; and

(b) the persons are not related by family; and

(c) having regard to all the circumstances of their relationship, they have a relationship as a couple living together on a genuine domestic basis. Working out if persons have a relationship as a couple the circumstances considered may include any or all of the following:

(a) the duration of the relationship;

(b) the nature and extent of their common residence;

(c) whether a sexual relationship exists;

(d) the degree of financial dependence or interdependence, and any arrangements for financial support, between them;

(e) the ownership, use and acquisition of their property;

(f) the degree of mutual commitment to a shared life;

(g) whether the relationship is or was registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory as a prescribed kind of relationship;

(h) the care and support of children;

(i) the reputation and public aspects of the relationship.

Registering a relationship is tantamount to deciding to marry so it is not a common practice.

Family Law

For the Family Court to make orders, under the Family Law Act 1975, the time that must have elapsed for the finding of a de facto relationship is at least 2 years.

The other circumstances that may establish jurisdiction are:

  • That there is a child of the de facto relationship; or
  • That the party to the de facto relationship who applies for the order or declaration, made substantial contributions and a failure to make the order or declaration would result in serious injustice to the applicant; or
  • That the relationship is or was registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory.

Financial arrangements before the expiration of that time are matters for consideration by the courts as partnerships or joint venture arrangements.

Succession Law

Succession Law across the States defines the term partner or spouse to include a person who was either married to or in a domestic partnership with the intestate. Domestic partnership is a relationship for a continuous period of at least 2 years prior to death, or that was registered under a prescribed law of a State or Territory, or one that resulted in the birth of a child,.

Superannuation

The relationship test of 2 years, does not apply to the determinations of Superannuation Trustees under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 .

The failure to include such a time period in the SIS legislation results in some ludicrous decisions which sees large sums of money paid to a boyfriend or girlfriend in a relationship of only a few weeks, or a month or two shacked up, without children and no registered relationship. Family members such as parents and siblings are often overlooked and receive nothing at all.

The SIS Act needs to be brought into line with family and succession law to provide the minimum period of 2 years so common sense can prevail.

The impact of Bamford on trust deeds and trust resolutions

by

By Greg Vale, Binetter Vale Lawyers

Subscribers to our Companies, Trusts, Partnerships and Superannuation product, and LEAP Office users, will be acquainted with the content written by Greg Vale, a By Lawyers author.

Following the Bamford decision Greg circulated a letter to his clients, which is reproduced below for your information.

Our trusts take into account this decision.

Getting it right – the impact of Bamford on trust deeds and trust resolutions

On 30 March 2010 the High Court handed down its much awaited decision in Commissioner of Taxation v Bamford; Bamford v Commissioner of Taxation [2010] HCA 10.

In response to Bamford on 2 June 2010 the ATO released a Decision Impact Statement (‘DIS’) and Practice Statement Law Administration PS LA 2010/1, which outlines how the ATO will treat the determination of trust income.

The High Court decision and ATO response are significant and affect every trust in Australia. In particular they affect how trust deeds and income distribution resolutions must be drafted to obtain the optimum tax outcome.

The significance of the High Court’s reasoning in Bamford is that it confirms that it is possible to define and modify ‘trust income’ through the drafting of one’s trust deed. The advantage of being able to define and modify trust income is that it can create circumstances which remove adverse tax consequences or even allow more beneficial tax outcomes to be achieved.

Although the ATO accepts that Bamford means that trust deed clauses can be used to define trust income and can thus influence how the net income of a trust will be taxed, it provides a series of caveats, including the potential application of the general anti-avoidance rule or trust stripping rules in circumstances involving a deliberate mismatch between income entitlements and tax outcomes.

Great care is required in the drafting of the yearly income distribution resolutions. Following Bamford, there is a clear benefit in ensuring that one’s trust deed confers sufficient powers to allow a trustee to determine trust income in each income year. Accordingly, in relation to the 2009/2010 income year and onwards, we consider that all trustees should undertake the following steps in light of Bamford.

Step 1 – Trust deed review

Trustees should review the trust deed in conjunction with their tax and legal advisors to determine whether:

  1. The trust deed defines trust income and if so, how the definition operates to determine its capacity to minimise adverse tax consequences going forward;
  2. The trust deed provides the trustee with adequate powers to modify trust income, including the power to reclassify items as income or capital and vice versa and allocate expenses and losses as appropriate;
  3. There are appropriate streaming provisions and whether they are adequate going forward.
Step 2 – Consider amending the trust deed

Where the trust deed does not contain an adequate definition of trust income or powers to enable the trustee to stream or modify what constitutes trust income, then trustees should consider whether it is beneficial to amend the trust deed to resolve these deficiencies. Tax and legal advice should be sought prior to amending the trust deed so as to avoid any adverse tax consequences. For example, the ATO have already flagged the issue of trust resettlements in this context.

Step 3 – Review the drafting of the trustee resolutions

Trustees should review how they draft their distribution resolutions to ensure that an appropriate tax outcome will be achieved.

Binetter Vale Lawyers can carry out the necessary review of your client’s trust deeds and provide advice as to the appropriate amendments in the wake of the decision in Bamford and considerations to take into account when drafting income distribution resolutions for a total of $250 (unless advised otherwise in advance). Separately, for an additional charge to be advised as part of the trust deed review, we are able draft the relevant deeds of amendment and provide tax and legal advice on the issue of resettlement as appropriate.

Further, any deeds of amendment will be accompanied with advice as to the types of resolutions appropriate for that deed.

Tip Box

Whilst written for Federal practitioners this article has interest and relevance for practitioners in all states.

Connect with us