-
This case shows that it is important to review all prior SMSF deeds to make sure they contain only the absolutely necessary clauses to avoid sticky situations.
-
After his death, a dispute arose, surrounding whether Mr Munro’s nomination for a BDBN had to comply with reg 6.17A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (Cth).
-
This case should teach that a trustee of a SMSF has enormous power over the benefits once the principle trustee has passed away.
-
His widow stated that it did not constitute a BDBN as it did not show intention that it would bind the trustee of the Fund and therefore the trustee had discretion to distribute the funds elsewhere.
-
The matter was on appeal from the supreme court regarding whether the Trustee was bound by the BDBN which she contended that it had not been properly given to the trustee in accordance with the Deed.
-
The issue was whether the applicant, a trustee of the superannuation fund was validly removed in 2015, whether the respondent was validly appointed at that time as a trustee and whether a Binding Death Benefit Nomination (BDBN) dated 4 January 2017 is invalid?
Latest Post
-
Narumon Pty Ltd (2018) QSC 185
March 1, 2022
-
Munro v Munro [2015] QSC 61
March 1, 2022
-
Ioppolo v Conti [2013] WASC 389
March 1, 2022
Most Commented
-
Trust Basics
4 Comments
-
COVID-19 Business Hardship Grant
4 Comments
-
Burton – A Case for Change on International Double Taxation
1 Comment
