{"id":5047,"date":"2014-05-21T15:39:06","date_gmt":"2014-05-21T05:39:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/?p=5047"},"modified":"2014-05-21T15:41:28","modified_gmt":"2014-05-21T05:41:28","slug":"mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/smsf-strategy\/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning\/","title":{"rendered":"McIntosh v McIntosh<\/em> [2014] QSC 99 has important implications for SMSF succession planning"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"McIntosh-v-McIntosh\"<\/div>\n

On Friday the Supreme Court of Queensland handed down what I believe is a \u2018first of its kind\u2019 judgement. McIntosh v McIntosh<\/em> [2014] QSC 99<\/a> was the first time that the following specific question was expressly considered by a court: If a person is eligible to receive a deceased\u2019s super both as the deceased\u2019s legal personal representative and also in his or her personal capacity, and the person receives the super personally, must he or she transfer it to the estate?<\/p>\n

The answer will surprise many!<\/p>\n

The facts<\/h3>\n

Elizabeth McIntosh (the mother) and John McIntosh (the father) were married in 1968. In 1972 the mother gave birth to James. The mother and the father divorced in 1979 and had and continue to have an acrimonious relationship.<\/p>\n

The mother stated that she and James lived together for the bulk of his life. James was killed on 14 July 2013. At that time he lived with the mother.<\/p>\n

James died without a surviving spouse or children. He also died intestate (ie, without a valid will). Under the rules of intestacy, James\u2019 estate is to be distributed between his two parents in equal shares.<\/p>\n

The mother had previously applied (12 September 2013) to be the administrator of James\u2019 estate. She stated in an affidavit that she understood that, if she were so appointed, she was required to collect her son\u2019s assets and distribute his estate by dividing them equally between herself and the father. She said \u2018I propose faithfully to do this.\u2019<\/p>\n

She was granted \u2018Letters of Administration\u2019 (ie, appointed as the administrator).<\/p>\n

The net assets of James\u2019 estate were about $80,000. However, he had significantly more in various super funds, totalling approximately $454,000.<\/p>\n

On 30 September 2013 the mother then applied to James\u2019 super funds to have his super death benefits paid to her personally, describing the interdependency relationship that existed between her and her son. Each super fund agreed to do so.<\/p>\n

This meant that it appeared that all of the super (ie, about $454,000) would be paid directly to the mother and none of it to the father. The father would receive only half of the estate (ie, half of about $80,000).<\/p>\n

The father\u2019s lawyers wrote to the mother stating:<\/p>\n

As administrator, I note that your client will make her best endeavours to maximise the size of the estate. Bearing this in mind, please advise whether your client intends to seek any or all of the deceased’s superannuation entitlements to be paid entirely to her in her personal capacity.<\/p>\n

The mother\u2019s lawyers wrote back stating:<\/p>\n

… we do not hold any instructions in relation to the superannuation as it does not form part of the estate … If you are able to direct us to the law that requires our client as personal representative to make such an application to the super funds then we will take instructions in this regard<\/p>\n

The father\u2019s lawyer replied that:<\/p>\n

… as personal representative, your client has a fiduciary obligation to maximise the return for the estate. Clearly your client is in breach of her obligation if she has actively sought payment to herself direct in lieu of the estate.<\/p>\n

The mother then filed this application.<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s finding<\/h3>\n

Atkinson J held:<\/p>\n

… there was a clear conflict of duty … contrary to her fiduciary duties as administrator. When the mother made application to each of the superannuation funds for the moneys to be paid to her personally rather than to the estate, she was preferring her own interests to her duty as legal personal representative to make an application for the funds to be paid to her as legal personal representative. She was in a situation of conflict which she resolved in favour of her own interests. As such she acted … in breach of her fiduciary duty as administrator of the estate …<\/p>\n

Accordingly, Atkinson J held that the mother was required to account to the estate for the super death benefits (ie, \u2018hand over\u2019 the benefits).<\/p>\n

What would have changed this outcome?<\/h3>\n

The above outcome might surprise many. The trustees of three large super funds (Host Plus, Intrust Super and Hesta) determined to pay super death benefits to a deceased\u2019s interdependent mother, yet the mother was ordered to then pay that money to the estate so that a significant portion could be paid to the father.<\/p>\n

This outcome is more surprising as the mother appears to have been the nominated beneficiary in respect of each of the super funds (albeit it via non-binding nominations in each case).<\/p>\n

This begs the question: What would have changed this outcome? There are two different additional facts that probably would have done so.<\/p>\n

Firstly, if a binding death benefit nomination had existed in favour of the mother personally, then this matter almost certainly would not have arisen.<\/p>\n

Secondly, if James had made a will naming the mother as the executrix then there is strong indication the outcome would have been different. Atkinson J stated that the method of \u2018appointment is an important distinction between them as the appointment of an executor is the act of the testator exercising a testamentary choice\u2019. She went on to state that although generally the legal personal representative can not \u2018enter into engagements in which [he or she] has or may have a personal interest conflicting with the interests of those whom [he or she] is bound to protect\u2019 there is an exception to this. Namely, where the willmaker \u2014 with knowledge of the facts \u2014 imposes a duty which is inconsistent with a pre-existing interest which he or she has in another capacity, then the legal personal representative might still be able to validly pursue their personal interests.<\/p>\n

Implications for SMSF advisers?<\/h3>\n

Although this was not an SMSF-related decision, it has several critical implications for SMSF advisers.<\/p>\n

Firstly, this case serves as an important reminder of how strict the fiduciary duties are that apply to legal personal representatives and others (eg, trustees of super funds).<\/p>\n

Secondly, it illustrates that even if the personal estate is relatively small, a will is still important. Again, if James had made a will and appointed the mother as his executrix, it appears that there is a fair chance that the court would have decided differently. More particularly, the court may have taken the view that James appointed the mother in the informed knowledge of her consent, thereby authorising her to apply to all of the super funds to have the death benefits paid to herself.<\/p>\n

Thirdly, it raises important questions about binding death benefit nominations. Had a valid binding death benefit nomination been in place in favour of the mother, this case probably would not have arisen. Naturally, this suggests that binding death benefit nominations are the solution. However, the draw backs of binding death benefit nominations must be remembered. Even a valid binding death benefit nomination does not necessary mean that the money will be paid in an efficient manner. Recall Wooster v Morris<\/em> [2013] VSC 594<\/a> where the deceased had made a binding death benefit nomination in favour of his two daughters from a previous marriage, his second spouse was controlling the SMSF and the second spouse decided not to honour the binding death benefit nomination and instead decided to pay everything to herself personally. Accordingly, the identity of who will be \u2018holding the purse\u2019 upon death is vital. This segues into the final point.<\/p>\n

It is critical that the right people are controlling the SMSF upon death. Even if there was no binding death benefit nomination and no will, if the right people were controlling the SMSF upon death, things may well have been different. Although McIntosh v McIntosh<\/em><\/a> illustrates that the mother was under a duty to vigorously apply for the benefits in her capacity as legal personal representative of the deceased, the trustee of the SMSF might nevertheless have decided to pay the super death benefits to her regardless.<\/p>\n

For more information on SMSF succession planning \u2014 including a step-by-step guide to ensure that the right people control the SMSF at the right time \u2014 see The Complete Guide to SMSFs and Planning for Loss of Capacity and Death<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n

* * *<\/p>\n

This article is for general information only and should not be relied upon without first seeking advice from an appropriately qualified professional.<\/p>\n

\"Print<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

On Friday the Supreme Court of Queensland handed down what I believe is a \u2018first of its kind\u2019 judgement. McIntosh v McIntosh [2014] QSC 99 was the first time that the following specific question was expressly considered by a court: If a person is eligible to receive a deceased\u2019s super both as the deceased\u2019s legal [read more<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":5049,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[35,37],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[136],"yoast_head":"\nMcIntosh v McIntosh [2014] QSC 99 has important implications for SMSF succession planning | Leading SMSF Law Firm<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/smsf-strategy\/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning\/\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bryce Figot\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/smsf-strategy\/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/smsf-strategy\/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning\/\",\"name\":\"McIntosh v McIntosh [2014] QSC 99 has important implications for SMSF succession planning | Leading SMSF Law Firm\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/smsf-strategy\/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/smsf-strategy\/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/05\/McIntosh-v-McIntosh.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2014-05-21T05:39:06+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-21T05:41:28+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/#\/schema\/person\/21df751f40981297a0f6417071b6a63e\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/smsf-strategy\/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/smsf-strategy\/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/05\/McIntosh-v-McIntosh.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/05\/McIntosh-v-McIntosh.jpg\",\"width\":300,\"height\":240},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/\",\"name\":\"DBA Lawyers\",\"description\":\"Leading SMSF Law Firm\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/#\/schema\/person\/21df751f40981297a0f6417071b6a63e\",\"name\":\"Bryce Figot\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/a9a812be4056bdc150ca270634702d72\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/bryce.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/bryce.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bryce Figot\"},\"description\":\"Bryce is also recognised as one of Australia's leading SMSF lawyers. He has worked predominantly in the fields of tax and superannuation over the past 17 years and holds a Master of Laws from the University of Melbourne. Bryce is a regular seminar presenter on tax and SMSF topics and has published extensively in these areas. Bryce regularly presents for the major professional bodies including the SMSF Association, CPA Australia The Tax Institute, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand and DBA Network. Bryce is regularly quoted and published in the Australian Financial Review, the Herald Sun, CCH and LexisNexis publications, and elsewhere in the financial press. Bryce wrote the book Complete Guide to SMSFs: Planning for Loss of Capacity and Death, published by CCH Wolters Kluwer. Bryce is on the editorial panel of LexisNexis' Australian Superannuation Law Bulletin. He is a Senior Fellow at the University of Melbourne's Law School, where he is the subject coordinator of Taxation of Superannuation. Bryce is a Specialist SMSF Advisor\u2122 as well as being a Chartered Tax Adviser.\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/author\/bryce\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"McIntosh v McIntosh [2014] QSC 99 has important implications for SMSF succession planning | Leading SMSF Law Firm","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/smsf-strategy\/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning\/","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bryce Figot","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/smsf-strategy\/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning\/","url":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/smsf-strategy\/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning\/","name":"McIntosh v McIntosh [2014] QSC 99 has important implications for SMSF succession planning | Leading SMSF Law Firm","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/smsf-strategy\/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/smsf-strategy\/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/05\/McIntosh-v-McIntosh.jpg","datePublished":"2014-05-21T05:39:06+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-21T05:41:28+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/#\/schema\/person\/21df751f40981297a0f6417071b6a63e"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/smsf-strategy\/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/smsf-strategy\/mcintosh-v-mcintosh-2014-qsc-99-important-implications-smsf-succession-planning\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/05\/McIntosh-v-McIntosh.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2014\/05\/McIntosh-v-McIntosh.jpg","width":300,"height":240},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/","name":"DBA Lawyers","description":"Leading SMSF Law Firm","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/#\/schema\/person\/21df751f40981297a0f6417071b6a63e","name":"Bryce Figot","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/a9a812be4056bdc150ca270634702d72","url":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/bryce.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/bryce.jpg","caption":"Bryce Figot"},"description":"Bryce is also recognised as one of Australia's leading SMSF lawyers. He has worked predominantly in the fields of tax and superannuation over the past 17 years and holds a Master of Laws from the University of Melbourne. Bryce is a regular seminar presenter on tax and SMSF topics and has published extensively in these areas. Bryce regularly presents for the major professional bodies including the SMSF Association, CPA Australia The Tax Institute, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand and DBA Network. Bryce is regularly quoted and published in the Australian Financial Review, the Herald Sun, CCH and LexisNexis publications, and elsewhere in the financial press. Bryce wrote the book Complete Guide to SMSFs: Planning for Loss of Capacity and Death, published by CCH Wolters Kluwer. Bryce is on the editorial panel of LexisNexis' Australian Superannuation Law Bulletin. He is a Senior Fellow at the University of Melbourne's Law School, where he is the subject coordinator of Taxation of Superannuation. Bryce is a Specialist SMSF Advisor\u2122 as well as being a Chartered Tax Adviser.","url":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/author\/bryce\/"}]}},"authors":[{"term_id":136,"user_id":11,"is_guest":0,"slug":"bryce","display_name":"Bryce Figot","avatar_url":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/bryce.jpg","first_name":"Bryce","last_name":"Figot","user_url":"","description":"Bryce is also recognised as one of Australia's leading SMSF lawyers. He has worked predominantly in the fields of tax and superannuation over the past 17 years and holds a Master of Laws from the University of Melbourne.\r\nBryce is a regular seminar presenter on tax and SMSF topics and has published extensively in these areas. Bryce regularly presents for the major professional bodies including the SMSF Association, CPA Australia The Tax Institute, Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand and DBA Network.\r\nBryce is regularly quoted and published in the Australian Financial Review, the Herald Sun, CCH and LexisNexis publications, and elsewhere in the financial press. Bryce wrote the book Complete Guide to SMSFs: Planning for Loss of Capacity and Death, published by CCH Wolters Kluwer. Bryce is on the editorial panel of LexisNexis' Australian Superannuation Law Bulletin. He is a Senior Fellow at the University of Melbourne's Law School, where he is the subject coordinator of Taxation of Superannuation.\r\nBryce is a Specialist SMSF Advisor\u2122 as well as being a Chartered Tax Adviser."}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5047"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5047"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5047\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/5049"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5047"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5047"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5047"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.dbalawyers.com.au\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=5047"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}