This article is the third in a three-part series setting out practical solutions to common issues in super, tax and estate planning, with a particular focus on the tax impact of payments to beneficiaries.

Part 3 of our series looks at the tax issues which should be considered when paying death benefits in specie, including capital gains tax and the super ‘death tax’.

The case of Corbisieri v NM Superannuation Proprietary Limited [2023] FCA 1319  involved an appeal by the mother of a deceased against the decision of the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA) to uphold a BDBN to benefit the de facto spouse of her late son, which was to be funded out of life insurance proceeds in AMP Superannuation.

In the case of Williams v Williams, the Supreme Court of Queensland has determined that a binding death benefit nomination (BDBN) was not binding on the basis that it was not provided to the trustees of the applicable self managed superannuation fund (SMSF).

In the much anticipated decision of Hill v Zuda Pty Ltd, the High Court has determined that regulation 6.17A of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 (SIS Regs) does not apply to binding death benefit nominations (BDBNs) prepared for self managed superannuation funds (SMSFs).

As discussed here and here, the decisions in Re Narumon [2019] 2 Qd R 247 and Re SB; Ex Parte AC [2020] QSC 139 made it clear (at least in Queensland) that:

In the recent decision of Re SB; Ex Parte AC [2020] QSC 139, the Supreme Court of Queensland confirmed that the decision to make a binding death benefit nomination (‘BDBN’) is a financial matter and can therefore be made for a person by their administrator.

What is “better” for paying out death benefits in a self managed superannuation fund (SMSF) - a binding death benefit nomination (BDBN) or trustee discretion? As a result of a number of cases, where BDBNs were found to be defective, trustee discretion was becoming a favoured method for some advisors.