Critically however, superannuation benefits need to be regulated in a way that complements a wider estate planning exercise. Arguably, one of the leading cases in relation to superannuation death benefit planning remains, after more than 15 years, the decision in Katz v Grossman [2005] NSWSC 934.
The case involved Katz bringing an action against his sister Grossman (and her husband), claiming an interest in their father’s self managed superannuation fund (SMSF).
A summary of the facts is as follows:
- originally, the father and mother were the individual trustees of the SMSF;
- the mother died some years before the father, and subsequently Grossman was appointed as a co-trustee with the father (this was to ensure that the SMSF continued to comply with the relevant superannuation legislation);
- when the father later died, Grossman appointed her husband as a co-trustee with her;
- during his lifetime the father had made a non-binding nomination indicating that he wanted his superannuation entitlements divided equally between Katz and Grossman; and
- Grossman and her husband ignored the nomination and paid the entirety of the superannuation entitlements for the benefit to herself.
As usual, please contact me if you would like access to any of the content mentioned in this post.
** for the trainspotters, the title today is riffed from the INXS song ‘Original Sin’. View hear (sic):