Private ruling: Superannuation death benefits dependant
Date of advice: 30 October 2025
Published: 15 December 2025
Date scheme commenced: The scheme commences on x.

Ruling: Q1: Is x (the Beneficiary) a death benefits dependant of x (the Deceased) according to section 302-195(1)(d) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997), due to being a person who was a dependent of the Deceased just before they died? | A1: No. This private ruling applies for the following period: Income year ending 30 June 20xx 30 June 20xx

Relevant facts and circumstances: 1. The Beneficiary x is the adult child of x (the Deceased person) as indicated in the Last Will and Testament of x, dated x. 2. The Deceased died on x, as indicated on the death certificate of the Deceased, dated x. 3. The Beneficiary was born on x. The Beneficiary was therefore older than 18 years when the Deceased died. 4. The Beneficiary is named in the Deceased's Will, dated x as one of x Beneficiaries of the balance of the estate once debts, funeral, testamentary expenses, taxes payable and fees regarding the administration of the Estate are paid for. 5. The Beneficiary applied for a private ruling on x. 6. In support of the Beneficiary's application, the following statements were made by the Beneficiary: i. The Beneficiary moved from the x in x during x, and their parents assisted with the costs of returning to live in x, x, including the costs of a x protocol in a x. ii. After returning to x, the Beneficiary was having x, was x to find x, and was unable to receive assistance from x. iii. The Beneficiary lived with the Deceased at x. iv. The Beneficiary met x in x and started a serious relationship on x and they moved into x on x. v. x worked as a part time x from x to x and was also a student. They opened an ABN on x, and worked in a x part time from x to x. vi. The Beneficiary became unemployed in x and needed to look for another position, but their x was x and they required x to x. The Deceased paid for x for the Beneficiary. vii. The Beneficiary received unrecorded cash from the Deceased to assist with living expenses. 7. The Beneficiary provided the following documentation in support of their application: i. The Deceased's last Will and Testament, dated x. ii. The Deceased's Death Certificate, dated x. iii. The Probate, dated x. iv. Multiple bank statements. v. From ATO systems, employment and other income were determined.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 302-195 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 302-200 | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 subsection 995-1(1) | Income Tax Assessment (1997 Act) Regulations 2021 section 302-200.01 | Income Tax Assessment (1997 Act) Regulations 2021 section 302-200.02 Question 1 | Is x (the Beneficiary) a death benefits dependant of x (the Deceased) according to section 302-195(1)(d) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997), due to being a person who was a dependent of the Deceased just before they died? Summar: | The Beneficiary was not a person who was a dependent of the Deceased just before they died. Paragraph 302-195(1)(d) of the ITAA 1997 is not satisfied therefore, the Beneficiary is not a death benefits dependent of the Deceased. | Consequently, the taxable component of the superannuation lump sum death benefit paid to the Beneficiary is assessable income, taxed under section 302-145 of the ITAA 1997 | Detailed reasoning | Meaning of death benefits dependant | 1. Subsection 995-1(1) of the ITAA 1997 states that the term 'death benefits dependant' has the meaning given by section 302-195 of the ITAA 1997. Subsection 302-195(1) of the ITAA 1997 defines a death benefits dependant as follows: | A death benefits dependant, of a person who has died, is | a. the deceased person's spouse or former spouse; or | b. the deceased person's child, aged less than 18; or | c. any other person with whom the deceased person had an interdependency relationship under section 302-200 just before he or she died; or | d. any other person who was a dependant of the deceased person just before he or she died. | 2. As the Beneficiary is the adult child of the Deceased, paragraphs 302-195(1)(a) and (b) of the ITAA 1997 are not applicable. | 3. The Beneficiary lived with the Deceased in the period leading up to the Deceased's death, and as such one of the requirements demonstrating that an 'interdependency relationship' existed under paragraph 302-195(c) of the ITAA 1997, is satisfied. However, no evidence was provided to demonstrate that a further requirement, for one or each of the Deceased or the Beneficiary providing the other with domestic support and care, was met. Accordingly, no further consideration of paragraph 302-195(c) of the ITAA 1997 was required. | 4. As the Beneficiary does not meet the definition of paragraph 302-195(c) of the ITAA 1997 for interdependency, the Beneficiary will be reviewed as a financial dependant. | 5. Therefore, it is necessary to consider paragraph 302-195(1)(d) of the ITAA 1997 - whether the Beneficiary was a 'dependant' of the Deceased just before they died. | 6. The definition of death benefits dependant does not stipulate the nature or degree of dependency required to be a dependant of the deceased person in paragraph 302-195(1)(d) of the ITAA 1997. However, it is generally accepted that this paragraph refers to financial dependence. | 7. There are a number of case law decisions that specify what is required to establish financial dependency. Specifically, the definition of dependency was addressed and interpreted in the High Court case of Kauri Timber Co (Tasmania) Pty Ltd v. Reeman (1973) 47 ALIR 184. Gibbs J, in speaking to previous cases on the issue of dependency, stated that: | The principle underlying these authorities is that it is the actual fact of dependence or reliance on the earnings of another for support that is the test. | 8. This was also reflected in Edwards v Postsuper Pty Ltd [2007] FCAFC 83 where the Full Court of the Federal Court agreed with the Tribunal that while the deceased provided many gifts to his family, it did not consider that would make the appellants and their family financially dependent on the deceased. | 9. Senior Member Pascoe in Re Malek v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1999] AATA 678 in providing his view on the meaning of dependence stated: | In my view, the relevant financial support is that required to maintain the person's normal standard of living and the question of fact to be answered is whether the alleged dependant was reliant on the regular continuous contribution of the other person to maintain that standard. | 10. Case law provides that the question of dependency is governed by factual and not by theoretical considerations. [1] As such the Commissioner does need objective evidence to demonstrate substantial regular and continuous financial support and how the applicant was reliant on the amounts provided. | 11. The Beneficiary has advised that much of the financial assistance provided by the Deceased was in the form of cash. As such, there is little in the way of evidence which can be provided. | a. Limited evidence was provided regarding bank transfers. | b. Other evidence provided of financial support: | i. A x invoice for a getaway for the Beneficiary and partner for $x, dated x, paid by the Deceased's x x x card, appearing on the Deceased's x bank statement dated x. | ii. A x and x invoice for $x dated x. No payment details. Appears as a debit on the Deceased's x bank statement on x, with a credit from the Beneficiary regarding the x for $x on x. | 12. No further evidence has been provided of any financial support in the period immediately leading up to the Deceased's passing. | 13. No evidence has been provided to show that the Deceased provided financial support to assist the Beneficiary to meet normal living expenses (such as groceries, mortgage/rent, transportation costs, utility bills, medical expenses). | 14. The Commissioner cannot be satisfied that the Beneficiary was a person who was wholly or substantially reliant on regular and continuous financial support from the Deceased for their ordinary living expenses. | 15. There is insufficient evidence to prove that the Beneficiary was financially dependent on the Deceased and therefore, paragraph 302-195(1)(d) of the ITAA 1997 is not applicable. | Conclusion | Based on the evidence provided, the Commissioner is not satisfied that the Beneficiary was a person who was substantially reliant on regular and continuous financial support from the Deceased for their ordinary living expenses. | As a result, paragraph 302-195(1)(d) of the ITAA 1997 is not satisfied, and the Beneficiary is not a death benefits dependant of the Deceased. | [1] Kauri Timber at page 189