Private ruling: Commissioner's discretion - deceased estate
Date of advice: 3 May 2024
Published: 11 June 2024
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 20XX
Date scheme commenced: 16 June XXXX

Ruling: Q1: Will the Commissioner exercise their discretion to allow an extension of time in order to receive main residence exemption due to extenuating circumstance? | A1: Yes, having considered your circumstance and the relevant factors the commissioner will allow an extension of time. Further, Information about the Commissioners discretion can be found by searching QC 66057 on our website www.ato.gov.au.

Relevant facts and circumstances: The dwelling is located at address X (the property). The property was purchased in 19XX. On DD MM 20XX, the deceased passed away. Between DD MM 20XX to DD MM 20XX, beneficiaries met to finalise the estate. Probate was granted on DD MM 20XX. On DD MM 20XX, the property was damaged by a hailstorm. In MM 20XX work commenced to repair the property. In MM 20XX, the repair work organised by the insurance company was not approved due to asbestos contamination. Between DD MM 20XX and DD MM 20XX, the colour bond roof was removed and replaced by the insurer. From DD-DD MM 20XX, the roofing contractor, asbestos decontamination contractor, insurer, and trustee for the estate of the deceased (the insured) met at the property to carry out work, discuss the claim and come to an agreement to finalise the claim. On DD MM 20XX, the insurer issued a clearance certificate for the roof cavity after the roof had been lifted. On DD MM 20XX, a clearance certificate was issued by the insurer for an asbestos contamination conducted for the outside perimeter of the property. In MM 20XX, the individuals at the insurer that you had been dealing with from the start of the claim were moved to different departments and new people was appointed to the case. This change stalled the progress of the claim. At the end of MM 20XX, you engaged solicitors to progress the claim with the insurer. On DD MM 20XX, you were advised that the District Court of State AA had granted a hearing date of DD MM 20XX. On DD MM 20XX, the insured received letter from insurer's lawyers proposing a mediation. On 1 DD MM 20XX, the mediation took place. In MM 20XX, the parties reached a final settlement. In MM 20XX, the insurer returned all contents to the property. From MM 20XX to MM 20XX, COVID-19 restrictions prevented the family from sorting through the contents of the property. The restrictions also prevented the family from organising repairs to the property. From MM-to-MM 20XXX, work was undertaken to restore the property to saleable condition due to the deterioration that occurred from the previous 12 years. On DD MM 20XX, the first real estate agent was appointed to sell the property. After six weeks, the real estate agent was replaced with a second agent. The property was sold on DD MM 20XX. Settlement occurred on DD MM 20XX.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 section 118-195