The facts of the case stated the deceased was diagnosed with an illness and required several hospitalisations, but decided to return to work. It was agreed between the beneficiary and the deceased that the beneficiary would accompany the deceased to help with the transition back to work.

The beneficiary presented evidence that stated they stayed with the deceased at the deceased's rental property for an undisclosed period and cared for the deceased by providing domestic support, including attending to cleaning, washing and some food preparations, personal care and assistance, and emotional support, including providing comfort.

The beneficiary told the court that the deceased had agreed to purchase plane tickets for them to relocate to manage the ongoing caring role. The deceased also maintained payment of all utilities of the property, as well as paying for most of the food, while the beneficiary maintained most of the domestic duties.

The court requested more information and the beneficiary provided bank statements showing everyday expenses incurred during their stay with the deceased. They also provided bank statements from the deceased showing everyday expenses and salary from employment, payment of rent and utilities.

The ruling stated that firstly, under subsection 995-1(1) of the ITAA 1997, the beneficiary did not qualify as a death benefit dependent as they were the parent of the deceased.

“As the beneficiary is the parent of the deceased, paragraphs 302-195(1)(a) and (b) of the ITAA 1997 are not applicable,” it stated.

“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.

“The beneficiary was not financially dependent on the deceased person and therefore, paragraph 302-195(1)(d) of the ITAA 1997 is not applicable.”

Furthermore, the ruling said that to meet the definition of a death benefits dependant, the beneficiary must have been in an interdependency relationship with the deceased, in accordance with paragraph 302-195(1)(c) of the ITAA 1997.

Regarding satisfying the requirements of an interdependency relationship, the ruling stated that the relationship between the beneficiary and the deceased was not over and above a normal family relationship between a parent and an adult child.

“The matters that indicate the beneficiary and the deceased did not have a close personal relationship before the deceased's death are:

a. The beneficiary provided significant care and support to the deceased when the deceased was sick. However, the significant care and support were not expected to be ongoing. It was agreed between both parties that this was up until the deceased was feeling better. This level of care did not exceed the care and comfort that would usually be provided by a parent to an adult child.

b. The beneficiary and the deceased lived together for a period of five months, if not for the deceased's illness, the beneficiary would have remained in their home with their spouse in Brisbane. The beneficiary would not have continued to live together if the deceased were still alive. This indicates that the beneficiary and the deceased did not have a mutual commitment to a shared life.

Therefore, a close personal relationship did not exist between the beneficiary and the deceased, and the first requirement specified in paragraph 302-200(1)(a) of the ITAA 1997 has not been satisfied in this case.”