• Mrs Bassel is attributed with 50% of the income and the assets of the [Family Trust 1];
• Mrs Bassel is attributed with 1% of the income and assets of [Business 1].

SOCIAL SECURITY - Age Pension - permissible reductions to business income - earnings from inherited business and trust - controlled private trust - asset attribution to attributable stakeholder - decision under review set aside and remitted

Names used in all published decisions are pseudonyms. Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision and replaced with generic information pursuant to subsection 201(1A) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999.

1. This review is about whether Centrelink correctly assessed Mrs Bassel's rate of age pension from 1 January 2025.
2. On 3 February 2025, an officer of Services Australia - Centrelink (Centrelink) decided to reduced Mrs Bassel's rate of Age Pension from 1 January 2025 due to the income attributed to her from the [Family Trust 1] (the Trust) and [Business 1] (the Company).
3. On 14 May 2025, Mrs Bassel asked for an internal review of the decision and on 5 August 2025, an authorised review officer affirmed the decision. The authorised review officer determined 100% of the income and assets of the Trust are attributable to Mrs Bassel as she has the authority to remove and appoint trustees, which gives her control of the income and assets of the Trust. Also, 1% of the income and assets of the Company are attributed to Mrs Bassel because she holds 1% of the shares in the Company.
4. On 15 August 2025, Mrs Bassel lodged an application for review of the decision with the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).
5. On 5 December 2025, the Tribunal conducted a hearing during which Mrs Bassel provided sworn evidence in person, in support of her application for review. Mrs Bassel was accompanied by her stepdaughter, [Ms C] who also provided sworn evidence. The Tribunal had before it a bundle of documents provided by Centrelink (777 pages) which had also been provided to Mrs Bassel. Mrs Bassel provided further material being statutory declarations by Ms Bassel, dated 16 October 2025 and [Son A] dated 11 October 2025, banks statements for [Business 2], a statutory declaration by [Ms A] dated 10 February 2016 and banks statements for [Business 2] (A1 to A14); a copy of this material was provided to Centrelink.

1. The statutory provisions relevant to this review are contained in the Social Security Act 1991 (the Act) and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 (the Administration Act).
2. The Tribunal also referred to the Social Security Guide (the Guide) in making this decision. The Guide sets out the approach taken by Centrelink to its consideration of social security matters. It expresses policy and the Tribunal is not bound by such policy; however, in Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 60, the Full Court of the Federal Court held that a tribunal should consider relevant government policy which is not inconsistent with the provisions or objects of the relevant legislation. The Tribunal adopts this approach in the present matter.
3. The issue which arises in this case is whether Centrelink correctly assessed the rate of age pension payable to Mrs Bassel. A determination of the issue requires consideration of how certain assets and income should be treated for the purpose of assessing her rate of age pension.

1. Section 55 of the Act states that the rate of age pension for a person is determined by the Rate Calculator at the end of section 1064 of the Act. The Rate Calculator requires that a person's rate of age pension is calculated under both an income test and an assets test and whichever test produces the lowest rate of payment is the test that is applied. In this case the assets test was applied.
2. An asset, for the purposes of calculating age pension entitlements under section 1064 of the Act, is defined in subsection 11(1) as follows:

asset means property or money (including property or money outside Australia).

1. If a person's assets are above the relevant assets value limit, their maximum payment rate is reduced (section 1064-G1). Section 44 of the Act provides that an age pension is not payable if a person's rate is nil.
2. Currently, age pension will reduce for a single homeowner if their assets are above $321,500, and the current disqualifying asset limit for a single homeowner is $714,500.
3. Section 1072 of the Act says a person's ordinary income is their gross ordinary income from all sources for the period without any reduction (except allowable business income reductions).
4. Income is broadly defined in section 8 of the Act and includes a person's gross income from personal earnings. Mrs Bassel's income from the Trust and Company is ordinary income for the purposes of the Act and would reduce the rate of age pension payable to her. The Act provides that ordinary income is generally considered when it is first earned, derived or received.
5. Section 1073 of the Act says certain amounts, such as business income, are to be considered as income for 12 months from the date the amount is taken to have been received. Generally business income is assessed from the date of the latest tax return.
6. Where a person operates a business, section 1075 of the Act allows for permissible reductions to business income. Section 1075 of the Act allows a person to reduce their business income by "losses and outgoings that relate to the business and are allowable deductions for the purposes of section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997".
7. Section 8-1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 says that deductions can be claimed for losses and outgoings "incurred in gaining or producing your assessable income" or "necessarily incurred in carrying on a business for the purpose of gaining or producing your assessable income".
8. Section 1207 of the Act establishes a system for the attribution to individuals of the assets and income of private trusts and specifies that for an asset or income to be attributed to an individual:

(a) the trust must be a designated private trust (section 1207P); and

(b) the trust must be a controlled private trust in relation to the individual (section and 1207V); and

(c) the individual must be an attributable stakeholder of the trust (section 1207X).

A trust will be a controlled private trust or a controlled private company if the individual passes a control test or a source test...The asset deprivation rules and the income deprivation rules are modified if attribution happens.

1. A "designated private trust" has the meaning given by subsection 1207P(1) of the Act. It provides that a trust will meet this definition unless:

(ii) the units in the trust are held by 50 or more persons;

(iii) the trust was not created, continued in existence or operated under a scheme that was entered into or carried out for the sole or dominant purpose of enabling any individual or individuals to avoid the application of this Part....

(b) the trust is a complying superannuation fund (see subsection (3)); or

(c) the trust is an excluded trust (see subsection (4)).[1]

1. Additionally, for the purposes of Part 3.18 a trust is a "controlled private trust" if:

(1) For the purposes of this Part, a trust is a controlled private company in relation to an individual if the company is a designated private trust and:

(a) the individual passes the control test set out in subsection (2); or

(b) the individual passes the source test set out in subsection (3).

1. Section 1207X of the Act sets out provisions which deal with attributable stakeholders, asset attribution percentages and income attribution percentages. It generally provides that where a trust is a controlled private trust (in relation to an individual) then that individual will be an attributable stakeholder with an asset attribution of 100% of the assets or income of the private trust - unless Centrelink determines a lower percentage.
2. In making any such determination Centrelink is to comply with any relevant decision-making principles. Section 1209E provides that the Secretary may formulate such principles and these principles are to be complied with in making decisions under section 1207X.[2]
3. In this case, Centrelink applied the income test to reduce Mrs Bassel's rate of age pension on 1 January 2025 due to the income attributed to her from the Trust and Company. Centrelink attributed 100% of the income and assets of the Trust to Mrs Bassel on the basis that she has the authority to remove and appoint trustees, which gives her control of the income and assets of the Trust. Mrs Bassel was also attributed 1% of the income and assets of the Company because she holds 1% of the shares in the Company.
4. The Tribunal finds that Mrs Bassel was the wife of Mr Bassel who passed away [in] August 2024. There is no dispute that Mr Bassel made a will dated [in] July 2020. Pursuant to the term of the will Mrs Bassel was appointed the executor and in her stead Mr Bassel appointed his daughter, [Ms C], and his stepson, [named], executors and trustees of his will. Mr Bassel bequeathed the whole of his estate to Mrs Bassel for her sole use and benefit absolutely.
5. The Tribunal accepts that Mr Bassel married his former wife, [Ms A] in 1979 and they established the Trust by Deed of Settlement dated [in] April 1981. As the principal of the Trust Mr Bassel had the power to dismiss and appoint trustees; this power subsequently transferred to Mrs Bassel. The trustee company at the time of Mr Bassel's death was [Business 2]. The Tribunal found Mr Bassel held 10,000 of the 20,000 shares in [Business 2] and was a director of the Company. 5,000 shares each were held by (his children) Ms Bassel and [Son A] who are also directors. These shares had previously been held by Mr Bassel's former wife, [Ms A], who had been a director of the company until she transferred her interests to her children on 5 July 2024 (before Mr Bassel death).
6. The Tribunal has found that the Trust has a 49% interest in the Company, with Mr Bassel holding a 1% interest individually; the Tribunal accepts this 1% interest was bequeathed to Mrs Bassel.
7. A previous Tribunal (then the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, review Number; 2016/S092066) on 8 June 2016 considered whether Mr Bassel was an attributable stakeholder of the Trust and Company and the attribution percentage that applied to him.
8. Mr Bassel was previously assessed as an attributable stakeholder in [Business 2], with an attribution percentage of 50%. And since 2002, he was attributed with 50% of the income and assets of the Trust. Mr Bassel did not dispute this assessment. As a result of a Centrelink review of Mr Bassel's entitlement to age pension in 2015, Mr Bassel was attributed with 100% of the income and the value of the assets of the Trust. At the time Mr Bassel submitted that his former wife, [Ms A] was entitled to 50% of the income and assets of the Trust, and as a director and shareholder of the trustee company, should be attributed with 50% of the income and assets, as has been the case in the past.
9. The evidence before the previous Tribunal was that Mr Bassel operated his [business] through the Trust and [Ms A] also had business interests during the marriage, which he thought were also operated through the Trust. In the 1980s the property [at Address 1] was purchased. The property is owned by the Company. Of the 128 shares in that company, 63 are held by the Trust and one is held by Mr Bassel personally. The remaining 64 shares are held by [Mr B]. Mr Bassel and [Ms A] separated in the early 1990s. They did not have a formal property settlement. Since the 1990s they have been trying to sell the property [at Address 1]. Evidence was provided and accepted by the previous Tribunal that it was always understood that [Ms A] was entitled to half of the income from the family trust, and if the assets were sold she would be entitled to half the proceeds. Evidence was accepted by the previous Tribunal, including [Bank 1] Statements for periods during 2013, 2014, and 2015, showing that Mr Bassel and [Ms A] received equal drawings from the Trust, and that the amounts received were as shown in the financial statements; there have been some years when there were no drawings/dividends from the Trust. The previous Tribunal accepted that Mr Bassel and [Ms A] always operated on the basis that Mr Bassel and [Ms A] shared in the income of the Trust equally and if assets were sold, [Ms A] would be entitled to half the proceeds.
10. [Ms A] provided a Statutory Declaration (dated 10 February 2016), which states that she is a director and shareholder of [Business 2], and she and Mr Bassel have received equal drawings from the Company since they divorced in 1992. Essentially the arrangement was part of the property settlement.
11. There is no dispute that the only business activity of the Trust and company continues to be the rental of the commercial property, a mall, at [Address 1], currently with four tenancies: three smaller tenancies and one larger tenancy. Mrs Bassel gave evidence the rental income varies depending on whether the properties are leased or not. They have been trying to sell the property for many years without success; that is still the intention if they can find a buyer. The Tribunal accepts that the accountant takes care of most things to do with the property and there is not much to do due to the limited nature of the business. This has been the case for many years.
12. The Tribunal has found the Trust was established in 1981 and operated for the benefit of both Mr Bassel and [Ms A], who are both directors and shareholders of the trustee company. The previous Tribunal accepted that [Ms A] and Mr Bassel had received equal drawings and dividends from [Business 2] since their divorce in the early 1990s. The previous Tribunal determined that, having regard to the attribution principles, Mr Bassel should be attributed with 50% of the income and the value of the assets of the Trust, and the rate of his age pension should be calculated under section 1064 of the Act on that basis. That assessment remained in force until Mr Bassel's death.
13. Mrs Bassel submitted that nothing has changed and the same 50% attribution, as applied to Mr Bassel, should also be applied to her as that is the interest that passed to her under the terms of Mr Bassel's will. It was always her understanding, and that of her husband, that he was only entitled to 50% of the Trust and Mr Bassel's former wife, [Ms A], was entitled to other 50%. She was aware that this arrangement was in place since Mr Bassel and [Ms A] divorced; they both co-signed documents and made financial decision about the Trust on this basis. This was always the case, and nothing changed.
14. Ms Bassel gave evidence that before her father's death, her mother resigned from the Company and transferred her 50% share of the Trust and Company to her and her brother, [Son A]. The records show that on 5 July 2024, 5,000 shares each in [Business 2] were transferred to Ms Bassel and her brother. This was done through their accountant who arranged various documents they were required to sign. It was always the understanding within the family, including Mr Bassel, his ex-wife, the children and Mrs Bassel, that Mr Bassel had a 50% interest in the Trust and Company and was only entitled to transfer that interest as part of his will. The other 50% interest belonged to Ms Bassel and her brother.
15. Ms Bassel gave evidence that her mother's interest was passed on to her and her brother on 5 July 2024, and they have received drawings and distribution from the Trust accordingly since. Ms Bassel referred to [Bank 1] statements for [Business 2] which show equal distributions/drawings to Mr Bassel and [Ms A] in 2016 ($3,000 each) and 2015 ($5,000 each). Bank statements dated June 2025 show distributions/drawings of $5,500 to Mrs Bassel and $2,750 each to Ms Bassel and [Son A]. In June 2024, they each received $3,500.
16. Ms Bassel and [Son A] provided statutory declarations (dated 16 October 2025 and 11 October 2025 respectively) stating, they are each one of three directors of [Business 2] and each has a 25% share of the Company and Mrs Bassel has a 50% share. Distributions from the Trust are completed using the above partnership percentages verified by the Trust bank statements. Her and her brother's 25% shares were received from their mother ([Ms A]) who had a 50% share of the Company and Mrs Bassel's share was transferred to her upon her husband's - their father's - passing.
17. Mrs Bassel gave evidence that she has not contributed to the Trust or the purchase of the Trust's assets; it was operated by her husband who received 50% of the drawings and distributions after his divorce, with the other 50% going to his ex-wife. Since Mr Bassel's death, Mrs Bassel receives 50% of the income distribution from the Trust and 50% is distributed to Ms Bassel and her brother (since their mother's 50% interest was transferred to them).
18. Mrs Bassel contends, and the Tribunal accepts, that she is entitled to 50% of the income from the Trust and Company, and this has been the case since Mr Bassel's death, nothing has changed. Similarly, if assets of the Trust and Company are sold, she is entitled to 50% of the proceeds and all parties have operated on this basis for many years. This was the case when the 50% interest was held by Mr Bassel's ex-wife and since that interest was transferred to Ms Bassel and her brother.
19. As noted, section 1207X of the Act allows Centrelink to otherwise determine that an individual is an attributable stakeholder with an asset attribution of 100%. The Tribunal is required to consider that section of the Act and the relevant attribution principles.[3] The principles require a decision-maker to consider a number of factors. It is to be noted that no single factor will necessarily be determinative of whether Mrs Bassel should be attributed less than 100% of the income and assets of the Trust, but rather, all the factors in their totality must be considered by the Tribunal.
20. The attribution principles provide that:

(1) This Part applies if, but for a determination by the Secretary, the individual would be an attributable stakeholder of the company or trust.

(2) The Secretary must consider the relationship between the individual and the company or trust having regard to:

(a) the reason why, but for a determination, the individual would be an attributable stakeholder; and

(3) In particular, the Secretary must consider whether the effect of one or more of the circumstances mentioned in this Part, in relation to the individual and the company or trust, provides a sufficient basis on which to determine that the individual is not an attributable stakeholder of the company or trust

(1) This Part applies if, but for a determination by the Secretary, the asset attribution percentage of the attributable stakeholder, in relation to the company or trust, would be 100%.

(2) The Secretary must consider the relationship between the individual and the company or trust, having regard to the circumstances mentioned in this Part.

(3) In particular, the Secretary must consider whether the effect of one or more of the circumstances mentioned in this Part, in relation to the individual and the company or trust, provides a sufficient basis on which to determine a percentage lower than 100% as the asset attribution percentage.

1. Principles 7 to 13 are relevant when considering circumstances that make it inappropriate for a person to be an attributable stakeholder of a company or trust, and principles 15 to 22 contain the decision-making principles if a determination is to be made that the asset attribution percentage is to be less than 100%. These considerations are as follows:
   • circumstances affecting relationship with company or trust;
   • contribution to company or trust;
   • past benefit from distributions by company or trust;
   • future benefit from distributions by company or trust;
   • benefit from assets and income of company or trust;
   • existing attribution to individual; and
   • other circumstances.
2. The Tribunal accepts that following Mr Bassel's death, under the terms of his will, Mrs Bassel became the appointer of the Trust, which is administered by a trustee company, [Business 2]. Mrs Bassel holds 50% of the shares in [Business 2]. The balance of the shares is held by Ms Bassel and her brother, [Son A].
3. The Tribunal accepts Mrs Bassel could reasonably be expected to exercise control over the Trust. As a result, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mrs Bassel meets the control test and as such she is an attributable stakeholder and will be attributed 100% of the Trust's assets unless there is a determination otherwise in accordance with the relevant decision-making principles.
4. The Tribunal concluded that the legal structure of the Trust is such that there is an intention that Mrs Bassel is to be distributed income and capital from the Trust, but like the arrangements with her late husband, there is no intention that she is to be provided 100% of the income or capital. The Trust has operated for many years based on Mr Bassel being entitled to 50% of the income and capital and his ex-wife being entitled to the other 50%. The Tribunal accepts that under the terms of Mr Bassel's will it was the intention that the estate was entitled to 50% of the Trust's income and assets, and this is what was bequeathed to Mrs Bassel. The Tribunal has found that Mr Bassel had been entitled to 50% of the Trust's income and assets since his divorce from [Ms A] in 1992.
5. In terms of circumstances arising from the administrative arrangements of the Trust, Mrs Bassel advised that she deals with the accountant who manages the day-to-day affairs of the Trust. The Tribunal accepts that Mrs Bassel is entitled to 50% of the distribution which reflects the long-standing arrangement, dating back to 1992, following Mr Bassel's divorce from his ex-wife (who was entitled to 50% of the Trust income and capital).
6. In terms of contributions to the Trust, there is no evidence to show that Mrs Bassel has contributed to the Trust since its establishment. Her husband's 50% interest in the Trust (and Company) were bequeathed to her under his will. The Tribunal has found that the Trust was established by Mr Bassel and his ex-wife, [Ms A], and following their divorce in 1992, they each received 50% of the Trust distribution. [Ms A] transferred her 50% interest to her children Ms Bassel and [Son A] on 5 July 2024. Future benefits from the Trust will be distributed as follows: 50% to Mrs Bassel, 25% each to Ms Bassel and [Son A]. Mrs Bassel, Ms Bassel and [Son A] are of the mutual understanding that this is in accordance with the long-established arrangements of the Trust and reflect their late husband's and father's wishes.
7. The Tribunal accepts that it is the clear intention of the terms of the will are that Mr Bassel's estate includes 50% of the Trust income and capital, and this is what was bequeathed to Mrs Bassel.
8. In the matter of Ragless and Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services [2005] AATA 1299, the AAT emphasised that the underlying policy rationale for the introduction of legislation relating to private trusts and companies must be kept in mind when applying the Principles_._ The policy rationale is that "income support entitlements are based on a person's level of resources not on the way in which he/she holds those resources" (refer Second Reading Speech Hansard/House of Representatives 17 August 2000).
9. The Tribunal considered the attribution principles carefully as they apply to this case. The Tribunal also noted the policy rationale of the legislation relating to companies and trusts, as outlined in paragraph 48 of these Reasons.
10. Having considered the available evidence and considering the relevant decision-making principles, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mrs Bassel is to be attributed with 100% of the assets of the Trust. The Tribunal was satisfied, having regard to the attribution principles, that Mrs Bassel should be attributed with 50% of the income and the value of the assets of the Trust, and the rate of her age pension should be calculated under section 1064 of the Act on that basis.
11. The Tribunal accepts that Mrs Bassel is an attributable stakeholder in the Company and 1% of the income and assets of the Company is attributable to Mrs Bassel.

1. The decision under review is set aside and the matter is sent back to the Chief Executive Centrelink for reconsideration in accordance with the direction that from 1 January 2025 Mrs Bassel's rate of age pension is to be calculated on the basis that:
   • Mrs Bassel is attributed with 50% of the income and the assets of the [Family Trust 1];
   • Mrs Bassel is attributed with 1% of the income and assets of [Business 1].

[1] Social Security (Means Test Treatment of Private Trusts - Excluded Trusts) Declaration 2015 - has no application in this matter.

[2] Social Security (Attributable Stakeholders and Attribution Percentages) Principles 2017; Social Security (Attribution of Assets) Principles 2017; and the Social Security (Attribution of Income) Principles 2017.

[3] Social Security (Attributable Stakeholders and Attribution Percentages) Principles 2017.