Re Estate of Badstuebner [2020] QSC 144 (29 May 2020)

This matter has been waiting for a determination for far too long.

This matter needs to be resolved very quickly in order to progress other estate matters."[27]

[50] The email's reference to the need for quick agreement on an executor's commission "in order to progress other estate matters" carried the inducement that Thomas' timely progression of the administration was dependent upon his siblings agreeing to the payment of an executor's commission. It is another, albeit subtle, example of Thomas abusing his control as executor to try and pressure his siblings into complying with his personal wishes.

[51] Later that same day Jennifer emailed Thomas with copies to her other two brothers, indicating she and her other two brothers had discussed and agreed on:

To you as executor for your 'executor services'"[28]

[52] The email noted in respect of the execution of the deed that Thomas taking possession of the Kirby Close property would be "contingent on all beneficiaries being satisfied with the full settlement of the estate - including submission of records, receipts, invoices and statements - that clearly show the estate has been managed entirely to the benefit of the estate in all regards".

[53] Thomas' response, by email directed to his siblings, was:

"In regard to Jennifer's email below on agreement for executor's costs, I look forward to individual acknowledgment from Brett and Karl as indicated.

At such time I will be in a position to resume services to the estate."[29]

[54] Thomas was evidently making performance, indeed the resumption, of his executor's duties conditional upon his siblings agreeing to payment of an executor's fee. If Thomas wanted an executor's commission, and his siblings were unwilling to agree to it, the proper recourse was to take his chances with an application in due course to the court. If he was reluctant to continue as executor without being guaranteed of a commission, it was open to him to renounce. However, in trying to induce his siblings' agreement to him being paid a commission by threatening to not administer the estate in a timely way he was placing his personal interests in conflict with his duties as executor.

[55] Jennifer sent a number of follow-up emails on 11 and 12 December 2018 including one in which she requested that a partial distribution of the "cash at bank" occur if, in light of the deed not proceeding, the Kirby Close property was to be placed on the market.[30] By an email to his siblings later the same day, Thomas noted:

"As there now will be no deed there are a number of issues that require attention ASAP and before any further progression. Karl has indicated that he will not make an allowance for executor's costs. As there will now be extensive further and ongoing executive duties ... there are several options;

• Genuine consideration be given to the time, effort and expense that I have previously put into the administration of the estate and which could potentially continue into the foreseeable future.
• The three of you take up my previous offer to handle the sale and management arrangements for the house with the authority of the executor.
• The bulk of any ongoing administration of the estate be outsourced to a solicitor's firm such as Montgomery's who are mentioned in the will.
• I will instruct Miller Harris to apply for a determination on the executor's fee. ...

The latter two options have the potential to cost the estate many thousands of dollars and thereby affect all of our bottom lines."[31]

[56] Such language was obviously calculated at inducing his siblings to look upon their agreement to payment of an executor's fee to him as the least inconvenient option available to them in seeing to it that the estate would be distributed.

[57] On 13 December 2018 Karl emailed Thomas, noting Thomas appeared focussed on his direct needs rather than what was of benefit to all the beneficiaries. He observed the duties remaining for Thomas as executor were not of an onerous nature and that the beneficiaries were all agreed on outsourcing the property to a real estate agent. The email went on to observe that the only way an executor's fee could be granted was either the agreement of all beneficiaries or an application to the Supreme Court. Karl noted he would welcome such an application and would contribute his view to the court on Thomas' performance as an executor.[32] The email reminded Thomas there were outstanding unanswered queries from the beneficiaries, including the provision of an explanation to the beneficiaries as to why a partial distribution could not occur.

[58] On 31 December 2018 Thomas emailed his siblings, stating, inter alia:

"Given that selling the house may take some time I am prepared to look at a partial distribution of the cash assets, if acceptable to all beneficiaries.

As we're at the point of selling the house, we need to determine the process. These are the options as I see it.

1. I can handle the arrangements with a number and variety of agents.
2. The three of you could handle those arrangements.
3. We engage Montgomery's or a similar law firm to do the same.

As I previously pointed out, if I'm required to carry out further tasks on top of what I've already done, then a determination on an executor's fee needs to be made asap ...

If some determination is not made then I will initially make enquiries under option 3 for a law firm to handle further duties of the estate, including marketing the house, any partial distribution deliberations and so on.

As we are all aware there is also the option of applying to the courts for a determination on an executor's fee,

We should also be well aware that both these scenarios will be expensive and time consuming for the estate. I would prefer not to follow either case, but it should be obvious that there has been considerable time, effort, resources and energy already put in to this estate on my part, and now with the prospect of more to come I ... urge each of you to reasonably consider what position you wish to take for the best outcome."[33]

[59] Such language implicitly threatened the pursuit of the most expensive options for the estate if Thomas' siblings' did not agree to payment of an executor's commission.

[60] On 1 January 2019, in an email by Karl to his siblings, he queried why the above intimated partial distribution would have the effect of leaving a balance of over $180,000 in the estate accounts which, he asked, "seems to be a sizable sum of money for what contingency?" He went on to indicate that the option of the other beneficiaries taking over the house sale was unrealistic because the real estate agent could only be engaged by the duly appointed executor and that the option of having a law firm engaged to sell the property would only add additional expense because in any event the firm would outsource the property to a real estate agent. He indicated the option of the executor selling the house with the assistance of real estate agents was preferred. He further noted he would not sign off on "the full and final executor's fee of $2,000 cash and chattels as requested by the executor" unless option one was agreed to and payment was made promptly in early January.[34]

[61] Later on the same day Thomas responded, noting that everyone appeared to agree upon the so-called option one of him arranging for real estate agents to sell the property, but made it plain there would be no payment of a distribution until the payment of an executor's fee, saying:

"Upon receipt of a clear acceptance of the executor's fee, I will contact NAB to determine the best payment option."[35]

[62] This was yet another instance of him wrongly conditioning the performance of his duty as executor upon receipt of an executor's fee.

[63] It had the desired effect. On 2 January 2019 Jennifer, Karl and Brett each emailed Thomas stating that they accepted and agreed to the payment of "an executor's fee of $2,000 and the estate chattels, for executor's services past, present and future to Thomas Badstuebner, to be paid upon partial distribution of the cash assets of the amount of $800,000."[36]

[64] On 7 January 2019 an interim distribution was made, with Karl receiving $204,250, Jennifer receiving $204,250, Brett receiving $195,250 plus the deceased's Nissan Navarra valued at $9,000 and Tom receiving $196,250 plus the deceased's Nissan Maxima valued at $8,000.[37]

[65] Having effectively extorted his siblings' agreement to him receiving a commission as a condition of him making any interim distribution Thomas may have thought he had prevailed. He had not. On 5 February 2019 solicitors acting for Karl wrote to Thomas, alleging he had in various ways preferred his own interests to those of the beneficiaries, including "blackmailing and threatening the beneficiaries" by stating that he would charge an executor's fee if they did not agree to his requests.[38] That complaint was well founded. The letter also requested a variety of information relating to the administration of the estate and foreshadowed that if a satisfactory response was not received an application would be filed.

[66] In a responding letter by Thomas' solicitors on 8 March 2019 it was admitted Thomas had received money from the estate for his management fees. The letter asserted Thomas had mistakenly believed a clause of the will entitled him to charge reasonable fees with respect to management and maintenance of the Kirby Close property.[39] The amount Thomas charged on that basis was apparently $2,107.50.[40] The letter also mentioned Thomas had received $3,031 in cash for the sale of various of the deceased's chattels and was holding the cash on behalf of the estate. No explanation was given as to why that money would not have been banked into an account of the estate. Further, the letter revealed Thomas had arranged for payment of the rent of the Kirby Close property to be paid into his personal account weekly "so that he could closely monitor receipt of same". He asserted the rental proceeds were transferred into the estate bank account once a month.

"Going forward I would be aiming for a swift conclusion to the Estate with a complete and final distribution at that point.

There remain several matters to deal with including Estate tax returns for 18/19 & 19/20, sale of several chattels, ongoing insurance claim, payment of final electricity account, and a determination on an executor's commission."[50]

[75] None of the dealings involving estate tax returns,[51] sale of chattels, the insurance claim, which related to damage done by tenants, or the payment of a final electricity account loomed as involving significant expenditure for the estate. In short, they were not material stumbling blocks to a further substantial interim distribution. Moreover, it is likely some such tasks would have been tended to long ago and the others would not have arisen at all, but for Thomas' long, self-interested pursuit of an arrangement by which he could own the Kirby Close property and the chattels.

[76] Developing the email's reference to a "determination on an executor's commission", the email continued:[52]

"As to the determination for an executor's commission, I simply ask for a reasonable response given the cost to me as executor, not only financially, but also in time, effort and distress involved over a long period of time. Consideration should be given to the income generated during the course of the Estate i.e. $31,223.67 for the 18/19 year alone and that a sale price for the house was achieved at a figure $40,000 above the valuation. There will need to be a discussion at the earliest convenience for a mutually agreed response, so as to determine what course will be required in order to further facilitate the conclusion of the estate." (emphasis added)

[77] By email of 17 September 2019 to Thomas and his siblings, Karl observed because the major estate asset had been liquefied there was no reason to hold large reserves of cash in the estate accounts and that another interim distribution should occur. He went on to assert he had been financially disadvantaged by Thomas' action "or inaction" and forecast Thomas' misconduct as executor would cause a court to refuse any award of an executor's commission.[53]

[78] Undaunted, Thomas responded by email on 18 September 2019 warning of the potential cost to the estate of having to bring an application for commission and again asking to be compensated for the cost to him of having to administer the estate.[54] No explanation was given as to why a further interim distribution could not occur. The circumstances compel the inference that Thomas was again hoping his siblings' interest in receiving another interim distribution would cause them to buckle to his resumed quest for their agreement that he be paid a commission.

[79] Karl reiterated by return email that he did not agree to the executor getting any commission and that Thomas' persistence in asking for consent to it was "getting to be bullying".

[80] Still undeterred, on 20 September 2019 Thomas emailed his siblings, noting he was yet to receive a reply from Brett or Jennifer as to their position regarding an executor's commission.[55] It is difficult to understand the point of such an email in circumstances where Thomas well appreciated Karl's lack of consent would preclude Thomas receiving a commission by agreement. Karl intimated as much in a return email later that same date in which he also said:

"What should not be happening is any insinuation stated or otherwise that the settlement of the estate is contingent on a fee or any agreement to a fee or payment of any type."[56]

[81] Emails from Brett and Jennifer to Thomas of 20 September 2019 in any event made it plain their agreement to the payment of an executor's commission would not be forthcoming.[57]

[82] On 22 September 2019 Thomas had email exchanges with both Brett and Jennifer, obviously calculated at persuading them to change their position. On 23 September 2019 Jennifer enquired of Thomas by email:

"Are you delaying the settlement of the estate (distribution and submission of estate accounts) until you can secure agreement from the beneficiaries that they will agree to pay you an executor fee?"[58]

[83] In a remarkable response by email on 23 September 2019, Thomas professed surprise at Jennifer's suggestion. His lengthy response included assertions that, because Karl was refusing an executor's fee, Thomas had "little option but ... to now outsource any further administrative duties to a suitably qualified legal or accounting firm" and that the estate could have been wound up "almost 12 months ago except for the ridiculous antics of Karl and yourself by disputing indemnity clauses provided by a reputable law firm in the Deed of Arrangement". The letter went on to try and enlist Jennifer to change Karl's mind and noted:

"If such commonsense were to prevail, I would also hopefully be able to avoid the arduous task of outsourcing the ongoing administrative duties, and the associated added cost to the estate."

[84] Despite his professed denial of the suggestion that Thomas was delaying the settlement of the estate in order to secure agreement from the beneficiaries to an executor's fee, the substance of the letter had the presumably unintended effect of confirming the accuracy of Jennifer's allegation.

[85] On 3 October 2019 Karl emailed Thomas, outlining how, despite recent correspondence from Karl's lawyers to Thomas', Thomas had set about contacting him by a telephone call on 2 October, in which Thomas stated:

"[T]hat the estate was right on the cusp of being finalised and could be done so promptly if

1. if the beneficiaries agreed to the $6,000 you want as an executor's fee and
2. accepted the accounts as presented by you, without going through a third party to put it together."[59]

The email also referred to an SMS by Thomas in which he had messaged, "For your own sake and that of the entire estate why not at least try to discuss a resolution?". By email of 6 October 2019 Thomas described the assertions in Karl's email as fantasies.

[86] In emails of 21 and 22 October 2019 Karl proposed to Thomas, with Jennifer's and Brett's agreement, that another partial distribution should occur, there being "no reason why such a large amount of cash needs to be held by the estate when only a small amount needs to be held back until the estate is finalised".[60] In Thomas' email response of 24 October 2019 he disagreed that most of the estate costs were known, asserted there were a number of considerable potential costs that may need to be determined and asserted it would be more sensible "to minimise expense to the estate" by making a single final distribution at the conclusion of the estate.[61] He did not explain what "expense to the estate" would be caused by another interim distribution, given it would merely involve transferring funds held in a bank account.

[87] An explanation was predictably requested and in an email of 29 October 2019 Thomas purported to give it:

"In order to make a distribution, as I have on two previous occasions, I would have to attend a NAB branch in business hours.

Depending on which branch, that involves one to two hours travel, plus the time for the transactions.

That is a personal cost to me, not only in lost time to my own business, but also for vehicle expense and the requirements for the transaction.

I have put forward a number of questions to the beneficiaries over the course of this estate without response, including the following:

Why I am expected to incur substantial personal costs for this estate with no recompense, while only being one of four equal beneficiaries??"[62]

[88] Yet again Thomas' language linked the fulfilment of his executor's duties with the issue of him being compensated for carrying them out. It is noteworthy Thomas' explanation did not assert the administration would be jeopardised by another interim distribution. That is hardly surprising given the sale of the Kirby Close property had settled almost two months earlier. The estate's remaining debts and liabilities would have been small in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of dollars immediately available to distribute. A further substantial distribution could readily have been made without risk to the administration. Thomas was stalling, again putting his self interest in inducing an agreement about his commission in conflict with his duty as executor to distribute as soon as may be.

[89] By late November 2019 correspondence was being exchanged between Thomas' and Karl's solicitors in respect of a potential arrangement by which Thomas would forego a claim to an executor's remuneration, legal costs of the estate were to be paid from the residuary estate and remaining administration tasks were to be attended to in a timely manner.[63] However, in an optimistic letter of 2 December 2019, Thomas' lawyer advised that there would need to be a deed of release and indemnity prepared and signed by all parties for the purpose of such an agreement. Karl's solicitor promptly and unsurprisingly rejected the request for a release and indemnity.[64]

[90] Still no further interim distribution was forthcoming.

[91] Further unproductive exchanges ensued between Thomas and his siblings. Thomas' emails pursued familiar themes. For instance, in an email to Jennifer of 13 December he wrote:

"There needs to be an attitude change in order to try and put this estate behind us. I have put forward a proposal that could see this estate finalised in the near future. If that proposal is not reconsidered or a viable alternative agreed on, then we are looking at continuing for another 12 months or more. ... Surely it is possible for us to come to some arrangement between ourselves, without squandering more and more of any assets, either estate or personal??"[65]

[92] There was no need for an "attitude change". There was no need to come to any "arrangement" in order for Thomas to do his duty as executor. He should have made a further interim distribution, retaining sufficient funds to cover the estate's lingering liabilities, including his prospective claim to the court for commission, and otherwise continued to administer the estate according to law.

[93] Remarkably, by the time of the hearing of the present application on 24 April 2020, over seven months after the settlement of the Kirby close sale, there still had been no further partial distribution forthcoming. No evidence was proffered in explanation of why it had not been made. Such evidence as there is of any of the estate's lingering financial obligations after the time of the sale makes it clear that a substantial distribution could easily have been made soon after the property was sold without remotely jeopardising the administration of the estate according to law. Thomas should have made such a substantial distribution soon after the sale settled. By not doing so, not even by the time he pursued this application, he was in on-going breach of his duty to distribute as soon as may be.

[94] The above analysis demonstrates the administration was materially delayed in the second half of 2018 by Thomas' self-interested pursuit of ownership of the deceased's house and chattels. His siblings reasonably afforded him an opportunity to pursue that outcome and to that end did not resist him renting the house. Their consent to that extent fell well short of the agreement Thomas sought via his ill-fated deed but it means the associated delay in the second half of 2018, while contextually relevant, is not of itself concerning. However, it was in that era, commencing with his email of 22 September 2018, that Thomas commenced breaching his two duties as executor to avoid conflict of interest and to distribute the estate as soon as may be.

[95] It is a significant consideration in my determination of the application that his threat to not make an interim distribution if the deed was not executed was not an isolated slip in an otherwise proper discharge of his role. If it had been then it might be dismissed as a regrettable fit of pique involving minor culpability and consequence. However, it was just the beginning of a sustained pattern of such breaches.

[96] By 24 November he had also begun abusing his control over the progress of the administration in order to induce his siblings' agreement to a commission for him. He repeated such a conflict in the exercise of his duty on 1 January 2019. Indeed, it was only after he had thereby extorted their agreement that he finally made an interim distribution on 7 January 2019. No explanation has been advanced as to why, given the estate's large cash reserves, an interim distribution had not been made much earlier. By not distributing earlier Thomas was in breach of his duty to distribute as soon as may be. He breached that duty, to advance his own interests, in conflict with his role as executor.

[97] It is no answer to say that during the prolonged delay in administration the rental of the house and interest on the bank accounts in the meantime earned the estate income. Thomas' siblings made plain that they wanted access to their monies as soon as may be, as was their right. Thomas' breach of duty had the detrimental consequence that his siblings' right to have and use significant amounts of their inheritance for their purposes was needlessly delayed.

[98] By September 2020, the era when the house sale settled and an interim distribution of significant cash holdings could readily be made, Thomas was yet again abusing his trusted position as executor. He was a little subtler this time around but a collective consideration of his emails of September through December 2019 make his extortionate intent clear. He was threatening to stall the administration and make no further interim distribution to again induce his siblings' agreement to an executor's commission for him. He was at once breaching both the no conflict rule and his duty to distribute as soon as may be.

[101] My tentative view is that costs should follow the event and that they should not have to be borne by the estate. However, there may be matters I am unaware of and the parties should have an opportunity to be heard as to costs if they cannot be agreed. My orders will cater for that.

[102] My orders are:

1. Application dismissed.
2. I will hear the parties as to costs at 9.15 am 10 June 2020, if the Registrar has not in the meantime been notified in writing that costs are agreed.

[1] I will for convenience, and intending no disrespect, herein refer to the deceased's children by their first names.

[2] Affidavit of Thomas Paul Badstuebner, dated 20 March 2020, Court doc 2, Ex TPB9 p 46.

[3] Affidavit of Thomas Paul Badstuebner, dated 20 March 2020, Court doc 2, Ex TPB4 pp 25-32.

[4] Affidavit of Thomas Paul Badstuebner, dated 20 March 2020, Court doc 2, Ex TPB4 p 28.

[5] There was no sale in that era - the property was rented.

[6] The exhibit contains some entries for late 2019, by which time the property was sold, so I infer they should refer to 2018.

[7] Affidavit of Thomas Paul Badstuebner, dated 20 March 2020, Court doc 2, Ex TPB4 p 27.

[8] De Groot's Publishing, Wills, Executors and Probate Administration (Qld), vol I, (at May 2020) [603].

[9] [2005] QSC 106.

[10] See for example the observations of Windeyer J in Re Phillips [2007] NSWSC 639, [11].

1. [11] Sometimes both approaches are drawn upon in summarily determining a commission appropriate to the case. For example, in Kirkpatrick v Kavulak [2005] QSC 282, McMurdo J, as he then was, after reasoning why a modest remuneration was appropriate, concluded an amount of $20,000 was a reasonable remuneration in the circumstances, observing it represented "slightly less than two per cent on capital of $1 million and one per cent of the income".

[12] [1983] 2 Qd R 613, 617.

[13] Re Estate Gowing (2014) 11 ASTLR 128, 143.

[14] [2010] NSWSC 48, [65].

[15] [1901] NSWStRp 53; (1901) 1 SR (NSW) B&P 48, 49.

[16] (1934) 51 WN (NSW) 84, 86.

[17] [2006] WASC 83, [29].

[18] See for example Gonzales v Claridades [2003] NSWSC 508; (2003) 58 NSWLR 188, 200-1 (the reasons of Campbell J later meeting with approval on appeal at [2003] NSWCA 227; (2003) 58 NSWLR 211, 215); Ex Parte Schneider; Re Estate of Blashild (2009) 3 ASTLR 61, 72-4; Ford v Princehorn; Estate of Ford [2012] NSWSC 1165 [27]-[28]; Dawson v Snedden [2019] NZHC 736, [45]-[59].

[19] G E Dal Pont and K F Mackie, Law of Succession (LexisNexis, 2nd ed, 2017) [12.21].

[20] [2012] NSWSC 1165, [42].

[21] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 pp 5-9.

[22] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 pp 30-32.

[23] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 pp 50-51.

[24] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 pp 635-636.

[25] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 55.

[26] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 pp 372, 373.

[27] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 371.

[28] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 371.

[29] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 371.

[30] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 pp 59, 60.

[31] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 59.

[32] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 58.

[33] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 65.

[34] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 pp 68, 69.

[35] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 71.

[36] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1pp 74-76.

[37] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 14.

[38] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 pp 77-80.

[39] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 82.

[40] Affidavit of Thomas Paul Badstuebner, dated 20 March 2020, Court doc 2, [94].

[41] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 83.

[42] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 pp 278-279.

[43] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 280.

[44] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 289.

[45] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 389.

[46] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 392.

[47] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 395.

[48] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 397.

[49] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 398.

[50] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 403.

[51] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 48 shows the estate had no tax payable for the year ended 30 June 2018.

[52] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 404.

[53] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 411.

[54] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 pp 412-413.

[55] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 415.

[56] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 416.

[57] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 pp 417, 418.

[58] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 431.

[59] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 438.

[60] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 pp 489-491.

[61] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 492.

[62] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 495-6.

[63] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 585.

[64] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 590.

[65] Affidavit of Karl Perry Badstuebner, dated 17 April 2020, Court doc 6, Ex KPB-1 p 604.