• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The trusts had different structures. The KJS trust was established under the will of Mr Saunders's late brother. Mr Saunders and another person were originally trustees. After the other trustee died, Mr Saunders became the sole trustee. The trust's assets were to be managed for Mr Saunders during his lifetime and for his niece after his death (factual background, para 1, corresponding to reasons [4]).

The second trust, the ICS trust, was established under the will of Mr Saunders's late father. Its trustee was Perpetual Trustees. Two sub-trusts mattered to the review. Under one, $400,000 was set aside, the income was payable to Mr Saunders, and the trustee had discretion to make payments to him from the capital. The trustee was not obliged to grant a request. Under the other, Mr Saunders had a 4/20 share in the remainder of the trust assets and income (factual background, para 2, corresponding to reasons [5]).

Mr Saunders accepted that income paid to him under the trust terms could be taken into account. His dispute concerned whether the trust assets, particularly those in the larger ICS trust, should also be attributed to him. He described requests to Perpetual Trustees for payments beyond the income entitlement. Some were granted and others refused. He considered Perpetual Trustees to be in control and was frustrated that he could not take control of the assets himself (factual background, paras 3–4, corresponding to reasons [6]–[7]).

The SSAT had concluded that the ICS trust was not a controlled private trust because its trustee was independent. The Secretary disagreed and sought AAT review (reasons [2]–[3]). The AAT set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter for reconsideration in accordance with its reasons. It did not make a final determination of the amount of pension payable.

Why the court decided this way

The AAT first identified the statutory question: whether either trust was a “controlled private trust” in relation to Mr Saunders under s 1207V. The parties did not appear to dispute that both trusts were “designated private trusts” under s 1207P. The Tribunal noted that the source test in s 1207V(3) did not appear relevant. Its analysis therefore focused on the control test in s 1207V(2) (reasons [8]–[9]).

For the KJS trust, the answer followed directly from the trustee-status limb. Section 1207V(2)(a) includes a situation where the individual is a trustee of the trust or an associate of a trustee. By the time of the hearing, Mr Saunders was the sole trustee. The Tribunal concluded that he passed the control test for this trust (reasons [10]–[11]).

The ICS trust raised a different question. Perpetual Trustees had discretion over additional payments from capital, and Mr Saunders's evidence showed that it did not automatically follow his requests. The Tribunal recognised why this made Centrelink's position appear puzzling to him. It also explained that following an individual's directions could be another way to satisfy the control test under s 1207V(2)(h), but that was not the only way (reasons [11], corresponding to the ICS discussion).

The decisive route was s 1207V(2)(d). As the Tribunal described it, this provision applied where the individual and any associates collectively held more than 50% of the beneficial interest in the corpus or income of the trust. Mr Saunders was entitled, in his own right, to more than 50% of the income of the first sub-trust. For the second sub-trust, he held a 20% share. The Tribunal then considered interests held by his relatives, who fell within the statutory concept of associates by reference to ss 1207B and 1207C. It concluded that the combined interests in the second sub-trust exceeded 50% (reasons [12]).

This reasoning is important because the Tribunal did not treat practical decision-making power over discretionary payments as the exclusive measure of control. Its analysis applied a separate statutory test based on aggregated beneficial interests. On its reading, an independent trustee and a beneficiary's inability to compel payments did not prevent the trust from meeting that alternative limb.

Having found the relevant trusts to be controlled private trusts, the Tribunal applied s 1207X(2). It concluded that Mr Saunders was an attributable stakeholder in the KJS trust and the two relevant ICS sub-trusts. The value of the assets held in those trusts was therefore to be attributed to him in calculating his age pension entitlement (reasons [13]). The disposition sent the matter back for reconsideration on that basis (reasons [14]).

Before and after state of the law

This decision is an application of the statutory framework reproduced and discussed in the judgment, rather than a decision that announces a new general rule outside that framework. Before the AAT's decision, the SSAT had treated the independence of Perpetual Trustees as decisive against control of the ICS trust. The AAT's reasons show why that was not conclusive under the provisions it considered: s 1207V(2) contained more than one route to satisfying the control test.

The distinction in the decision is between two ways of meeting that test. First, an individual's status as trustee could satisfy s 1207V(2)(a), as it did for the KJS trust. Second, collective beneficial interests could satisfy s 1207V(2)(d), even where the individual did not control the trustee's discretionary decisions. The latter route required the Tribunal to identify interests held by the individual and associates and assess whether their combined interest exceeded 50%.

The consequences followed through s 1207X(2): an individual found to be an attributable stakeholder had the relevant trust assets attributed in the pension calculation. The AAT's disposition did not itself decide the final pension outcome. It set aside the decision and remitted the matter for reconsideration consistent with its findings.

The supplied judgment identifies no later cases and contains no account of subsequent judicial treatment. It therefore supports analysis of what this Tribunal decided in 2009, but not a conclusion about whether later courts followed, limited or distinguished the reasoning. That question would require sources beyond this judgment.

Key passages with plain-English translation

The Tribunal stated that Mr Saunders was the sole trustee of the KJS trust and that it followed that he passed the control test for that trust (reasons [10]–[11]). In plain English, the statute's trustee-status limb applied without needing to decide whether Mr Saunders could influence another trustee.

For the ICS trust, the Tribunal noted that following Mr Saunders's directions could satisfy a different control provision, s 1207V(2)(h), but expressly said this was not the only relevant situation (reasons [11]). Put simply, the fact that Perpetual Trustees did not routinely act on his instructions did not end the statutory inquiry.

The Tribunal described s 1207V(2)(d) as applying where the individual and associates together held more than 50% of the beneficial interest in the trust's capital or income (reasons [12]). Its practical point was that the interests of relatives could count alongside Mr Saunders's own interest, because the Act's definitions treated relatives as associates in the circumstances addressed by the Tribunal.

Finally, the Tribunal concluded that the full value of the assets in the KJS trust and the two ICS sub-trusts had to be attributed to Mr Saunders for the pension assessment (reasons [13]). This did not amount to a decision that he would ultimately receive, or be refused, a particular pension amount. The matter was remitted for the decision-maker to reconsider.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The reasoning is most relevant where a social security assessment involves a private trust and the decision-maker must determine whether it is a controlled private trust in relation to an individual. The judgment identifies fact patterns that engage different statutory routes.

One is where the pension applicant is a trustee. In this case, the applicant was the sole trustee of a testamentary trust. The Tribunal treated that fact as sufficient under s 1207V(2)(a), without requiring proof that he had used the trustee role to benefit himself.

Another is where the applicant is not the trustee, and the trustee appears to act independently, but the applicant and associates hold a sufficiently large combined beneficial interest. The ICS trust illustrates that situation. The trustee retained discretion over additional capital payments, but the Tribunal separately examined interests in income and corpus under s 1207V(2)(d).

A further relevant feature is the trust's internal structure. The ICS trust included separate sub-trusts with different rights: an income entitlement and discretionary access to capital in one, and a fractional remainder share in another. The Tribunal considered the relevant interests within those sub-trusts. This decision should not be read as saying that every beneficiary's interest causes every asset of every related trust to be attributed. The conclusion was tied to the statutory test and the particular trust interests described in the reasons.

The judgment also makes the associate relationship material. The second sub-trust's analysis depended on combining Mr Saunders's interest with interests of relatives treated as associates. Where that connection, the nature of the beneficial interests, or their combined proportion differs, the application of the reasoning may differ as well. The judgment does not resolve those other configurations.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied reasons cite statutory provisions, including ss 1207B, 1207C, 1207P, 1207V and 1207X of the Social Security Act 1991. They do not cite another court judgment as authority and do not discuss any later decisions. The source therefore does not establish whether later courts have followed, distinguished, approved or otherwise treated this decision.

The procedural outcome should also be kept in view when assessing its significance. The AAT set aside the decision under review and remitted the matter. The reasons state how the Tribunal read the statutory control test on the facts before it, but the extract does not record a subsequent court appeal or later treatment. Any account of that later history would need to be checked against additional legal sources.

Still-open questions

The judgment's conclusions depend on the terms of the trusts and the statutory definitions as applied to the evidence before the Tribunal. It does not set out a detailed method for valuing or classifying every possible beneficial interest. In particular, the extract does not explore how to assess interests that are contingent, disputed, subject to different conditions, or difficult to quantify.

The reasons also do not provide a comprehensive account of how the control test would apply where a trust has several classes of beneficiaries, where associates' interests are divided across distinct trust structures, or where the individual and associates have interests in different forms. The decision identifies that relatives counted as associates in this case, but it does not analyse every possible relationship or the limits of the statutory definitions.

The Tribunal's treatment of the two ICS sub-trusts is specific to the rights described. It found that Mr Saunders had more than 50% of the first sub-trust's income and that his interest combined with associate interests exceeded 50% in the second. The extract does not explain in detail whether, or how, different income and corpus rights should be compared in a trust with more complex terms.

Finally, the AAT remitted the matter rather than determining a final pension rate. The reasons state that the identified trust assets were to be attributed, but do not set out the final recalculation or any later administrative outcome. Those matters remain outside what this judgment tells us.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before you act on this, rely on it, or use any draft, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.