1. Nezaam used to be a 40% shareholder in a private company, DEF (Pty) Ltd. His brother-in-law, Karriem held the other 60% in this company. In 2020, Nezaam sold his 40% shareholding in the company to Gert, who is not related to Nezaam or Karriem. Nezaam is however still employed by DEF (Pty) Ltd. DEF (Pty) Ltd also employs Joe, who holds no shares in the company and is not related to Nezaam, Karriem or Gert. Karriem and Gert have established that both Nezaam and Joe are integral for business continuation, and that in the event of either Nezaams or Joes death, the company will suffer losses. As a result of this Karriem and Gert decided that DEF (Pty) Ltd should effect keyperson policies on the lives of Nezaam and Joe the proceeds will be paid to DEF (Pty) Ltd in the event of Nezaams or Joes death in order to absorb losses that may be suffered by the company. Neither of the policies were thus effected at Nezaams or Joes instance. Which one of the following statements is correct? a. If Joe dies, the policy proceeds will be included in his estate as deemed property of estate duty purposes, and if Nezaam dies, the policy proceeds will likewise be included in his estate as deemed property of estate duty purposes. b. If Joe dies, the policy proceeds will not be included in his estate as deemed property of estate duty purposes, and if Nezaam dies, the policy proceeds will likewise not be included in his estate as deemed property of estate duty purposes. c. If Joe dies, the policy proceeds will be included in his estate as deemed property of estate duty purposes, but if Nezaam dies, the policy proceeds will not be included in his estate as deemed property of estate duty purposes. d. If Joe dies, the policy proceeds will not be included in his estate as deemed property of estate duty purposes, but if Nezaam dies, the policy proceeds will be included in his estate as deemed property of estate duty purposes. e. None of the above