Edited version of your private ruling

Authorisation Number: 1051834167739

Date of advice: 4 May 2021

Ruling

Subject: CGT and residency

Question

Did you become a resident of Australia for taxation purposes on XXXX?

Answer

Yes.

This ruling applies for the following period:

Year ended 30 June 20XX

The scheme commenced on:

1 July 20XX

Relevant facts and circumstances

You were born in Country Y.

You are a citizen of Australia and Country Z.

You have been a non-resident of Australia for the past XX years.

You and your spouse left Australia in the 20XX income year.

You have lived in a number of countries.

You were tax residence of the countries you lived in.

You removed from your name from the electoral role when you left Australia.

You cancelled your private health insurance when you left Australia.

You notified your bank institution when you left Australia.

You and your spouse returned to Australia in the 20XX income year.

The purpose of the trip back to Australia in the 20XX income year was for a 3-6 months visit with family and to recover from high pressure international careers.

During the visit both you your spouses' parents were sick and passed away.

In addition to the ill health of family members there was a pandemic which meant you were required to be in Australia longer than you had planned.

You and your spouse decided over the weekend of the XXX 20XX that you would remain in Australia.

You have a residence in Country Z which commenced construction in 20XX.

You and your spouse decided to sell this property and the sale contract was signed on XXX 20XX.

Settlement for the property in Country Z will be later in the 20XX income year.

You and your spouse have not been Commonwealth Government employees and were not eligible to contribute to the PSS or CSS Commonwealth Super funds.

Relevant legislative provisions

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Section 855-45

Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 Subsection 995-1(1)

Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 Subsection 6(1)

Reasons for decision

Section 6-5 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997) provides that where you are a resident of Australia for taxation purposes, your assessable income includes income gained from all sources, whether in or out of Australia. However, if you are a foreign resident, your assessable income includes only income derived from an Australian source (subsection 6-5(3) of the ITAA 1997).

The terms resident and resident of Australia, regarding an individual, are defined in subsection 6(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936). The definition provides four tests to ascertain whether a taxpayer is a resident of Australia. These tests are:

(1)  the resides test

(2)  the domicile tests

(3)  the 183-day test

(4)  the superannuation tests

The primary test for deciding the residency status of an individual is whether the individual resides in Australia according to the ordinary meaning of the word resides. However, where an individual does not reside in Australia according to ordinary concepts, they may still be a resident of Australia for tax purposes if they meet the conditions of one of the other three tests.

The resides test

The resides test considers whether an individual is residing in Australia according to the ordinary meaning of the word 'reside'. As the word 'reside' is not defined in Australian taxation law, it takes its ordinary meaning for the purposes of subsection 6(1) of the ITAA 1936.

The ordinary meaning of the word 'reside', according to the Macquarie Dictionary, 2001, rev. 3^rd edition, The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd, NSW, is 'to dwell permanently or for a considerable time; having one's abode for a time', and according to the Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1987), is 'to dwell permanently, or for a considerable time, to have one's settled or usual abode, to live in or at a particular place'.

In considering the definition of 'reside', the High Court of Australia, in Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Miller (1946) 73 CLR 93 at page 99-100, per Latham CJ, noted the term 'reside' should be given a wide meaning for the purposes of section 6(1) of the ITAA 1936. Similarly, in Subrahmanyam v Commissioner of Taxation 2002 ATC 2303, Deputy President Forgie said at paragraphs 43 and 44 that the widest meaning should be attributed to the word 'reside'.

The question of whether an individual 'resides' in a country is a question of fact and degree and not of law. In deciding this question, the courts have consistently referred to and considered the following factors as being relevant:

(i)            physical presence in Australia;

(ii)           nationality;

(iii)          history of residence and movements;

(iv)          habits and 'mode of life';

(v)           frequency, regularity and duration of visits to Australia;

(vi)          purpose of visits to or absences from Australia;

(vii)        family and business ties with Australia compared to the foreign country concerned; and

(viii)       maintenance of a place of abode.

The weight given to each factor varies with individual circumstances and no single factor is necessarily decisive. In Shand v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 2003 ATC 2080, the Tribunal stated (at 35):

Questions of residence, domicile, permanent place of abode, have frequently been found by the courts and tribunals to be difficult to assess on a factual level and not easy to define in concrete legal terms.

You and your spouse have been living and working outside Australia for many years.

You and your spouse returned to Australia in the 20XX income year to visit family and have a break from your careers.

Your intention was to be in Australia for 3-6 months.

Due to the pandemic and ill health of your family members you remained longer in Australia.

During the weekend of XXXX 20XX, you and your spouse decided to remain in Australia.

You are a resident under this test from XXXX 20XX when you and your spouse formed the intention to remain in Australia and not return overseas.

The domicile test

If a person's domicile is Australia, they will be an Australian resident unless the Commissioner is satisfied, they have a permanent place of abode outside of Australia. In order to show that a new domicile of choice in a country outside of Australia has been adopted, the person must be able to prove an intention to make his or her home indefinitely in that country. 

The concept of Domicile was discussed in the Marriage of (1980) 5 Fam LR 662:

A person may abandon his domicile of origin and acquire a domicile of choice but in order to establish a change of domicile there must be clear evidence of an intention to abandon the domicile of origin and to make a new permanent home in the country to which the person has removed. In my view a person cannot be said to acquire a new domicile until there has been a firm intention of establishing a permanent residence in another country and also the confirmation of that intention by actual residence in that country.

Declarations as to intention are rightly regarded in determining the question of a change of domicile, but they must be examined by considering the person to whom, the purposes for which, and the circumstances in which they are made and they must further be fortified and carried into effect by conduct and action consistent with the declared expression:

The Commissioner's view on how a domicile of choice may be acquired can be found in Taxation Ruling IT 2650 Income Tax: Residency - permanent place of abode outside Australia, at paragraph 21:

In order to show that a new domicile of choice in a country outside Australia has been adopted, the person must be able to prove an intention to make his or her home indefinitely in that country e.g., through having obtained a migration visa. A working visa, even for a substantial period of time such as 2 years, would not be sufficient evidence of an intention to acquire a new domicile of choice.

Ross v Ross [1930] AC 1 at 6-7 per Lord Buckmaster... Where the court finds that at a relevant point of time there is a conflict between the actual conduct of the party concerned and the verbal expression of his intention doubtless the court will in most cases prefer the act to the word - as an ancient proverb puts it: "what you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say."

Further, in Fremlin v Fremlin (1913) 16 CLR 212; [1913] HCA 25 (Fremlin v Fremlin) Per Barton J:

In Winans v. Attorney-General, Lord Halsbury L.C. said:-"Now the law is plain, that where a domicile of origin is proved it lies upon the person who asserts a change of domicile to establish it, and it is necessary to prove that the person who is alleged to have changed his domicile had a fixed and determined purpose to make the place of his new domicile his permanent home." In the much older case of Udny v. Udny Lord Westbury said: -"Domicile of choice is a conclusion or inference which the law derives from the fact of a man fixing voluntarily his sole or chief residence in a particular place, with an intention of continuing to reside there for an unlimited time. This is a description of the circumstances which create or constitute a domicile, and not a definition of the term. There must be a residence freely chosen, and not prescribed or dictated by any external necessity, such as the duties of office, the demands of creditors, or the relief from illness; and it must be residence fixed not for a limited period or particular purpose, but general and indefinite in its future contemplation. It is true that residence originally temporary, or intended for a limited period, may afterwards become general and unlimited, and in such a case so soon as the change of purpose, or animus manendi, can be inferred the fact of domicile is established." Lord Curriehill in the case of Donaldson v. M'Clure says: -"To abandon one domicile for another means something far more than a mere change of residence. It imports an intention not only to relinquish those peculiar rights, privileges and immunities which the law and constitution of the domicile confer on the denizens of the country in their domestic relations, in their business transactions, in their political and municipal status, and in the daily affairs of common life, but also the laws by which the succession to property is regulated after death. The abandonment or change of a domicile is therefore a proceeding of a very serious nature, and an intention to make such an abandonment requires to be proved by satisfactory evidence." Lord Halsbury, in Marchioness of Huntly v. Gaskell, expressed strong approval of Lord Curriehill's judgment, quoting this passage.

Your domicile of origin is Country Y.

You have chosen to remain in Australia. You already had Australian citizenship. Therefore your domicile of choice is now Australia.

Permanent place of abode

The expression 'place of abode' refers to a person's residence, where they live with their family and sleep at night. In essence, a person's place of abode is that person's dwelling place or the physical surroundings in which a person lives.

A permanent place of abode does not have to be 'everlasting' or 'forever'. It does not mean an abode in which a person intends to live for the rest of his or her life. An intention to return to Australia in the foreseeable future to live does not prevent the taxpayer in the meantime setting up a permanent place of abode elsewhere.

The Full Federal Court in Harding stated at 41 that it favoured the construction of the phrase 'permanent place of abode' as used at first instance in Applegate v Commissioner of Taxation [1978] 1 NSWLR 126 at 134:

"place of abode" may mean the house in which a person lives or the country, city or town in which he is for the time being to be found. I am of the view that the latter is the meaning of the expression used in s. 6(1.) of the Act.

The Full Federal Court at 40 summarised its thoughts on 'permanent place of abode' as follows:

•         the word 'place' in the context of the phrase 'outside Australia' involves a consideration of the town or country in which a person is physically residing 'permanently';

•         so long as the taxpayer has 'definitely abandoned' his or her residence in Australia, it is not necessary for the taxpayer to be permanently located at a particular house or flat in a particular town within a foreign country or for the person to live in one particular town, suburb or village within a given country;

•         the word 'place' should accordingly be read as including a reference to a country or state;

•         moving between foreign countries is not the same as being permanently in one country; and

•         the words 'permanent place' require the identification of a country in which the taxpayer is living permanently.

Consequently, it is considered that the Full Federal Court in Harding provides two key considerations in determining whether a taxpayer has their permanent place of abode outside Australia. These are:

(1)  whether the taxpayer has definitely abandoned, in a permanent way, their Australian residence, and

(2)  whether the taxpayer is living permanently in a specific country, rather than moving between foreign countries.

The Commissioner is not satisfied that you have a permanent place of abode outside Australia for the following reasons:

•         you and your spouse are now living in Australia as of XXXX 20XX

•         your property in Country Z has now been sold as of XXXX 20XX

You are a resident under this test.

The 183-day test

Under the 183 day test, a person is a resident of Australia if they are actually physically present in Australia for more than 183 days in an income year unless the Commissioner is satisfied that their usual place of abode is outside of Australia and they have no intention of taking up residence here.

You were in Australia for more than 183 days in the 20XX income year.

From XX XXXX 2021, the Commissioner is not satisfied you had a usual place of abode outside Australia. It is at that point you formed the intention to reside in Australia and you were in the process of selling your residence in Country Z.

You are a resident under this test.

The superannuation tests

This test covers Commonwealth government employees - members of the Commonwealth superannuation funds (as well as their spouses and children under 16 years of age).

A person is a resident under this test if they are:

•         a member of the superannuation scheme established by deed under the Superannuation Act 1990; or

•         an eligible employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976; or

•         the spouse, or a child under 16, of a person covered by either of the above.

You are not a resident under this test.

Your residency status

You are a resident of Australia for taxation purposes from XXXX 20XX.

Capital gains Tax

Section 855-45 of the ITAA 1997 sets out the CGT consequences of a foreign resident individual becoming an Australian resident. If an individual becomes an Australian resident then, for each CGT asset that was owned just before the individual or company became an Australian resident (except an asset that is taxable Australian property or an asset that was acquired before 20 September 1985):

(1)  the asset is taken to have been acquired by the individual at the time of becoming an Australian resident, and

(2)  the first element of the cost base and reduced cost base of the asset at the time of becoming an Australian resident is its market value at that time.

This provision is designed to ensure that gains which accrued on those assets while the person was a foreign resident will be excluded from the CGT provisions.

Therefore, the first element of the cost base for your property in Country Z is the market value of the property when you became an Australian resident on XXXX 20XX.

When you sell the property, you could be subject to a capital gain or loss.

Copyright notice

© Australian Taxation Office for the Commonwealth of Australia

You are free to copy, adapt, modify, transmit and distribute material on this website as you wish (but not in any way that suggests the ATO or the Commonwealth endorses you or any of your services or products).