Edited version of private advice

Authorisation Number: 1051782778117

Date of advice: 14 January 2021

Ruling

Subject: Residency

Question

Are you a resident of Australia for income tax purposes?

Answer

No.

This ruling applies for the following period:

Year ended 30 June 20XX

The scheme commences on:

1 July 20XX

Relevant facts and circumstances

You were born in Country Y.

You are a citizen of Country Y.

You are not a citizen of any other country.

You commenced work in Country Z in June 20XX.

Prior to moving to Country Z, you were living and working in Country Y.

You have never lived or worked in Australia prior to your family moving here.

Your spouse and children moved to Australia in 20XX so your spouse could help take care of their sibling's children.

One of their sibling's children has a medical condition.

You financially support your spouse and children as your spouse does not work in Australia and your children attend school in Australia.

You made X trips to Australia to visit your family in the 20XX income year for a total of more than 183 days.

You entered Australia on a permanent resident visa.

These trips were:

•         XXXX 20XY to XXXX 20XY total of XX days in the 20XX income year

•         XXX to XXX 20XY XX days in 20XX income year

•         XX 20XX to XX 20XX XX days in 20XX income year.

All trips were to visit your family and you stayed with your family in their home in Australia. You had a return air ticket for each trip.

You had no intention on remaining in Australia on a permanent basis.

You do not own any property in Australia.

Your house in Country Z remained available to you while you were in Australia visiting your family.

You rented out part of your house in Country Z while you were in Australia to assist with the expenses while you were in Australia.

You worked remotely while in Australia for your Country Z employer.

You and your spouse are not eligible to contribute to the PSS or the CSS Commonwealth Government super funds.

Relevant legislative provisions

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.

1. 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 visited Australia on X occasions to stay with your spouse and children. You were in Australia for a total of XXX days in the 20XX income year. You live and work in Country Z. You returned to Country Z after each visit and had no intention on remaining in Australia on a permanent basis. Your spouse came to Australia to help with the care their sibling's child who has a medical condition.

Based on the information you have provided to us you were not residing in Australia according to ordinary concepts during the 20XX income year.

You are not a resident under this test.

2. 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 Emson (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:

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 is Country Y. You are not a citizen of Australia. Your domicile has not changed to Australia.

You are not a resident under this test.

3. The 183-day test

Under this test, a person who is present in Australia, whether continuously or intermittently, for more than half the income year may be said to have a constructive residence in Australia unless it can be established that:

•         their usual place of abode is outside Australia

•         they have no intention to take up residence in Australia

The term 'usual place of abode' is not the same as 'permanent place of abode'. Whilst the question of a usual place of abode is a question of fact, generally the phrase is interpreted as the abode customarily or commonly used be a person when they are physically present in a country.

You were in Australia for more than 183 days in the 20XX income year. You made X trips to Australia in the 20XX income year for a total of XXX days.

You had no intention on remaining in Australia on a permanent basis. The Commissioner is satisfied that your usual place of abode is in country Z where you live and work.

You are not a resident under this test.

4. 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 and your spouse are not eligible to contribute to the relevant Commonwealth super funds.

Your residency status

You are not a resident of Australia for taxation purposes for the 20XX income year.