Private ruling: Residency and deductions
Date of advice: 3 August 2021
Published: October 2021
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 20XX | Year ended 30 June 20XX
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 20XX

Ruling: Q1: Are you a resident of Australia for taxation purposes? | A1: Yes. | Q2: Are you entitled to a deduction for living expenses which include, rent, food and utilities in Country Y? | A2: No.

Relevant facts and circumstances: You were born in Australia. You are a citizen of Australia. You are a permanent resident of Country Y and this was granted in XXX 20XX. You have a resident's visa to enter Country Y. You have a professional job in Country Y. You have been living and working in Country Y since the early 20XX's. You have been an Australian resident for taxation purposes since you commenced working in Country Y. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic you have had to permanently relocate to Country Y to carry out your work. In Winter 20XX, you sought and received approval from the Commonwealth Government to travel offshore following a period on standby because of the virus and the downturn in international travel. You commenced living and working in Country Y in Winter 20XX. You were in Australia from Autumn 20XX until Winter 20XX on unpaid leave. You are not able to return to Australia or leave your overseas residence unless you cease employment in Country Y. You do not intend to reside overseas permanently. Your spouse and children reside in Australia at your family home. You financially support your spouse and children. Prior to the pandemic you spent approximately XX days per month in Australia on leave with your family. You have the following expenses in Country Y - rent, food and utilities which are not reimbursed by your employer. You are on the electoral roll in Australia. You have health insurance in Australia. You and your spouse are not eligible to contribute to the PSS or the CSS 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: Summary: 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. | Detailed Reasoning - 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 have been living and working in Country Y since 20XX. You have been a resident of Australia for taxation purposes for this period. You would return to Australia for XX days each month to see your family. You were in Australia from Autumn 20XX to Winter 20XX due to the pandemic on unpaid leave. You were required to go back to Country Y if you wanted to maintain your employment. You can only come back to Australia if you are on unpaid leave. You have not broken your connection with Australia, and you are still a resident of Australia for taxation purposes. The pandemic has not broken your connection with Australia. Your family remain in Australia and you financially support them. You have continuity of association with Australia. You are a resident under this test. | Detailed Reasoning - 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 Hall (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 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 such as 2 years, would not be enough 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 Australia. While you have taken steps to become a permanent resident of Country Y, you have now shown the intention to live in Country Y indefinitely. You do intend on returning to live in Australia to live with your family. Therefore, your domicile is Australia. | Detailed Reasoning - 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. 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 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 set up a permanent place of abode outside Australia for the following reasons: • You do not intend on living overseas permanently • Your family remain living in Australia in the family home. The Commissioner is not satisfied that you have abandoned your home in Australia as your family live in the home and you return to this home when you are on leave from your work in Country Y. You are a resident under this test. | Detailed Reasoning - 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 have been outside Australia for more than 183 days. You are not a resident under this test. | Detailed Reasoning - 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. | Detailed Reasoning - Your residency status: You are a resident of Australia for taxation purposes for the period you are in country Y. According to section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997, you can deduct a loss or outgoing if it is incurred in producing your assessable income except where the outgoing is of a capital, private or domestic nature. You work in Country Y. You rent accommodation and incurred expenses relating to food and utilities. You are not reimbursed for these expenses by your employer. These expenses are of a private and domestic nature and are not an allowable deduction. These expenses put you in the position to work in Country Y and the expenses are not on work. The expenses are therefore private in nature and are not deductible under section 8-1 of the ITAA 1997.

This ruling applies for the following periods: