Private ruling: Residency for taxation purposes
Date of advice: 22 January 2021
Published: March 2021
Ruling period: Year ended 30 June 20XX | 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 from when you arrived in Australia until you obtained a student visa? | A1: No. | Q2: Are you a resident of Australia for income tax purposes from when you obtained your student visa? | A2: Yes.

Relevant facts and circumstances: You were born in Country Z. You are a citizen of Country Z. You are not a citizen of any other country. You are not a permanent resident of any other country. You entered Australia on a working holiday visa late 20XX. You arrived in City Z and obtained employment and worked for X months. You then moved to another part of the country and worked on a farm for X months. You then moved back to City Z and worked for X months. You moved to a third region and worked for X months. You have now moved to a fourth region and have been living there for X months. You obtained a student visa in late 20XY. During your time in Australia you have left Australia a number of times to have a holiday with your family overseas for around X weeks in total. Prior to coming to Australia, you lived in Country Z with your parents. You brought clothes, phone, computer and camera to Australia with you. You are not eligible to contribute to the relevant Commonwealth superannuation 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 - 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 arrived in Australia on late 20XX on a working holiday visa. You moved around working. You worked in City Z then in several different regions. You now have a student visa. Based on the information provided, you were not residing in Australia according to ordinary concepts from late 20XX to late 20XY while you were on the first visa and moving around working in a number of different jobs. However, from late 20XY you were residing in Australia according to ordinary concepts as you have been settled in the one place for X months. You are not a resident from late 20XX to late 20XY. You are a resident from late 20XY. | Detailed Reasoning - 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 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. 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 of origin is Country Z and there is no evidence to show that it has changed to Australia. You are not a resident under this test. | Detailed Reasoning - 3. 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 each of the relevant income years. For the 20YY and 20XY income years, the Commissioner is satisfied that your usual place of abode was outside Australia and you had no intention of taking up residence here. Therefore, you were not a resident under this test for these years. For the 20ZZ income year, the Commissioner is not satisfied that your usual place of abode was outside of Australia and you had no intention of taking up residence here. You are a resident under this test for the 20ZZ income year. | Detailed Reasoning - 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 are not a resident under this test. | Detailed Reasoning - Your residency status: You are not a resident of Australia for taxation purposes from late 20XX to late 20XY. You are a resident of Australia for taxation purposes from late 20XY.