Private ruling: Residency
Published: September 2012

Ruling: Q1: Is the Taxpayer a resident of Australia in respect of the income year ended 30 June xxxx for the purposes of section 6(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936)? | A1: Yes, but only for part of the income year ended 30 June xxxx. In this regard, the Taxpayer is considered to be a resident of Australia for the purposes of section 6(1) of the ITAA 1936 in respect of the period prior to the Taxpayer's departure from Australia. In regards to the period subsequent to the Taxpayer's departure, the Taxpayer is considered not to be a resident of Australia for the purposes of section 6(1) of the ITAA 1936. | Q2: Is the Taxpayer a resident of Australia in respect of the income years ending 30 June yyyy and 30 June zzzz, for the purposes of section 6(1) of the ITAA 1936? | A2: No. In respect of the income years ending 30 June yyyy and 30 June zzzz, the Taxpayer is considered not to be a resident of Australia for the purposes of section 6(1) of the ITAA 1936.

Relevant facts and circumstances: The Taxpayer arrived in Australia many years ago and is considered to have acquired an Australian domicile by choice. The Taxpayer maintained a residence in Australia in which they lived with their spouse. The Taxpayer relocated to Country X for work and business purposes during the xxxx income year. The Taxpayer undertook some international travel during the xxxx income year before relocating to Country X. Prior to their departure, the Taxpayer disposed of some of their substantial assets and their car, cancelled their Australian medical registrations, a life insurance policy and bank accounts, except for a minimum banking facility. The Taxpayer requested to be removed and has been removed from the Australian Electoral Roll, requested to be removed as a patient from the books of various Australian health suppliers and from the books of professional service providers in Australia, i.e. lawyers, bank manager, accountant and financial planners. The Taxpayer terminated their membership with various Australian organisations and associations. The Taxpayer shipped their personal effects and belongings to Country X. The Taxpayer has currently no specific intentions with respect to the timing of her eventual return to Australia in the long term. The Taxpayer has not made any visits to Australia following their departure. The Taxpayer's child is an overseas student and will continue to remain so for the next few years. Continuing Australian Association Family The Taxpayer's spouse will continue to reside in Australia in the short term. Assets The Taxpayer has small investments and indirect interests in an Australian business and real estate. As stated previously, the Taxpayer has retained a minimum banking facility to pay the occasional Australian bill following their departure. Country X Associations The Taxpayer chose a suitable house in Country X together with their spouse for them to stay, and for the Taxpayer's child to stay during the school holidays. The taxpayer entered into a lease on the house together with their spouse with the option for renewal of the lease. The Taxpayer furnished this property with the taxpayer's personal belongings and effects shipped from Australia, and new furniture and other household items bought since arriving in Country X. The Taxpayer regards this house as their home and main residence. The Taxpayer applied for and received permission from the relevant Country X authority to work in Country X. Following this, the taxpayer's entered into an agreement to carry out work in Country X. The Taxpayer opened a bank account in Country X, registered as a voter with the Country X Electoral Services Office and registered for receiving health services in Country X. The Taxpayer registered for other social activities in Country X. The Taxpayer entered into arrangements for the services of an accountant and lawyer in Country X. The Taxpayer intends to remain in Country X for a few years following which the taxpayer may or may not relocate to another foreign country. The Taxpayer's spouse has visited the Taxpayer since their departure to Country X. These visits include time together with the Taxpayer's child during their school holidays spent with the Taxpayer in Country X. It is the intention of the Taxpayer's spouse to spend time with the Taxpayer in Country X regularly. The Taxpayer's parent lives in Country X and Australia.

Relevant legislative provisions: Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 - subsection 6(1)(a) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 - paragraph 6(1)(a)(i) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 - paragraph 6(1)(a)(ii) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 - paragraph 6(1)(a)(iii) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 -subsection 6-5(2) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 - subsection 6-5(3) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 - subsection 6-10(4) | Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 - subsection 6-10(5)

Reasons for decision: Detailed Reasoning - Relevant Law: An "Australian resident" is generally assessable on ordinary and statutory income derived from all sources, whether in or out of Australia, during the income year, respectively under sections 6-5(2) and 6-10(4) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 (ITAA 1997). In contrast, a "non-resident" is generally assessable only on ordinary and statutory income derived from all Australian sources during the income year, respectively under sections 6-5(3) and 6-10(5) of the ITAA 1997. The term "Australian resident" is defined in section 995-1 of the ITAA 1997 to mean a person who is a resident of Australia for the purposes of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (ITAA 1936). The terms "resident" and "resident of Australia" are defined in subsection 6(1) of the ITAA 1936 to mean: "(a) a person, other than a company, who resides in Australia and includes a person- (i) whose domicile is in Australia, unless the Commissioner is satisfied that his permanent place of abode is outside Australia; (ii)who has actually been in Australia, continuously or intermittently, during more than one-half of the year of income, unless the Commissioner is satisfied that his usual place of abode is outside Australia and that he does not intend to take up residence in Australia; or (iii) who is an eligible employee for the purposes of the Superannuation Act 1976 or is the spouse or a child under 16 years of age of such a person;" Effectively, if a person does not reside in Australia, commonly referred to as 'residence according to ordinary concepts' that person may nevertheless be considered a resident of Australia if he or she satisfies any one of three additional statutory tests set out in paragraphs 6(1)(a)(i) to 6(1)(a) (iii) of the ITAA 1936. Simply stated, these tests are: (i) the domicile and permanent place of abode test; (ii) the 183 day test; and (iii) the superannuation fund test. Of the three statutory tests, based on the facts provided, only the "domicile and permanent place of abode test" in section 6(1)(a)(i) of the ITAA 1936 is relevant to the ruling application being considered. That test and its application to the Taxpayer's circumstances are considered in detail later in these reasons. | Detailed Reasoning - Residency for income tax purposes: The question of a taxpayer's residence is to be decided on a year-by-year basis so as to determine the taxpayer's annual liability to Australian income tax. In Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Lysaght [1928] A.C.; 234; 13TC511, it was held that a decision on a question of 'residence' was a finding of fact. i.e., it is essentially a question of fact whether a person does or does not comply with the meaning of that expression and that there is no technical or special meaning attached to the expression for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. Following this, the judgment by the High Court of Australia in Commissioner of Taxation v Miller [1946] HCA 23; 73 CLR 93 ('Miller') is considered as decisive in illustrating the way in which the question of "resident" or "not resident" has become a "question of degree and therefore of fact". In the present circumstances, the Taxpayer's 'residence' in each of the xxxx, yyyy, and zzzz income years will be determined separately with relevance to the Taxpayer's individual circumstances in those years. Income year ended 30 June xxxx: Period prior to departure from Australia. | Detailed Reasoning - The ordinary concepts test: It was held in Miller that the primary test for deciding the residency status of an individual, for Australian income tax purposes, is whether the individual 'resides' in Australia. The term 'reside' is not defined in Australian income tax law and consequently it takes its ordinary meaning. The Macquarie Dictionary 5 th Ed. (2009) defines 'reside' as 'to dwell permanently or for a considerable time, have one's abode for a time". Whether a person 'resides' in a particular country is a question of fact and degree. Taxation Ruling TR 98/17 (TR 98/17) contains the Commissioner's interpretation of the ordinary meaning of the word 'resides' (within the definition of resident in subsection 6(1) of the 1936). TR 98/17 takes into account a number of factors relevant to the question of residency in relation to individuals entering Australia including migrants, visitors, students and academics. Although TR 98/17 applies to persons entering into Australia, the principles set forth in TR 98/17 are relevant to the present case. At paragraphs 42 to 63, TR 98/17 provides a detailed examination of the factors that may indicate that individuals are residing here, as listed below: · Length of physical presence - supports continuity, routine or habit of the individual's behaviour · Family ties - presence of family suggests establishment of a home in Australia · Maintenance of assets - such as occupation of a dwelling in Australia, other assets in Australia, such as motor vehicles and bank accounts, add further weight to the individual having established behaviour consistent with residing here. · Social and living arrangements - indicate the way individuals interact with their surroundings during their stay in Australia. It is noted that the Taxpayer was not physically present in Australia for a number of days in the period prior to their departure to Country X in respect of the year ended 30 June xxxx, when the taxpayer undertook overseas travel. In Joachim v FC of T 2002 ATC 2088; [2002] AATA 610, the taxpayer, a seafarer spending most of his time aboard a vessel in international waters, returned to his wife and children in Australia when his contracts have expired, and before he obtained a new contract. The taxpayer had permanent residence in Australia since 1994. The AAT held the taxpayer to be a resident on the basis that, 'once a person has established a home in a particular place, even involuntarily, a person does not necessarily cease to be resident there because he or she is physically absent. The test is, whether the person has retained a continuity of association with the place, together with an intention to return to that place and an attitude that the place remains home'. In the period prior to her relocation to Country X, the Taxpayer maintained a place of abode in Australia in which the taxpayer lived with their spouse. The locality of their assets was in Australia. The Taxpayer was a member of various organisations in Australia. The taxpayer subscribed to various charities in Australia. The Taxpayer held bank accounts in Australia. The taxpayer was registered on the Australian Electoral Roll. Based on the totality of the facts, it is considered that the Taxpayer, even while travelling overseas during the period in question, retained a continuity of association with a particular place in Australia, together with an intention to return to that place and an attitude that the place remains home. Accordingly, the Taxpayer was a person who 'resided' in Australia during the period prior to their departure from Australia in respect of the year ended 30 June xxxx. The taxpayer is therefore a 'resident' for the purposes of the definition of a resident in subsection 6(1)(a) of the ITAA 1936. Income year ended 30 June xxxx: Period following the Taxpayer's departure from Australia At the commencement of this period the Taxpayer departed Australia to relocate to Country X. The Taxpayer's physical presence in Country X, establishment of an abode in or at a particular place in Country X, an intention to remain in Country X, the establishment of associations in Country X, the taxpayer's absence from Australia during the period under consideration, the divestment of substantial assets in Australia and the termination of memberships and associations in Australia, means that, the Taxpayer is not a resident of Australia under the 'residence according to ordinary concepts test' in section 6(1)(a) of the ITAA 1936. As the Taxpayer had a 'domicile of choice' in Australia during this period, it needs to be determined if the Taxpayer falls within the extended definition of resident of Australia under the 'domicile and permanent place of abode test' contained in subparagraph 6(1)(a)(i) of the ITAA 1936. | Detailed Reasoning - The domicile and permanent place of abode test: This test broadly provides that a person that sets up a permanent place of abode outside Australia will not be considered to be an Australian resident even if such a person retains his or her Australian domicile. The leading Australian case on the question of a 'permanent place of abode' outside Australia, is Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Applegate 77 ATC 405; 78 ATC 4054; 79 ATC 4307 ('Applegate'). In Applegate, the taxpayer left Sydney with his wife to be in Vila in New Hebrides to establish in Vila an office of his employer's business and act as manager for an indefinite period of time. On leaving Sydney he gave up the tenancy of the flat in which he and his wife were living. He left no assets in Australia apart from a life policy and membership of a hospital fund which he kept up whilst in the New Hebrides. The taxpayer obtained the lease of a dwelling house in Vila initially for twelve months with a right of renewal for a further like period. He acquired a residency permit in New Hebrides for the period of twelve months which he subsequently renewed for a second term of two years. The Full Court of the Federal Court concluded in the first place that the 'domicile and permanent place of abode test' is not concerned with whether a person has abandoned his or her Australian domicile or has acquired a new domicile or not; what is of importance is whether the taxpayer has abandoned any residence or place of abode he or she may have had in Australia. The technical meaning of the term 'permanent place of abode', in the context it appears, was interpreted in Applegate as follows: · The term 'permanent place of abode' refers to the building or place where a person sleeps or to the building or place where he or she is usually found, for instance, 'a place of business'; · The word 'permanent' in that term must be construed as having a meaning that can be contrasted with a temporary or transitory place of abode rather than 'everlasting' or forever'; and · The word 'permanent' was used to qualify the expression 'place of abode'. Therefore, it does not necessarily direct attention to a taxpayer's intention as to the duration of the taxpayer's residence outside Australia, although this may be one of many relevant factors to be considered. Further, in regard to the establishment of a permanent place of abode outside Australia, the Federal Court in Applegate held that: · This is consistent with the establishing of a home in a particular place that the taxpayer is aware that the duration of his enjoyment of the home, although indefinite in length, will be only for a limited period; · Regard must be paid to the nature and quality of the use which a taxpayer makes of a particular place of abode in determining whether it qualifies as a permanent place of abode; · Material factors for consideration will be the continuity or otherwise of the taxpayer's presence, the duration of such presence and the durability of the taxpayer's association with the particular place (outside Australia); · The knowledge that a taxpayer would return to Australia eventually does not deny him or her, a capacity to make his or her home outside Australia, however, if the taxpayer's stay is temporary and he or she intends to move on or return to Australia at some definite point of time this denies the place of abode an essential characteristic of a home, namely durability; and · Each year of income must be looked at separately. If in the relevant year the taxpayer does not reside in Australia, but has formed the intention to, and in fact has, resided outside Australia, then truly it can be said that his permanent place of abode is outside Australia during that year of income. Other cases have also considered the term 'permanent place of abode' subsequent to the decision in Applegate. While each case is simply a decision on its own facts, the practical meaning of the term 'permanent place of abode' as construed in Applegate has been endorsed and relied upon in subsequent case decisions, notably Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Jenkins 59 FLR 467 (1982) 12 ATR 745 ('Jenkins'), AAT Case 4834 (88) 89 ATC 196; (88) 20 ATR 3121 and the more recent decisions in Shand v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 2003 ATC 2080 ('Shand') Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Mynott 2011 ATC 10-195; AATA 539 ('Mynott'), and Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Iyengar 2011 ATC 10 -222; AATA 856 ('Iyengar'). The decisions in Shand and Iyengar establish that a taxpayer's long absence from Australia does not automatically lead to his or her divestment of Australian residency unless it can be established that the taxpayer has set up a 'permanent place of abode', as defined in Applegate, outside Australia. In each of the above cases the court found that the overseas accommodations of the taxpayers lacked the characteristics of a 'permanent place of abode' in relation to the nature and quality of the use of the accommodations by the taxpayers. Further, the taxpayers not only maintained a place of residence in Australia but also retained a continuity of association with Australia, together with an intention to return to Australia. The court's findings were made on the basis that the overseas accommodations of the taxpayers were furnished (also serviced in Iyengar) apartments provided free of charge to the taxpayers. There was no evidence to show that the taxpayers had any enduring relationship with or ties to the overseas country as the taxpayers did not lease or purchase real estate on their own account or purchase personal property items such as a car. That the taxpayers retained a continuity of association with Australia was evidenced by their visits to their family home in Australia whenever their business or work commitments allowed. The wives and children of the taxpayers continued to live in Australia and did not join the taxpayers at their overseas abode, except for three short visits by the family in the case of Iyengar. Additionally, the taxpayers retained substantial personal property items in Australia and, in Iyengar, the taxpayer's cars. This led to the conclusion that the overseas accommodations of the taxpayers were no more than temporary or transitory places of abode and distinguishable from a 'permanent place of abode' as exemplified in Applegate. In contrast, the AAT found the taxpayer in Mynott to be a non-resident and although he spent a third of the period under consideration in Australia, it was held that his factual circumstances and what took place in Australia when he left Australia were not significantly different to the circumstances presented in Applegate. He had sold his substantial assets and his principal residence in Australia. However, he kept a room at his parent's house in Australia, retained small investments, disclosed his parent's residential address in relation to his taxation returns and investments and kept his name on the Australian electoral roll. Of significance is the fact that he had established a home in the Philippines where his partner and children lived. He worked overseas as he was unable to secure work in the Philippines. His overseas earnings, although deposited in an Australian bank account, were transferred to the Philippines for the living and schooling expenses of his family. He visited his parents in Australia on the completion of a contract, however, he would always return to the Philippines to be with his family. Ultimately, the nature and quality of the use that the taxpayer made of his apartment in the Philippines was seen by the court as the establishment of a 'permanent place of abode' in the Philippines. In AAT Case 4834, the Tribunal applied the criteria and discussion of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Applegate to determine the residency of the taxpayers concerned. The taxpayers, a husband and wife of Greek origin, relocated to Greece with their children to care for their elderly parents after a period of living in Australia for 15 years. At the time of their relocation to Greece they had leased a supermarket building and five flats in Australia from which they derived rental income. Further, they retained their family home in Australia with all its furniture and fittings. Following their relocation to Greece, the taxpayers made visits to Australia on two occasions, one of them for a period of three months, to effect repairs to their properties. There were also some brief trips by the taxpayers to other parts of Europe for holiday purposes. The 'alien resident's permit' on which they entered Greece did not entitle them to work in Greece. The taxpayers supported their family including the education of their children using the rental income received in respect of their Australian properties. The taxpayers returned to Australia after some nine years of initially leaving Australia to live in their family home. The Commissioner determined the taxpayers to be non-residents from the time of their departure to Greece. The taxpayers objected to the decision on the basis that their domicile is in Australia and that their 'permanent place of abode' was not outside Australia during the relevant years. The AAT held that although the taxpayers in question retained assets in Australia including supermarket premises, their house and furniture, and used rental proceeds for the purposes of paying various accounts, in every other sense the taxpayers were living outside Australia during those years and the period was long-term and indefinite. Furthermore, the taxpayers' deliberate intention was to remain outside Australia for an indefinite period and this amounts to the establishment of a permanent place of abode in Australia. Taxation Ruling (IT) 2650 deals with the question of residency in respect of Australian residents who leave Australia temporarily to live overseas, e.g. on temporary overseas work assignments or overseas study. The ruling is relevant in the present circumstances to the extent that it contains the guidelines used by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) in reaching a conclusion that a taxpayer has abandoned his or her residence in Australia and established a place of abode outside Australia. IT 2650, at paragraph 23, lists the following factors which the Commissioner considers as relevant in determining an individual's 'permanent place of abode' overseas: (a) The intended and actual length of the taxpayer's stay in the overseas country; (b) Whether the taxpayer intended to stay in the overseas country only temporarily and then to move on to another country or to return to Australia at some definite point in time; (c) Whether the taxpayer has established a home (in the sense of dwelling place; a house or other shelter that is the fixed residence of a person, a family, or a household), outside Australia; (d) Whether any residence or place of abode exists in Australia or has been abandoned because of the overseas absence; (e) The duration and continuity of the taxpayer's presence in the overseas country; and (f) The durability of association that the person has with a particular place in Australia, i.e. maintaining bank accounts in Australia, informing government departments such as the Department of Social Security that he or she is leaving permanently and that family allowance payments should be stopped, place of education of the taxpayer's children, family ties and so on. In regard to the weight to be given to each of the abovementioned factors, IT 2650 provides at paragraph 24 that this will vary with the individual circumstances of a taxpayer and that while no single factor is decisive, the decision in Applegate seems to indicate that greater weight should be given to factors (c), (e) and (f). The Taxpayer's circumstances (as per the facts provided in the Taxpayer's ruling application) in regard to their relevance to each of the factors listed previously, can be summarised as follows: (a) Intended and actual length of the Taxpayer's stay in the overseas country The Taxpayer intends to remain in Country X for a substantial period. (b) Whether the taxpayer intended to stay in the overseas country only temporarily and then to move on to another country or to return to Australia at some definite point in time; Following the intended period of stay in Country X, the Taxpayer may or may not relocate to another foreign country. The taxpayer does not intend to move to a particular country or Australia at a definite point in time. (c) Whether the Taxpayer has established a home outside Australia The Taxpayer has set up a home in Country X for the taxpayer and their spouse, and for their child to stay during the school holidays. The taxpayer regards this home as their main residence. The Taxpayer has entered into a lease together with their spouse on the abovementioned home with the option for renewal of the lease. The taxpayer has furnished the house with personal belongings and effects brought from Australia, and new furniture and household items purchased in Country X. The Taxpayer's spouse has visited the Taxpayer since their departure to Country X. These visits include time together with the Taxpayer's child during his school holidays spent with the Taxpayer in Country X. It is the intention of the Taxpayer's spouse to spend time with the Taxpayer on a regular basis. (d) Whether any residence or place of abode exists in Australia or has been abandoned because of the overseas absence The Taxpayer does have a dwelling in Australia that is available to occupy (until it is sold or leased) if the taxpayer decides to return to Australia in the future. The Taxpayer has not made visits to Australia since their departure and therefore has not returned to the dwelling during the period under consideration. (e) The duration and continuity of the Taxpayer's presence in Country X The Taxpayer relocated to Country X for work and business purposes. As the Taxpayer has commenced living in Country X not long ago, at this stage, the duration of their stay in Country X is largely based on their intention, which is to live there for a substantial period. The intention is however supported by the Taxpayer's actions which include: · entering into a lease on a property in Country X with the option to extend the lease; · applying and receiving permission from the relevant Country X authority to work in Country X and entering into an agreement to work in Country X; · registering as a voter with the Country X Electoral Services Office and registering for receiving health care services in Country X. · registering for participation in various social activities. (f) The durability of association that the Taxpayer has with a particular place in Australia The Taxpayer has disposed of some of their substantial investments in Australia while retaining an indirect interest in real property and an Australian based business. The taxpayer has a member balance with an Australian superannuation fund. The taxpayer has cut off many of their ties with Australia. Apart from intended short visits to Australia (a couple of years from now) yearly to meet up with family and friends, maintaining a minimum banking facility and small investments, and indirect interests in real estate and a business, the taxpayer does not intend to have a significant continuing association with Australia. The Taxpayer's spouse will continue to live in Australia in the short term. | Detailed Reasoning - Conclusion: The circumstances of the Taxpayer in the present case are clearly distinguishable from those in Shand and Iyengar. The circumstances in question can also, in a number of respects, be aligned with the situation in Applegate, Jenkins, Mynott, and in particular, AAT Case 4834. In respect of the period following the Taxpayer's relocation to Country X in the xxxx income year, the Taxpayer has established a 'permanent place of abode' in Country X for the reasons provided below: The Taxpayer has taken a lease on a property in Country X with the option for renewal of the lease. For the time being, the taxpayer regards this property as their main residence. The taxpayer's spouse and child have joined the taxpayer during the child's school holidays to spend time together as a family. The Taxpayer has commenced to form an enduring relationship and develop ties with Country X through taking up employment in that country, registering as a voter with the Country X Electoral Office and engaging the services of local professionals such as a doctor, accountant and lawyer. The Taxpayer has taken steps to participate in social activities in their current location. The maintenance of assets and indirect interests in a business and real property in Australia by the Taxpayer cannot on its own lead to a conclusion that the Taxpayer has not established a permanent place of abode in Country X. In this regard the Taxpayer's circumstances are similar to that of the taxpayers in AAT Case 4834 who were considered to have established a permanent place of abode in Greece. This was despite the fact that the taxpayers retained substantial assets in Australia including supermarket premises, five investment properties, their house and furniture, and used the rental proceeds for the purposes of paying their overseas and Australian expenses. Accordingly, during the period following the Taxpayer's departure in the xxxx income year, the Taxpayer is considered not to be a resident of Australia pursuant to paragraph 6(1)(a)(i) of the ITAA 1936. Income years ended 30 June YYYY and ZZZZ The Taxpayer's ruling application effectively provides that during the income years ending 30 June yyyy and 30 June zzzz the taxpayer's circumstances will remain similar to those of the period following their departure in respect of the xxxx income year. As the Taxpayer's particular circumstances for the period following departure in the xxxx income year have led to the determination of their residency status for that period as a non-resident, the Taxpayer will be considered to be a non-resident also in respect of the income years ending 30 June yyyy and 30 June zzzz. This ruling is based on the facts stated in the description of the scheme. If your circumstances are materially different from these facts, this ruling has no effect and you cannot rely on it. The fact sheet has more information about relying on your private ruling.

Please check this edited version to be sure that there are no details remaining that you think may allow you to be identified. If you have any concerns about this ruling you wish to discuss, you will find our contact details in the fact sheet.