Private ruling: Residency
Date of advice: 19 January 2021
Published: March 2021
Ruling period: Year ending 30 June 2020
Date scheme commenced: 1 July 2019

Ruling: Q1: Did you remain a resident of Australia for tax purposes for the entire year, even when you were working for a very short period in Country A? | A1: Yes

Relevant facts and circumstances: In your application, you have advised us of the following facts and circumstances:- You are an Australian citizen and hold an Australian passport. At the end of 2020 you entered into a contract with the Country A Government Agency to perform work for them in Country A from early 2020 until mid 2022. There is a possibility the work will be extended and you intended to stay in Country A longer. You were to perform the work through a company associated with you. The employment contract included provision of temporary accommodation for a period to give you time to find a family home. You departed Australia for Country A with your family in early 2020 to commence work and establish a home in Country A. At the time you left Australia, you intended to make your home indefinitely overseas. You and your family returned to Australia after a short period as you were unable to obtain full public health cover in Country A and the Australian Government had strongly recommended that all Australian citizens return to Australia before international travel was closed. You and your family became concerned that you wouldn't have full consulate support if something went wrong in Country A nor have access to public health. Your child had an accident in Country A and you struggled to get any medical support and then you decided to temporarily return to Australia while the COVID-19 pandemic continued. You and your family intend to return to Country A as soon as you are able to, when international travel is re-opened. You continued to work remotely intending to return to Country A as soon as possible. You and your spouse are not eligible to contribute to the Public Service Superannuation Scheme (PSS) or the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS) and are not the spouse or child under 16 of such a person.


Reasons for decision: Summary: The terms 'resident' and 'resident of Australia', in regard to 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 an individual is a resident of Australia for income tax purposes. These tests are: • the resides test, • the domicile test, • the 183 day test, and • the superannuation test. Only one of the tests needs to be met for an individual to be a resident of Australia for tax purposes. | Detailed Reasoning - The resides test: 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. None of the other tests need be applied if the 'resides test' is satisfied. The ordinary meaning of the word 'reside', according to the Macquarie Dictionary , 2001, rev. 5 th edition, The Macquarie Library Pty Ltd, NSW, is 'to dwell permanently or for a considerable time; have 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'. The Commissioner's view on the resides test is contained in Taxation Ruling TR 98/17 Income tax: residency status of individuals entering Australia (TR 98/17). An individual may be considered a resident under the resides test if their behaviour while they are here is such that they exhibit a degree of continuity, routine or habit that is consistent with a person residing in Australia according to the ordinary meaning of the word 'reside'. Factors that can be taken into account when ascertaining the character of a person's behaviour include the intention or purpose of the individual's stay in Australia, presence of family in Australia, location of assets and social and living arrangements. As a broad principle, where a person has a settled routine for six months or more (for example, the person has stayed in one place or has been with one employer for six months at the same location) they may satisfy the resides test. The period of time of the settled routine need not be confined to one financial year. As long as the pattern of behaviour is exhibited the individual may be regarded as being a resident from the time of their arrival. Your situation was not as you had intended because of COVID-19 and Government responses. While you had intended to stay in Australia for a short time after your return, you in fact remained in Australia living with your family and working remotely. It is clear that whatever your intentions were when you initially left Australia, that apart for the very short period in Country A, you have been residing in Australia according to ordinary concepts for the entire year. | Detailed Reasoning - The domicile test: Under this test, a person is a resident of Australia for tax purposes if their domicile is in Australia, unless the Commissioner is satisfied that their permanent place of abode is outside of Australia. | Detailed Reasoning - Domicile: 'Domicile' is a legal concept determined according to the Domicile Act 1982 (Domicile Act) and common law rules. A person's domicile is usually their country of origin unless they acquire a different domicile of choice or operation of law. To obtain a different domicile of choice, a person must have the intention to make their home indefinitely in another country. The domicile of choice which a person has at any time continues until that person acquires a different domicile of choice. Specifically, section 10 of the Domicile Act states: The intention that a person must have in order to acquire a domicile of choice in a country is the intention to make his or her home indefinitely in that country. While section 12 of the Domicile Act states: The acquisition of a domicile of choice in place of a domicile of origin may be established by evidence that would be sufficient to establish the domicile of choice if the previous domicile had also been a domicile of choice. 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 courts have provided guidance on the concept of domicile over the years. Although the recent case decided by the Full Federal Court of Australia, Harding v Commissioner of Taxation [2019] FCAFC 29 ( Harding ), did not have to determine the domicile of the taxpayer, the court restated some observations from earlier cases concerning evidence of an intention to change domicile: 30. ....In Terrassin v Terrassin (1968) 14 FLR 151, Selby J observed that a person alleging a change of domicile had to prove by " clear and cogent evidence that the change has taken place" (at 154-155). His Honour referred to the decision of Lord Curriehill in Donaldson v M'Clure (1857) 20 D. 307, where his Lordship said: ... it is proper to keep in view what is meant by an animus or intention to abandon one domicile for another. It 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 purchases and sales and other business transactions ... in their political or municipal status,-and in their 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. 36. ....As Lord Macnaghten observed once in Winans v Attorney-General [1904] AC 287 at 291: Lord Chelmsford's opinion [in Udny v Udny (1869) LR 1 HL, Sc 455] was that "in a competition between a domicil of origin and an alleged subsequently acquired domicil there may be circumstances to shew that however long a residence may have continued, no intention of acquiring a domicil may have existed at any one moment during the whole of the continuance of such residence. The question in such a case is not whether there is evidence of intention to retain the domicil of origin, but whether it is proved that there was an intention to acquire another domicil." As can be seen from the above, a stated intention to change domicile must be backed up by actual evidence of the change. In your case, there is no evidence to show that you made any attempt to change your domicile from Australia to any other country. Therefore, your domicile is still Australia. | Detailed Reasoning - Permanent place of abode: A person's 'permanent place of abode' is a question of fact to be determined in the light of all the circumstances of each case. 'Permanent' does not mean everlasting or forever but it is to be distinguished from temporary or transitory. In FC of T v Applegate (79 ATC 4307; (1979) 9 ATR 899), Fisher J described 'permanent place of abode' as being: .....the taxpayer's fixed and habitual place of abode. It is his home, but not his permanent home. It connotes a more enduring relationship with the particular place of abode than that of a person who is ordinarily resident there or who has there his usual place of abode. Material factors for consideration will be the continuity or otherwise of the taxpayer's presence, the duration of his presence and the durability of his association with the particular place. 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, we consider 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. | Detailed Reasoning - Your Situation: While beyond your control, you were only in Country A for a very short time and were not living permanently in Country A. Consequently, in using the guidance in Harding , there is no specific country outside Australia that can be identified as being your 'permanent place of abode'. Therefore, the Commissioner is not satisfied that you have had a permanent place of abode outside. You are a resident of Australia under the Domicile 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 were in Australia for more than 183 days in the 2020 income year. You did not have a usual place of abode outside Australia; while you may have been in the process of establishing one - you did not. You are a resident under the 183 days test. | Detailed Reasoning - The superannuation test: An individual is still considered to be a resident if that person is eligible to contribute to the Public Service Superannuation Scheme (PSS) or the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme (CSS), or that person is the spouse or child under 16 of such a person. You are not a resident under this test.