The AAT has held that a taxpayer was a “resident of Australia” during the relevant years.
The taxpayer was a doctor who had been working outside Australia since 2006. In October 2011, the taxpayer sought a private ruling from the Commissioner to declare him a non-resident of Australia for the 2010, 2011 and 2012 income years (“the relevant years”). The Commissioner did not agree and issued a private ruling that the taxpayer was a resident of Australia during the relevant years for Australian tax purposes. The taxpayer objected against the ruling and the objection was disallowed. The Tribunal heard various factors concerning the taxpayer identified in the private ruling, including that he had been employed in East Timor since 2006 and spent 9 to 11 months of the year in East Timor with the remainder of the time spent in Australia (Sapphire Beach) and Bali.
The AAT was satisfied that the taxpayer “resided” in Australia during the relevant years. It said what was significant was the “continuity of association” the taxpayer had retained with Australia. Among other things, the AAT noted the taxpayer did “not seem to have brought himself to regard East Timor as home” and did “not express an intention to remain in East Timor after his employment ends”. Rather, the AAT said the taxpayer expressed “an intention to divide his time between Bali and Sapphire Beach – hardly an indication that his ties with Australia have been broken”. Accordingly, the objection decision was affirmed.
(AAT Case [2013] AATA 447, Re Pillay and FCT, AAT, Ref No: 2012/2534-2536, Frost DP, 28 June 2013.)
[LTN 125, 2/7/13]