The AAT has held a taxpayer was an Australian resident for the income year ended 30 June 2009 as he had satisfied the domicile test under s 6(1) of the ITAA 1997.
The taxpayer worked as a marine engineer and left Australia in April 2008 to work for a company in Dubai. During the relevant period, he was initially allocated a company apartment in Dubai but spent most of his time travelling to various destinations around the globe in connection with his employment. The taxpayer contended that he was a resident of Dubai for the relevant period and therefore the income earned from that employment should not be taxable in Australia.
The AAT held that based on the evidence, the taxpayer had not established a permanent place of abode in the United Arab Emirates, or anywhere else in particular. It said even though the taxpayer had a connection with Dubai, it was “not satisfied [the connection with Dubai] was sufficiently strong to warrant a finding that it had become his permanent place of abode (let alone his domicile of choice) in the relevant year”. Therefore, the AAT held that the taxpayer was an Australian resident for the relevant period as his domicile of origin was Australia.
Further, the Tribunal noted that prior to the commencement of proceedings, the Commissioner made concessions on the amount payable in the event the Tribunal found the taxpayer to be an Australian resident. Therefore, the AAT remitted the matter back to the Commissioner for reconsideration.
(AAT Case [2012] AATA 582, Re Sully and FCT, AAT, Ref No 2011/2747, McCabe SM, 31 August 2012.)
[LTN 170, 3/9]