The taxpayer in Shord v FCT [2016] FCA 761, has appealed that decision to the Full Federal Court.

In the earlier decision, the Federal Court dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal against an AAT decision (Re Shord and FCT [2015] AATA 355) which had held that, during the relevant periods, he was a resident of Australia, was not engaged in foreign service within the meaning of s23AG of the ITAA 1936 (as then relevant), and was not entitled to foreign tax offsets.

Despite working almost exclusively overseas, the Full Court found that he was ‘resident’, according to the ordinary meaning of that word, because he shared a house in Australia with his long term partner, with whom he was close, and spent considerable time in Australia between his overseas periods away.

Section 23AG (as it was then) required ‘foreign service’ for 91 consecutive days (broken only by certain leave) and this requirement was not met by his overseas ‘jobs’.

And foreign tax credits were not held to be paid as it was not clear that he had borne any foreign tax on the evidence.

[Related Tax Month article] [s23AG – view various ‘history notes’ or go to 2006 version of ITAA36]

[LTN 142, 26/7/16]