The rules around tax residency are largely different to the rules around social security, visa residency, as well as citizenship.

Australian Tax Resident

In Australia, for tax purposes, an individual is an Australian resident if they satisfy one of the residency tests. 

However, those people from outside of Australia may not realise that establishing that you are an Australian tax resident is not the end of the story. An Australian tax resident may be a permanent resident or a temporary resident, with different tax implications.

Temporary Australian Tax Resident

A temporary Australian tax resident is an Australian resident who:

• Holds a temporary visa under the Migration Act 1958
• Is not an Australian resident according to the Social Security Act 1991
• Does not have a spouse who is an Australian resident within the meaning of the Social Security Act 1991

The Social Security Act 1991 defines an ‘Australian resident’ as a person who resides in Australia and is an Australian citizen, holder of a permanent visa or a protected special category visa holder.

As you can see this is different to the tax definition of Australian tax resident.

Temporary residents may be considered an Australian tax resident due to a “permanence” in their intention and action of residing in Australia, however, they may not be legally allowed to permanently reside in Australia based on their Visa, which means they will likely return to their home country.

(NZ citizens are a special case, where they can remain in Australia without applying for permanent residency, but are still considered Temporary Residents based on the “Special Category Visas” issued to them upon entry to Australia.)

The Difference Between a Temporary Resident and a Permanent Resident for Tax Purposes

All Australian residents are taxed on their Australian and worldwide income, including any capital gains on foreign property held.

Foreign residents are taxed only on their Australian sourced income.

Permanent Australian residents are treated the same as an Australian resident, and taxed on both Australian and worldwide income.

Temporary residents are taxed on their Australian-sourced income only. They are taxed at resident marginal tax rates, however, they do not pay tax in Australia on their foreign-sourced income.

Foreign residents and temporary residents are subject to capital gains tax (CGT) if a CGT event happens to a CGT asset that is taxable Australian property. They are not subject to CGT in Australia on their foreign owned taxable property for CGT purposes. This ensures, for example, that they can reside in Australia on a temporary basis without having to worry about the CGT consequences of a home they maintain back in the country in which they permanently live and are likely to eventually return to.

Taxable Australian Property

‘Taxable Australian property’ are capital assets that include real property situated in Australia, mining rights in Australia, assets of a business located in Australia, and indirect interest in Australian real property through an entity that you hold 10% or more controlling interest in (where such interest is primarily associated with ownership of the Australian real property).

This also includes options over any of the above.

Individuals are taxed on any taxable Australian property, regardless of their residency status.

Overview of Different Tax Treatment

Note that a temporary resident’s visa status may change, and they may find that they become a permanent resident, or Australian resident. If a temporary resident becomes a permanent resident, then they are deemed to have acquired any assets (other than taxable Australian property) at their market value on the date that they ceased being a temporary resident and became a permanent resident. Once an individual has become a permanent resident, simply departing Australia, even for more than six months, may not be enough to change their status to a non-resident.

Our Principal, Mathew Marcarian, together with our Managing Director in Singapore, Boon Tan, were recently featured in the STEP Journal* (a publication produced by STEP for its members) discussing the local taxation laws that apply to Trust beneficiaries relocating to Australia.

STEP is an organisation that focuses on improving the public understanding of the issues families face in relation to inheritance and succession planning.

Read the full article.

* Matthew Marcarian and Boon Tan, ‘The road to Oz’, STEP Journal (Vol27 Iss1), pp.41-43

The taxpayer, Mr Harding has appealed to the Full Federal Court of Australia from a decision handed down on 8 June 2018 by Justice Derrington, in Harding v Commissioner of Taxation [2018] FCA 837. In that case His Honour, found that Mr Harding was resident of Australia for tax purposes under the Domicile Test, because he failed to establish a ‘permanent place of abode’ in Bahrain during the relevant year, even though he left Australia permanently in 2009 and lived in Bahrain until 2015, before moving to Oman.

We believe the decision creates significant uncertainty and we are glad to see it appealed.

What Happened In The Case?

In 2009 Mr Harding departed Australia to take up full time employment in Saudi Arabia. He chose to live in Bahrain (as is commonly done) and obtained a visa to do so. Mr Harding and his wife Mrs Harding had previously lived overseas in the Middle East.

On the facts outline in the case, Mr Harding seemed to have lived in the one apartment in Bahrain for almost 2 years from June 2009 to 9 June 2011, including almost all of the year ended 30 June 2011 – which was the year in dispute in the case.

Matters were apparently made complicated for Mr Harding because on this occasion his wife (and his children) did not accompany him to Bahrain initially and after going so far as to enrol his youngest son into the British School in Bahrain, Mr Harding’s marriage did not survive.

There is a some suggestion that Mr Harding only secured a two bedroom apartment when he initially moved to Bahrain, perhaps because he knew that when his family moved (as he intended that they would) more suitable accomodation would be required. His Honour also appeared to be completely convinced that Mr Harding had departed Australia permanently – even going so far as to list the things which he considered were evidence of that fact.

What Was The Problem?

The problem for Mr Harding was that even though His Honour was convinced that he had left Australia permanently (and was not resident according to ordinary concepts), His Honour was not convinced that Mr Harding had established a ‘permanent place of abode’ in Bahrain. Consequently since Mr Harding was an Australian domicile – he was still a tax resident of Australia.

This is because of the operation of the ‘Domicile Test’ in Australia’s residency laws. The Domicile Test treats all persons who have their domicile in Australia as being tax resident, unless they can show that they have a ‘permanent place of abode’ outside Australia. We believe that the concept of Permanent Place of Abode is a settled concept under Australia’s tax law and has been so for over 40 years since FC of T v Applegate 79 ATC  4307 (Applegate). The concept of ‘place of abode’ has its ordinary meaning and the use of the word ‘permanent’ in connection with an abode simply implies a place which is not temporary.

Given that the Court agreed that Mr Harding;

– made his life in Bahrain;
– had a visa to reside in Bahrain and in fact resided in Bahrain;
– owned a car in Bahrain;
– had exclusive use of an apartment in Bahrain which he leased (which the Court agreed was not short-term accomodation; see para 75);
– travelled every day from Bahrain to his full time place of work in Saudi Arabia;

we find it difficult to see why Mr Harding was found not to have a permanent place of abode in Bahrain.

The factors that seemed to be held against Mr Harding were that he did not own many possessions (given the apartment was fully furnished) and it was reasonably easy for him to move between apartments in the same complex which he did in July 2011 (after spending almost 2 years in the fist apartment) when it became apparent that Mrs Harding was not going to move to Bahrain.

It also seemed to weigh strongly on His Honour’s considerations that Mrs Harding did not seem to want to live in the original apartment Mr Harding had chosen (even though it was big enough to house the family) and that Mr and Mrs Harding together looked at alternative accomodation when she visited him in Bahrain.

A relevant fact also apparently was that Mr Harding’s postal mail was not sent to Bahrain, but continued to be sent to his former home in Australia. In relation to this His Honour remarked in his closing remarks (para 149) that “It is indicative of an intention to reside at premises permanently or, at least, not temporarily if that place is used as the address for correspondence. Were a person to use their apartment address as that to which important correspondence is to be addressed it can be thought that they are intending to remain there for an extended period of time.” We cannot understand why His Honour considered that the receipt of postal mail in Australia was of material significance, when by contrast His Honour did not see it as particularly significant that Mr Harding had continuing financial arrangements with Australia (paragraph 85).

Factors Suggesting Mr Harding Did Have A Permanent Place of Abode Was In Bahrain

The strangeness of the decision here is compounded by the fact that although Mr Harding’s contract of employment was only for 12 months, when Counsel for the Commissioner argued that Mr Harding’s presence in Bahrain was ‘somewhat tenuous’ because of this, His Honour responded by remarking (correctly in our view) on the permanent nature of Mr Harding’s departure from Australia, his intention never to return to Australia to live, and his working history which demonstrated that was ’eminently employable’, effectively dismissing the Commissioner’s argument that the short term nature of the employment contract was a material weakness in the case.

Indeed at para 147 His Honour remarks that “An associated argument advanced by the Commissioner was that as Mr Harding’s employment in the Middle East might be terminated at short notice, his presence there was necessarily of a transitory nature. That submission, however, fails to take into account that Mr Harding was intent on remaining in the Middle East, although not necessarily in Bahrain, and his presence there was not, necessarily, tied to his continued employment with TQ Education.”

The decision in this case is all the more puzzling given that His Honour accepted that Mr Harding took leases of the apartments as extended term propositions also accepting that“that Mr Harding made his life in Bahrain. It was the place from which he commuted daily to his work in Saudi Arabia. He formed friendships there and it was where he attended restaurants and bars after work. He also went to the beaches there and engaged in go-carting at the local grand prix track. In general terms, he pursued the expatriate lifestyle with which he had been familiar for many years.”

Implications For Australian Expats

We hope that the decision in Harding is overturned on appeal. The answer to question of whether a person has established a ‘permanent place of abode’ overseas should be arrived at simply and in a common sense fashion, by considering whether the taxpayer has only a temporary place of abode in the country.

For residency purposes if a place is not temporary then it must be permanent otherwise a person cannot have any certainty.  Surely we cannot have a third class of residency, being a state of being somewhere in the middle of temporary and permanent.

If the Court accepts that Mr Harding ‘made his life in Bahrain’ it should accept that he had a permanent place of abode there, regardless of where his postal mail is sent to.

It is pertinent to conclude by reflecting on the often quoted words of Fisher J in Applegate who said;

“To my mind the proper construction to place upon the phrase ‘permanent place of abode’ is that it is the taxpayer’s fixed and habitual place of abode. It is his home, but not his permanent home..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.”

We look forward to a common sense judgement from the Full Federal Court in Mr Harding’s case.

UPDATE: On 22 February 2019, the Full High Court handed down a decision on the Harding v Commissioner of Taxation [2018] FCA 837  case. Please see Residency – Harding’s Appeal Victory for the decision.

Author: Matthew Marcarian

Australia has a reputation as being a high taxing country. Most people are aware that if they are a resident of Australia they are taxable on all their income – whether from sources in or outside Australia.That is, Australia requires tax residents to declare income and capital gains from sources worldwide, regardless of whether the income is remitted to Australia.

However relatively few people are aware that Australia also has a generous concession for expats on their overseas assets. This is known as the ‘temporary resident exemption’ – which was introduced by the Australian government more than a decade ago.

New Zealand citizens who arrived in Australia after 26 February 2001 can also usually qualify under these rules which can give extremely favourable outcomes to New Zealand citizens with overseas assets.

If you are an expat and have the status of a temporary resident for migration purposes (i.e you hold a temporary visa, such as a 457 Visa) then you will most likely also be a temporary resident for income tax purposes. This applies unless your spouse is an Australian citizen or Permanent Resident, in which case you will not be able to benefit from the exemptions.

If you are a temporary resident for tax purposes in Australia then you are not required to declare foreign investment income such as foreign dividends, trust distributions or foreign bank interest, even if you bring this income into Australia. It is also the case that income that would otherwise be taxable under Australia’s controlled foreign company rules is also disregarded if a person is a temporary resident. Generous capital gains tax exemptions also apply to assets which are not Australian real property (i.e real estate) or interests in Australian real property.

These concessions mean that temporary residents are able to live and work in Australia, but often only pay tax on income from employment, while they can continue to hold significant foreign investments. The exception relates to employment related income which may be derived from foreign sources by a temporary resident living in Australia.

We are often contacted by people who wish to clarify their status under the temporary resident rules. Once people understand that they are temporary residents then many of their concerns about Australia’s worldwide approach to taxation tend to drop away.

However, temporary residents who are considering becoming Permanent Residents in Australia still need to be aware of how drastically their tax situation can change if they become Permanent Resident. This is because if you become a Permanent Resident you would be taxable under the normal rules on your worldwide income. We encourage global expats with significant overseas assets to seek tax advice as soon as they determine that they wish to apply for Permanent Residency in Australia.

If you are considering applying for Permanent Residency in Australia and have significant overseas assets our specialist team would welcome the opportunity to assist you with detailed tax advice so that you fully aware of the tax implications. CST’s Strategic Tax Review is an appropriate service for clients in this situation. If you are interested in seeking advice from us please contact us.

CST’s tax advisors have experience with advising high net worth global expatriates arriving in Australia from all parts of the world.

Our specialist integrated Australia/US advisory capabilities can also make a real difference for US expatriates living in Australia who have to lodge tax returns in Australia and the United States.

Author: Matthew Marcarian

In a bid to capitalise on the strength of real estate prices, the NSW Government has followed other states including Victoria and Queensland by introducing a stamp duty surcharge of of 4% on the acquisition of all NSW residential land by foreign persons after 21 June 2016.
 
That means that foreigners acquiring real estate in New South Wales with a purchase price of AUD $1M will be approximately 8.5% in stamp duty.
 
A land tax surcharge of  0.75% will also apply to foreign owned New South Wales residential land. The land tax testing date is 31 December of each year.
 
Foreign persons do not include Australian citizens living abroad. CST Tax Advisors is able to assist international clients who have questions regarding these changes.
 
It will be interesting to see whether these changes along with tightening of lending policies of the Australian banks will result in any significant long term cooling of the residential property market in NSW. It may be that low interest rates and uncertainty in global financial markets will mean continued strength in property prices in New South Wales.