Moving to a More "Certain" Test for Tax Residence in Australia: Lessons for Canada?

Michael Dirkis
Additional contact information
Michael Dirkis: University of Sydney Law School

Canadian Tax Journal, 2020, vol. 68, issue 1, 143-68

Abstract: Canada and Australia have superficially similar tests for determining the tax residence of individuals. Both have a common-law residence (or resides) test, "continuing attachment" rules (a statutory test in Australia), a 183-day type of test, and provisions focused on government officials. A key difference between the countries in this regard, despite broadly similar residence tests, is that litigation in Canada is rare whereas Australia, over the last decade, has seen at least 43 administrative tribunal, Federal Court, and High Court decisions with respect to tax residence. In response to the high levels of litigation resulting from concentrated Australian Taxation Office compliance programs, the Board of Taxation commenced a self-initiated review of the income tax residence rules for individuals in May 2016. The report subsequently submitted to government noted that the current rules were no longer appropriate and needed to be updated and simplified. Although the Australian government has not endorsed the board's recommendations, the board was directed to undertake further consultation in order to ensure that the proposed residence rules are appropriately designed and targeted, with a particular focus on integrity (that is, anti-avoidance) issues. A final report, sent to the government in April/May 2019, proposed a number of bright-line tests. These proposed tests are based in part on the approach adopted in the NZ and 2013 UK residence rules. In this paper, the author considers the similarities and shortcomings of the Canadian and Australian rules on individual tax residence according to the criteria of equity, simplicity, and efficiency (integrity), and then reviews the Board of Taxation's recommendations with an eye to whether the proposed Australian changes could provide guidance for any future Canadian reform, should the political circumstances so dictate in the future.

Keywords: Australia; Canada; comparative analysis; individuals; reforms; resident (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.ctf.ca/EN/Publications/CTJ_Contents/2020CTJ1.aspx (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ctf:journl:v:68:y:2020:i:1:p:143-168

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
Canadian Tax Foundation, 145 Wellington Street West, Suite 1400, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 1H8
https://www.ctf.ca/E ... ns_ListingBooks.aspx

DOI: 10.32721/ctj.2020.68.1.sym.dirkis

Access Statistics for this article

Canadian Tax Journal is currently edited by Kim Brooks, Kevin Milligan, and Daniel Sandler

More articles in Canadian Tax Journal from Canadian Tax Foundation Canadian Tax Foundation, 145 Wellington Street West, Suite 1400, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 1H8.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Jim Lyons ().