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

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.