— The draft ruling focuses primarily on the two provisos to the 183-day test.7 In certain circumstances, even if an individual’s stay in Australia exceeds 183 days in a tax year, he or she can still be regarded as a nonresident if he or she can demonstrate (1) having a usual place of abode overseas and (2) having no intention of taking up residence in Australia.
— As with the domicile test, it is not necessary for a person, while in Australia, to have and maintain a physical dwelling overseas in order for his or her usual place of abode to be outside Australia.
— In response to the case of Addy,8 the ATO also provides commentary in relation to short-term visa holders (such as those on working holiday maker visas). The Commissioner takes the view that, consistent with the purpose of the visa (which is for a holiday) and the expected transitory nature of lifestyle, these individuals generally do not intend to live in Australia in the manner consistent with residing in Australia and hence fall within the provisos of the 183-day test.
— The Commissioner includes an example whereby an individual arrives in Australia on a working holiday maker visa and then decides to remain in Australia more permanently supported by applying for a permanent skilled work visa. The draft ruling places emphasis on the importance of a "change of intention" in this scenario which triggers the change in tax residency status.
Determining an individual’s Australian tax residency status continues to require consideration and weighing of the facts and circumstances.
Whilst the ATO’s draft ruling is a welcomed update in assisting individuals to self-assess their Australian tax residency position, many individuals may still feel there is a lack of certainty in relation to their tax residence position in modern-day scenarios, especially for outbound residency cases, in which travel back to Australia during periods of overseas employment is becoming more common.
At this stage, there is no further news in relation to whether the current government will adopt any of the recommendations proposed by the Board of Taxation in its 2019 report, which had sought to provide more clarity and certainty in the law by introducing a primary bright-line days test and secondary tests requiring consideration of a specific list of objective factors. For prior coverage, see the following issues of GMS Flash Alert: 2021-142 (12 May 2021) and 2019-191 (20 December 2019). It will be interesting to see if there are any further updates to this on 25 October 2022, when the newly-appointed Labour government hands down its updated 2022-23 Federal Budget.