tax payer
Question 2
From the given information, Jamil Chin is a single, 24 year old, Singaporean citizen, who has a 6 months contract to play football in Australia. He has leased an apartment in Australia for six months and leased out his own furnished apartment in Singapore. He should not be considered as a resident in Australia and therefore his income should not be assessable due to the following reasons.
Residency status is the main issue in the above case as this will determine Jamil’s liability in regards to Australian income tax. Statutory definition of an Australian resident in section 995-1 of 35 Act is a person who is a resident of Australia. In subsection 6(1) of the 1936 Act, it is indicated that the primary test for residency status of an individual is according to the ordinary meaning of “reside”.
The ordinary meaning of reside indicates that a migrant who comes to Australia intending to reside in Australia will be considered a resident from arrival. In this case, Jamil has “purchased a one-way ticket to Sydney departing Singapore on 28 January 2014”. It may seem like he is intending to reside within Australia, since he should have purchased a return ticket to Singapore if he intended to return to Singapore and not reside within Australia. However, a thorough assessment of his case shows that his intentions to reside within Australia are unclear. He is optimistic about his soccer career and the duration of his contract with the Australia soccer team is uncertain because there is a reasonable probability that his contract will be extended. With this consideration, it is reasonable for him not to book a return ticket as he is uncertain of his duration of stay and exact date of return to Singapore.
According to Tax ruling 98/17 section 17, “When a individual arrives in Australia not intending to reside here permanently, all the fact about his or her presence must be considered in determining residency status.” On 28 January 2014, Jamil arrived in
From the given information, Jamil Chin is a single, 24 year old, Singaporean citizen, who has a 6 months contract to play football in Australia. He has leased an apartment in Australia for six months and leased out his own furnished apartment in Singapore. He should not be considered as a resident in Australia and therefore his income should not be assessable due to the following reasons.
Residency status is the main issue in the above case as this will determine Jamil’s liability in regards to Australian income tax. Statutory definition of an Australian resident in section 995-1 of 35 Act is a person who is a resident of Australia. In subsection 6(1) of the 1936 Act, it is indicated that the primary test for residency status of an individual is according to the ordinary meaning of “reside”.
The ordinary meaning of reside indicates that a migrant who comes to Australia intending to reside in Australia will be considered a resident from arrival. In this case, Jamil has “purchased a one-way ticket to Sydney departing Singapore on 28 January 2014”. It may seem like he is intending to reside within Australia, since he should have purchased a return ticket to Singapore if he intended to return to Singapore and not reside within Australia. However, a thorough assessment of his case shows that his intentions to reside within Australia are unclear. He is optimistic about his soccer career and the duration of his contract with the Australia soccer team is uncertain because there is a reasonable probability that his contract will be extended. With this consideration, it is reasonable for him not to book a return ticket as he is uncertain of his duration of stay and exact date of return to Singapore.
According to Tax ruling 98/17 section 17, “When a individual arrives in Australia not intending to reside here permanently, all the fact about his or her presence must be considered in determining residency status.” On 28 January 2014, Jamil arrived in