From the given information, Jamie Chin is a single, 24 year old. Singapore 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 Jamb’s liability in regards to Australian income tax. Statutory definition of an Australian students 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, Jamie 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 would 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, Jamie arrived In Australia, until 30 June 2014: his duration of stay In Australia Is less than half a year. Section 18 states that “the period of stay in Australia is not by itself decisive when determining the residency status but the behavior over the time spend in Australia”. In section 19, the following factors are considered: 1. Intention or purpose of resents.
Jamie came to Australia to play soccer. The purpose of his presence In Australia is to develop his soccer career, not to reside in Australia. He did not intentionally play soccer to come to Australia. 2. Family and business/employment ties. Jamie is single with no dependent and his family is in Singapore. When he came to Australia he did not bring his parents to Australia, which explained that his family ties is in Singapore. He was a soccer player in Singapore and his employment contract s 6 month in Australia, which was the reason of his presence in Australia. His employment ties is mainly based in Singapore, not Australia. 3.
Maintenance and location of assets. He owns an apartment In Singapore and when he came to Australia he did not sell his apartment. He leased his apartment to his friend, which indicated that it is for short term. In long term he intended to go back to Singapore. 1 OFF Singapore, which proved his maintenance and location of his assets are all located in Singapore. His rental apartment in Australia is only lease for 6 month, with the option to extend provided. He did not rent the apartment for more than his current contract erred with the soccer team which again emphasis his stay in Australia is temporary with no reside intention. . Social and living arrangements. He is single with no dependent as given from the case, his main social ties are his family in Singapore and his friend living is his apartment in Singapore. Other than the soccer team members, there are no given social ties in the case. No information is given that he join any social club or activity in Australia other than the soccer team. In regards to Jamie Chin’s case of residency status, there are a number of factors to be considered as he does not intend to reside in Australia permanently.
His period of stay in Australia and his purchase of a one-way ticket to Sydney are not sufficient to determine his residency status. In addition, when we assess his intention or purpose of presence in Australia, it is consistent with his family, business and employment ties, as well as the maintenance and location of his assets and his social and living arrangements. At present, his intention is not to reside within Australia; however, should his contract be extended and his circumstances change, a reassessment is needed to determine his intention to reside in Australia.