Moving to a More 'Certain' Test for Tax Residence in Australia: Lessons for Canada?
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".