Fpt Vs Applegate Case Study

FCT v Applegate (1979) 9 ATR 899, is the ruling given by Australian courts regarding the residency of people for tax purposes who have a permanent residence abroad. Importantly it focused on the aspects of how people, who have gone overseas for employment or any other reason, will be taxed in Australia during their stay away, overseas (Thorpe, 2012).

According to the Australian Tax laws, the residency of a person is determined by the status of their residence according to the ordinary concepts, their domicile, the 183 day test and the commonwealth superannuation fund test (Renton, 2005). This ruling primarily focuses on cases where the persons are ordinarily residing in Australia but, are not living here now and those people who are not residing

In FCT v Jenkins (1982) 12 ATR 745, the ruling was to determine how the permanent place of abode overseas would affect the residential status of the individual. The courts have time and again clarified that the place of residence would be the place the person resides and not necessarily the permanent place of abode.

In this case, Mr Jenkins, a bank officer was transferred to New Hebrides for three years. He tried to sell his Australian home but could not find a buyer but the house was eventually leased. Due to ill health, Mr Jenkins had to return to Australia along with his wife in 18 months. Mr Jenkins contention was that if normal circumstances prevailed, they would have applied for an extension after the three years elapse. There was no fixed date on which to return to Australia as well. Though, there was another contention that, three years cannot be regarded as temporary if a longer duration won’t sensibly be regarded as such. The intention here is a major determinant of the outcome of the