eCite Digital Repository
Doubt about the central management and control residency test for companies?
Citation
Jones, D and Passant, J and McLaren, J, Doubt about the central management and control residency test for companies?, Journal of Australian Taxation, 18, (1) pp. 121-142. ISSN 1440-0405 (2016) [Refereed Article]
![]() | PDF Not available 362Kb |
Copyright Statement
Copyright 2016 Journal of Australian Taxation
Official URL: https://www.jausttax.com/volume-18-issue-1
Abstract
This article critically examines the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) interpretation of the second
statutory test for company residence found in the definition of ‘resident’ in sub-section 6(1)
of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The statutory test consists of three components:
first, if the company is incorporated in Australia then it is a resident; second, if the company
is not incorporated in Australia but the company is carrying on a business in Australia and has
its central management and control in Australia then it is a resident; and third, it is not
incorporated in Australia but it is carrying on business in Australia and has its voting power
controlled by shareholders who are resident in Australia then it is a resident of Australia for
taxation purposes. The central management and control test contained in the public Taxation
Ruling TR 2004/15 has been the subject of considerable conjecture and confusion for many
years. The ruling states that the test of residency for a company not incorporated in Australia
consists of two requirements: the company must be carrying on business in Australia and it
must have its central management and control located in Australia. A company not
incorporated in Australia and thus not satisfying the first test of residency must have its
central management and control in Australia or have the majority of shareholders resident in
Australia coupled with the carrying on of a business in Australia before it is held to be a
resident. The contrary view is that the central management and control test on its own may
be sufficient to deem a non-Australian incorporated company to be a resident for taxation
purposes. It is contended that there is no need to demonstrate that the company is also
carrying on a business in Australia. This article contends that the approach of the
Commissioner of Taxation contained in TR 2004/14, is open to serious doubt.
Item Details
Item Type: | Refereed Article |
---|---|
Keywords: | company residency for tax purposes |
Research Division: | Law and Legal Studies |
Research Group: | Commercial law |
Research Field: | Taxation law |
Objective Division: | Law, Politics and Community Services |
Objective Group: | Community services |
Objective Field: | Ability and disability |
UTAS Author: | McLaren, J (Dr John McLaren) |
ID Code: | 128589 |
Year Published: | 2016 |
Deposited By: | TSBE |
Deposited On: | 2018-10-01 |
Last Modified: | 2018-11-22 |
Downloads: | 0 |
Repository Staff Only: item control page