Following the significant tax reforms announced in the recent Federal Budget on 12 May 2026, many Australians are considering the option of moving overseas.
Before making the move, it is important to understand how Australia’s tax residency rules operate. A common misconception is that moving overseas automatically ends your Australian tax residency. In practice, determining when tax residency ceases can be complex, and getting it wrong may result in unexpected tax consequences.
This article outlines some of the key tax residency issues to consider before relocating overseas.
How tax residency works in Australia
You are an Australian resident for tax purposes if any of the following apply:
- You reside in Australia
- Your domicile (permanent place of abode) is in Australia
- You are in Australia for more than 183 days of an income year OR
- You are a contributing member of the Public Sector Superannuation Scheme or Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme
If you are an Australian tax resident, you are required to declare all Australian and foreign-sourced income in your Australian tax return, and you will be subsequently taxed for your assets in Australia.
Should you decide to move overseas, another crucial consideration is whether you may be deemed as a dual-tax resident. This can occur where you are considered a tax resident of Australia, while also being treated as a tax resident of another country under that country’s domestic tax laws.
As a dual-tax resident, you may be liable to pay tax in both jurisdictions. This is generally prevented through Double Tax Agreements (DTA).
Australia currently has Double Tax Agreements with numerous countries. A full list is available on the ATO website here.
Recent tax residency determinations at common law
Recent court decisions continue to demonstrate that tax residency depends on the overall facts of each case, rather than simply where a person’s family or assets are located.
One recent case determined at Tribunal was Bulie and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2026] ARTA 1003 (4 June 2026) (‘Bulie’).
In Bulie, Tribunal Member Burch determined Mr Bulie is a tax resident of Singapore, closely following the reasoning of the Full Federal Court (FCAFC) in the case of Pike v Commissioner of Taxation [2020] FCAFC 158 (‘Pike’).
Background facts
Mr Bulie was a Norwegian citizen who became a permanent resident in Australia, married an Australian citizen, and had two children with his wife. Mr Bulie spent most of his time living and working in Singapore where he earned his income and leased a property to reside in. He held a Resident Return 5 Year visa in Australia which required him to be physically present in Australia for two of the five years of the visa term. While working in Singapore, Mr Bulie’s wife and children lived in Australia, and he had ownership of assets that were not in Australia.
The Full Federal Court decision of Pike was referred to as precedent because the facts and issues were largely the same as in Bulie. In Pike, Mr Pike moved to Thailand to live and work while his family remained in Australia. Mr Pike had spent a majority of his time in Thailand although he did spend a significant amount of time visiting Australia. Mr Pike’s income was derived from his work in Thailand which helped support his family in Australia. In determining Mr Pike’s tax residency status, the Full Federal Court concluded that while Mr Pike had stronger personal relations in Australia, his economic relations were overwhelmingly closer to Thailand, and the taxpayer’s primary source of ongoing income was given paramount weight.
In line with the reasoning in Pike, Tribunal Member Burch emphasised that the factor with the greatest weight was Mr Bulie’s decision to spend most of his time living and working overseas to best exploit his skills and experience in earning his income away from his family in Australia. Mr Bulie’s income was also primarily sourced from his employment with a Singaporean company. Similar to Pike, emphasis was placed on the objective fact that Mr Bulie’s economic and personal relations in Singapore were stronger than in Australia. This was despite the fact his wife and children resided in Australia, and his ownership of assets in Australia were not insignificant. On this basis, Mr Bulie was determined to be a tax resident of Singapore for the relevant period.
The complete decision of the cases can be found here:
- Bulie and Commissioner of Taxation (Taxation) [2026] ARTA 1003 (4 June 2026)
- Commissioner of Taxation v Pike [2020] FCAFC 158
Whether you are relocating permanently or accepting a temporary overseas assignment, obtaining tax advice before you leave Australia can help avoid unexpected tax liabilities and ensure your residency status is managed correctly.
If you are considering moving overseas or would like advice regarding your Australian tax residency obligations, please contact Coleman Greig’s Tax & Superannuation team.
