Opinion Number. 783

Subject

LAND TAX: RESIDENCE IN AUSTRALIA
WHETHER AUSTRALIANS SERVING IN BRITISH ARMY ARE ABSENTEES': CRITERIA FOR RESIDENCE IN AUSTRALIA: WHETHER RESIDENTS OF UNITED KINGDOM OWNING LAND IN AUSTRALIA MAY BE TREATED AS AUSTRALIAN RESIDENTS WHILE ON ACTIVE SERVICE

Key Legislation

LAND TAX ASSESSMENT ACT 1910, s. 3

Date
Client
The Secretary to the Treasury

The Secretary to the Treasury has forwarded the following memorandum from the Commissioner of Land Tax for advice:

A solicitor of this city has asked whether the decision that members of the Australian Expeditionary Force serving the Empire should be treated as residents for the purposes of assessment of land tax, may be extended to cases of soldiers attached to the English Army who own property in Australia.

The question is one of policy with which the Government alone can deal. Will you be so good as to bring the matter before the Hon. the Treasurer for whatever action he may consider necessary.

To grant the request would necessitate the amendment of the absentee provisions of the Land Tax Assessment Act as they at present stand.

By the definition of absentee a person who is absent from Australia, is not an absentee if he satisfies the Commissioner that he resides in Australia or a Territory under the authority of the Commonwealth. Persons who have gone to England to serve with the British Army have not, I think, given up their residence in Australia.

Their place of residence is still, I think, in Australia, unless they have shown any intention of not returning to Australia. I do not think that the place they might be stationed at with the British Army would constitute their residence within the meaning of the Act.

In my opinion, persons from Australia who have enlisted in the British Army are not absentees under the Act unless they have shown some intention of not returning to Australia.(2)

[Vol. 15,p.118]

(1) The year of this opinion in the Opinion Book is 1916, but its position in the Book indicates the correct yegr to be I917; the date 29 March 1917 is con?rmed by a reference to this opinion in the opinion cited in endnote (2).

(2) After the receipt of this opinion a further opinion was sought-