As they have condensed entire legal battles into pithy paragraphs, it's a bit risky to try to come to some conclusion as to what the definitive reasoning was. Perhaps the engineer could afford a better lawyer?
For my money, both cases hinge up - the intended length of stay in the foreign country (longer in example 35 than 38) and to a lesser degree the attachment (financial, social and otherwise) with the new place of residence, which arguably seem similar in both instances.
Perhaps the airline employee frequently visited Australia, maintained strong family ties and carried out other business in Australia, etc, whereas the engineer left the country and didn't maintain close business or personal ties. Who knows.
The tax office works with smoke and mirrors, so who knows how to interpret it.
Let's wait and see what Ken Henry comes up with as he reviews the tax system before we start to worry about paying more (or any) income tax.
Jonjc,
As they have condensed entire legal battles into pithy paragraphs, it's a bit risky to try to come to some conclusion as to what the definitive reasoning was. Perhaps the engineer could afford a better lawyer?
For my money, both cases hinge up - the intended length of stay in the foreign country (longer in example 35 than 38) and to a lesser degree the attachment (financial, social and otherwise) with the new place of residence, which arguably seem similar in both instances.
Perhaps the airline employee frequently visited Australia, maintained strong family ties and carried out other business in Australia, etc, whereas the engineer left the country and didn't maintain close business or personal ties. Who knows.
The tax office works with smoke and mirrors, so who knows how to interpret it.
Let's wait and see what Ken Henry comes up with as he reviews the tax system before we start to worry about paying more (or any) income tax.