Now as far as her work goes, up in the top table, you see that when she arrived in Australia, she became a waitress in a law firm café. I should add that her university qualification was a bachelor of arts in event management. So she obtained a job as a waitress and then later on she went for the Watsons Bay Boutique Hotel as a pass staff or a waitress. Then she went for her rural sojourn in Queensland as a banana sorter. And I should mention there that when she was there sorting bananas, she started a relationship with an english man, or someone from the UK, or at least a friendship at that point, and that becomes a little relevant later on. So after her time in Queensland, she came back to Sydney, and except for the time when she went over to Indonesia, she resumed work at the Watsons Bay Boutique Hotel, in what appears to be a more senior position. And so she continued to to work in that position until basically she started this holiday period where she ceased employment, and then just began to travel. So that's the situation of her sojourn in Australia.
Now what she argued was that when she returned from Queensland, that Sydney had now become her home. That was where she lived, and that indeed she intended to live in Australia, and the fact that she'd gone to Queensland and done the work there, was an indication that she wanted to extend her visa and that this was an indication that she in fact might want to finish up living in Australia. So that was really part of her key arguments. Now the Commissioner's arguments were simply well "We don't think that's right. We think that you've had a working holiday and that you've just been buzzing all over the place, and that your usual place of abode is in Scotland in your parent's house in Edinburgh". So you will recall that in the definition of residency there are, in this situation, two major parts of argument. The first is whether someone actually resides in Australia, that is, "do they live here?". The second thing is the 183 day test, if you've been here for more than 183 days, is your usual place of abode outside of Australia and do you intend to take up residence in Australia. These are the key issues.
So let’s look at what the Tribunal said. So as the Tribunal decided that she was not a resident, the nature of her work was transient, and she didn't have a settled base of accommodation around which she based her work and social life. She basically went from pillar to post, living in hostels. She did have maybe somewhat stable employment, although that changed a number of times. But also, so that was the conclusion with relation to the first part of the residency argument, that is, “did she live here?”, “was she residing in Australia?”. The answer was: no, you're going from pillar to post, you're going from here to there, and you don't have a permanent place where you're living, and you haven't permanently intertwined yourself with the life of the particular place in which you're living.
Now with regard to the 183 day test, she was clearly here in Australia for more than 183 days during the year of income. The tribunal however, held that her usual place of abode was not at her parents’ home in Edinburgh, as the tax office had argued, but rather her usual place of abode was Scotland. And so this follows from the decision in Harding's case, which you might recall is a person who went to the Middle East, and the tax office argued that that person's usual place of abode, or rather that he didn't have a usual place of abode, because he was in temporary style of accommodation, that is he didn't have a permanent place where he lived. But the court rejected that and said "no, you don't have to have a permanent actual location, it's more the locality in which you are living. And so here, the tribunal applied that in a sense, and said well, the place where you live is Scotland, and we won't say it's any particular place, but we say that that's where your home is but because her place of abode was outside of Australia, she could not pass the 183 day test. Now just mentioning here, we have had some residency cases in the past: Stockton, Addy, Pike. Stockton and Addy were both backpacker style cases. A couple of those cases are on appeal. The Addy case is interesting in relation the one I just mentioned because Addy was held to be a resident in a situation that wasn't all that dissimilar from MacKinnon. However, the difference with Addy was that she did have a far more permanent place of living than what MacKinnon did. Addy's home was in Sydney and she was held to be a resident. Now that case is on appeal for another reason to do with the double tax agreement between the United Kingdom and Australia. The Pike case was a person that was involved in the tobacco industry, and had sent a lot of time in Thailand, and that case is also on appeal. I should also mention that the Board of Taxation has proposed a change to the way in which residency is looked at and it will be interesting to see that perhaps that maybe in the budget on the 6th of October, whether the government might decide to adopt that as a test and for implementation at a later time.