# Tax Rebate



## gdenk (Feb 25, 2018)

Not sure if this is the correct place for this post, but...

Basically, I'm a UK citizen. Recently an Australian court decided something about the tax I paid on my WHV being illegal. I'm not sure about the ins and outs of it, but from what I understand it's something along the lines of; we should've been taxed the same as Australian citizens (no tax on the first 18k) because our countries have a tax agreement to promote exchange of labour.

Anyway... Has anyone got any information about this? Know if we're actually due a tax rebate because of this ruling? And if so, how do I got about getting it?

Kind Regards,

George


----------



## JandE (Jul 17, 2015)

The ATO have mentioned about appealing the decision.

Some WHV's may be classed as tax resident, others may not. 

It may be more complex than it seems at first glance. 

But worth watching, and requesting a review of your tax return.


----------



## gdenk (Feb 25, 2018)

Thanks for the reply. 

I will definitely do that when I have my next tax return. Hopefully, it'll all be cleared up by then. 

From what I understand, it's countries like the UK that have reciprocal tax agreements for workers who will be affected. I think that's why the girl won the case in Australia, because the tax laws broke the international agreement between the two countries.


----------



## JandE (Jul 17, 2015)

gdenk said:


> Thanks for the reply.
> 
> I will definitely do that when I have my next tax return. Hopefully, it'll all be cleared up by then.
> 
> From what I understand, it's countries like the UK that have reciprocal tax agreements for workers who will be affected. I think that's why the girl won the case in Australia, because the tax laws broke the international agreement between the two countries.


Justice Logan also stated:

_Crucially in this case, Ms Addy lived primarily at a share house in Sydney's Earlwood during her working holiday and made only brief visits interstate, including on one occasion to work on a horse farm in Western Australia.

It meant she was considered a "resident" for tax purposes in Australia, while many other holidaymakers adopting a more itinerant backpacking lifestyle are considered non-residents._

Professor Richard Vann, an expert in tax law at the University of Sydney, said:

_If working holidaymakers travelled "more or less continuously and work and live in several different places around Australia, which will be common for backpackers, they will not be Australian tax residents and so cannot avail themselves of the non-discrimination argument which succeeded in this case"._

Tax is never simple...


----------



## gdenk (Feb 25, 2018)

Interesting...

So, if I lived in one place and worked for one company for six months (maximum amount allowed on WHV), I'm possibly in with a chance of getting a rebate...

If not, it's not like I've actually lost out on anything. If it does work out, better than a kick in the balls...


----------

