Harry Lakis represented the successful Applicant in the recent residency case of Dempsey v Commissioner for Taxation [2014] AATA 335. This case is widely considered to have reset the approach for analysis of residency in Australia, when a Presidential bench of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal upheld the statutory test as construed by the High Court in 1946, and in doing so rejected the adherence to checklists as had evolved in both the Commissioner's practice, and some recent Tribunal decisions.
Is "continuity of association"? a relevant test? Can the taxpayer have a house in Australia? What if they ticked the wrong box on their customs entry card? What were identified as the relevant factors now? In the words of the Tribunal: Harry discussed the paramount "principles"? as prescribed in the law, and compare this to its "application"? by Tribunals.