He sent $1.7 million home to Sydney and kept the house, the super, Medicare and the boat. The Tribunal still said Singapore.
He earns $700,000 a year. His wife and daughter live in the family home in Sydney. Over five years he sent more than $1.7m home, maxed his super contributions, kept Medicare, private health, the bank accounts and the boat.
The ATO says: Australian resident. The Tribunal says: Singapore. Bulie and Commissioner of Taxation [2026] ARTA 1003.
Why? Because under a treaty tie-breaker, the question is not where your money goes. It is where it comes from.
What happened
Mr Bulie, a Norwegian-born oil and gas executive, took a Singapore job in November 2017 as Head of Crude Oil Trading for Equinor Asia Pacific. His wife and younger daughter stayed in the Sydney home the couple bought in 2013. Across 2018 to 2022 he spent roughly 38% of his days in Australia [20], remitted over $1.7m for the mortgage and family support [22], and put $127,500 into Australian super [21].
The ATO assessed him as a resident for all five years, income tax and Div 293. It was common ground he was a dual resident with a permanent home and a habitual abode in both countries [8]. That left a single question under Art 3(2) of the 1969 Singapore treaty: with which country were his personal and economic relations closest?
Why Singapore won
The Tribunal applied Pike - Logan J’s framework, upheld on appeal - and agreed it gave “paramount weight to the taxpayer’s primary source of ongoing income” [26]. The salary was Singaporean. Everything else was commentary.
The Sydney home? Worth more than Mr Pike’s vacant land, but not different in kind: “capital appreciation … is not the same thing as realised income” [30]. The super? “It is the source of income rather than its destination that is the more relevant consideration” [32].
Medicare, health cover, bank accounts? Just “a function of the administrative realities and conveniences of dual residency” [33]. His personal ties were conceded to be closer to Australia. It did not matter. The “personal acts” deserving “special attention” were his choice to live away from his family to earn the income [36].
The practitioner lessons
First, the treaty can rescue a taxpayer who is plainly a resident under domestic law. Run both analyses, always.
Second, non-income-producing assets do not anchor you. An appreciating home and a growing super balance are not economic relations that compete with a foreign salary.
Third, 38% physical presence did not sink him. Pike won at about 25%. Where the economic life is matters more than the day count.
Fourth, private rulings issued to other taxpayers “do not have precedential effect”. The Tribunal would not look at them (footnote 7). One caution: it is a Tribunal decision, and the appeal window is open.
General information only. This note was accurate when written. The law may have changed since and the note is not updated. It is not legal or tax advice, does not take account of your circumstances and must not be relied upon as a substitute for advice on your own matter. If the issue is live for you or your client, email arda@nortonquaytaxlaw.com.au for advice on the current position.