Initially there will be a few. As the realities of expatriate life set in, based around a low Jetstar wage, there will be more. Pilots will sponge of the Australian taxpayer by basing their families at home in Australia.

I think this whole Jetstar Singapore basing could open up the pandoras box of large numbers of Australian pilots, who commute with foreign airlines and evade Australian tax by claiming non-residency.

Personally I think it stinks. Pilots get to use Australian taxpayers to subsidize a poor contract that is at the detriment to the profession- helping the race to the bottom.

Screw them. Highlight this to the ATO through your union.

BTW. Watch pilots who think they are smarter than the system, trying all sorts of hair brained tax evading concepts. Claiming separation from the wife ( risking a fraudulent jail term ) etc...

It gets ugliest when the ATO garnishes the pilot's wage.

Sunfish

Nice in theory. But Jetstar wont be doing anything of the sort. Because they dont have to. They make it clear that tax affairs are the pilots responsibility, i.e. you are on your own.

Get some tax advice from Paul Hogan.

This would be worth looking at as well
IRAS: Individuals (For Foreigners)

If you're still classed as an Australian resident prehaps you would qualify for deductions from the ATO on accommodaton in Singapore and travel costs ? Definately ask an accountant for advice, it may qualify as a work related expense.

Unfortunately it looks like a pilot moving from Australia to Singapore to work for Jetstar, unless willing to establish himself and his family there on a medium to long term basis and drastically reduce ties with Australia, is going to be up for Aussie income tax.

This probably renders the present package unviable for most pilots unless substantial additions are made to cover the increased costs of a short term relocation if taking the family, or the expense and inconvenience of commuting and running two homes.

As indicated by earlier posts - and Paul Hogan's predicament - tax residency can be a complex issue. Absolute certainty can only be obtained by a private ruling from the ATO. If advice is needed however, I would suggest that pilots should seek it from say one of 'Big 4' accounting firms (or similar specialists) who deal with these issues routinely. They have technical advisors that live and breathe tax residency. I would expect a good employer to seek and pay for such advice on behalf of a group of employees or potential expats....:rolleyes:

Although some of the posts have indicated that a whole family needs to relocate on a long term basis to qualify, that is not necessarily the case. The location of your family is only one factor. The way in which a person organises their domestic and economic affairs as part of their lives is a broader, more influential factor. In one private ruling to a pilot a couple of years ago, the ATO noted that his family lived in Australia whilst he was stationed overseas for three years. The ATO has a rule of thumb that two years is the minimum period of time to denote residency of an individual. Maintaining a place of residence in Australia is not the same as actually residing there. A person may have residences in many countries. Notwithstanding continuing ties to Australia, and several visits back to Australia each month, because the pilot's employment ties were in another country and that place was where he carried out the ordinary course of his life, the ATO held that he was considered to be a resident of that place for tax purposes.

As with any private ruling, slighty different facts may well alter the ATO view as they are known to be very fickle....:ugh: Hence the need to seek advice specific to your own circumstances.

Teal said,

I would expect a good employer to seek and pay for such advice on behalf of a group of employees or potential expats....


Quite correct Teal, A GOOD EMPLOYER.

This has no relevance here.:yuk:

B.D.

Maybe wait to see how many capts are still there in six months.

Supply and demand.

Without a private ruling, don't go.

It was looked at by a number of people a few years ago when QF were looking to base S/O's in Singapore.

The whole thing ended up falling apart for many reasons, however one thing that did come out of it (from memory) was that by owning any property in AUS you were considered resident of AUS for tax.

Made the whole thing financially unviable for crew. And that was on a QF wage.

A Comfy Chair

Actually if you dig a little deeper you will find that the ATO didn’t consider the SIN S/O basing an indefinite one because the said S/O’s would have to return to Australia for a promotion. The fact that many S/O’s may have owned property in Australia just reinforced in the ATO’s mind that any S/O taking a SIN base was only there for a finite period of time, therefore defining them as residents of Australia for tax purposes.

Who has seen the Singapore contracts?

* Jetstar NZ FO $65 - 70K

* Jetstar Oz FO $110-120K

* Jetstar Singa FO ???????????

I suspect they might be among the worst paid A330 pilots around.

Simply owning property in Aust does not mean you have to pay Aust tax!!! I know many non residents who currently own property in Aust , and this does not mean they are automatically liable for oz tax. I suggest many of the posters on here really have no idea what they are talking about. I agree with Teal, if you are looking at this, or any other offshore gig, get some good tax/legal advice before going !!!!

Who do you Trust?
 

Who do you trust enough to transfer assets into their name?
wife ,mum,dad or brother,sister.
Sunfish has nailed it.....no ruling...no go....unless of course you dont care about wages and conditions,have no Oz assets and have a Singaporean girlfiend who is very good at something.
Oh to be 25 with no assets and too much testosterone

One also needs to consider the licensing requirements of the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore (CAAS).
I heard that the initial lot who upgraded there had to take a months leave without pay to prepare for the CAAS "assessment" exam and not all passed.

Wasn't one of the stumbling blocks (QF basing) the efficiencies of the rostering system.

One of the major efficencies was to maximise the utilisation of the crew based in Singapore.

Management wanted to pre-allocate rosters (no bidding) & AIPA wouldn't budge on seniority style bidding for rosters & days off.

Seems to me, they couldn't achieve it in mainline, so are attempting the same with J*.

23AG Exemption
 

Articles re some changes in the 2009 Budget:

Taxation of Expatriate "Expat" Foreign Income | My Tax Zone - TAX BLOG

Tax fears could spur an exodus of exodus | The Australian


It may differ in Australia, but I think there was a case in the UK involving a British pilot working for a European carrier, where I think it was ruled that each day when he landed in the UK, even though he remained airside, he was deemed to be in the UK for the purposes of caluculating his tax residence. (IIRC that case also turned on him having property and immediate family in the UK).

hi

can anyone here please tell me the interview process/simcheck?

i have interview this month.

thanks in advance

ps, i know its not the right place to ask this question but i tried to start a thread which for some reason got shut down. trying all avenues!

Mstr Caution. I think that QF reckoned that the base only became viable if the S/O divisor of those based there was 180. AIPA said 'no' to that divisor. Given the way the patterns would have worked out, this meant that lines could only be constructed to less than 160... again an issue for QF. Therefore it just wouldn't 'fit'.

As I remember it anyway.

catthree, the reason your post keeps getting deleted is that there is probably a thread a week asking the same question. Tried a search on the D&G 'questions' forum?

I wonder what "WorkChoices is Dead, Buried, Cemated" Abbott's comments on this Australian Business innovation would be ?????

Take this concept to the next level, when numberous business' and Industries start basing workers offshore. Less cost to the business, better profits, bigger executive bonus'.
What will the Australian Government do when they realise the extent of the collapse of the Taxation income base as a result of this Australian Business innovation to cut costs ?????

I also seem to recall that JetStar is a part of the Qantas Group is it not?
Isn't there an Act of Parliment that was supposed to prevent "Qantas " offshoring it's identity just as JetStar management are now proposing to do?

"All Day, Every Day, Low Pay"
"JetStar's price beat guarantee-,
we promise to undercut any pay offer by 10%

Q sale Act prescribes entity ownership limits - JQ as a subsiduary can do just about anything it wants.

Where the really big big black (orange) hole is that QF can flex its IASC route approvals to JQ or 'another majority owned subsiduary.

The Senate Inquiry TOR's are quite wide and I would hope that those making submissions would also cover off on the bureaucratic mechanisms that have assisted the likes of JQ to sacrafice the homeland for a few short term dollars.

Greed is not always good - sometimes it makes you burp

AT
:E