DIG85

17 hours ago, Marisawright said:

 

We're talking about citizenship laws being amended, at some time in the future, to require that all visa obligations (moral or otherwise) must be met before citizenship can be granted. 

What moral obligation are you talking about?

There is only the legal obligation that, at the time you apply, you intend to stay in the sponsoring state for 2 years from the date of arrival. Intentions can - and often do - change. It's not a question of morality.

It is almost impossible for the authorities to prove that you never intended to stay in the sponsoring state for 2 years unless you are foolish enough to tell them or post on forums under your real name.

22 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

Why should they be exempt?

Technically the government could retrospectively increase the top rate of tax for the 2018-19 tax year and require everyone to re-lodge their tax return for that year and pay any additional tax due as a result. The chances of it doing so are to all intents and purposes nil.

A visa is granted with a number of conditions. Staying two years is in the grantor state is not one of them. The reason for that is simple: the DHA recognise that people’s or firms’ circumstances can change within that timeframe. I cannot imagine any circumstances where the conditions for grant of a visa change retrospectively. Perhaps you can, and that’s fine, you can put your life on hold and stay doing something you don’t want to if you’re that terrified of the potential ramifications. Personally I think there’s more likelihood of being struck down by a car than doing something which is legal now having any impact on your future visa/citizenships. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Just like someone terrified of covid can lock themselves indoors for the rest of their lives if they want to.

7 hours ago, Ausvisitor said:

You don't know your European history very well then. Consider Germany 1939-1945 and what they were allowed to do legally by their government that the same country government is now prosecuting people for (even though it was legal when they did it)

There are literally hundreds of other examples of a government reversing it's stance and criminalising activities that were performed legally at the time.

Godwin’s law alive and well. I was referring specifically to citizenship laws.

On 20/12/2022 at 00:01, Marisawright said:

  I'm assuming that is why Ausvisitor's company lawyers are advising against taking the chance.  

In-house legal teams, HR teams etc. exist for one reason only: to protect the company. The advice to stay in NSW is not for Ausvisitor's benefit but for his employer's, notwithstanding the fact that his line manager appears to want him to move states. The company's legal counsel obviously believes, rightly or wrongly, that employees moving states may prejudice the company's ability to sponsor employees in the future.

I have worked in several large firms and it is always the case that these in-house teams are ultra-conservative and brook no risk, often despite the commercial wishes of the client-facing teams.

As for the subject of the thread, I find the notion that anyone has a moral obligation to a state to be preposterous. Of all the parties one could possibly have a moral obligation to, the state would be the very last. There is absolutely no morality when it comes to the law, especially immigration law, and anyone who doubts that should see how far one gets when trying to argue morality to a tax inspector or policeman. 

As has been pointed out, the conditions of grant do not stipulate that the grantee must remain in the state for 2 years. The only possible way a state could cancel a visa is if it could demonstrate there was never any intention to remain in the state, which is almost impossible for them to prove.

NSW may flat out refuse to acknowledge a request to be released from the 2 years, but there's bugger all they can do about it if you do leave - not least because the issue and cancellation of visas is a federal responsibility, not a state one.

Could the rules change by the time one is ready to apply for citizenship, and possibly be backdated? Technically they could, but I find the chances that they would penalise an act that was lawful at the time to be miniscule. I can't recall any instance where a government has done that.

12 hours ago, Rik said:

 

 

 

50 yr old single professional, Bit by brith been here in Nelson NZ for 16 yrs. Beautiful place but honestly bored of it, smallish town, isolated, and feel like a change.

I have the possible option to sell my house here, buy in Mandurah / Bunbury / North of Perth perhaps?? and start a new chapter.

Isn't the obvious question here: if you find Nelson NZ boring, small town, isolated etc., what makes you think you Mandurah/Bunbury will be any different? 

12 minutes ago, djsle said:

Thank you for your prompt reply.

I'm afraid that after 8 years I have no documentation actually proving that I ceased trading. It is simply HMRC's word against mine. The letter appears genuine and not fraudulent. I have requested a call from the forums tax specialist Collet & CO, would you agree that's a good idea?

Do you know if HMRC would be likely to take my pension for this, assuming it is genuine?

Thank you again for your help.

Yes, phone Collet & Co. 

Surely you can obtain bank statements showing that your business-related income and expenditure ceased around 2014. Ask HMRC the basis for their belief that you traded after 2014. 

I think it is unlikely HMRC would take your pension, and they would need proof that you have undeclared income. They can't just take money out of your account willy-nilly.

If you genuinely ceased your sole trader business (and had no other untaxed sources of UK income) then you have nothing to worry about. 

The ATO has no power to enforce UK tax law so that seems like an empty threat.

HMRC can take money from your bank account but they need to be able to show that you owe them money.

Is this definitely a letter from HMRC and not a fraudster? Probably worth giving them a call and explaining your situation.

6 hours ago, Cup Final 1973 said:

We’ve just had a visit from some Aussie friends, one of whom moved to Australia from the UK in his twenties.  He travelled on his Aussie passport, only to be challenged by the immigration officer and asked for his British passport!  He was held up for some time and told in no uncertain terms that he should have travelled on his British passport.

I’d be interested to know what statute or regulation the immigration officer quoted at your friend.

There isn’t even any legal requirement for a British citizen to have a British passport (25% of the population don’t), so I’ve no idea how any requirement to enter the UK on a British passport can be enforced.

15 minutes ago, Philip said:

I don't believe there are any penalties for doing something like this, despite making the false declaration.

Which kind of makes sense, because it is never illegal for an Australian citizen to enter Australia.

10 minutes ago, paulhand said:

The difference with Australia is that all non citizens require a visa to enter Australia and an Australian citizen cannot, by law, be granted an Australian visa. Therefore you cannot enter Australia on a foreign passport if you are an Australian citizen. They cannot turn you away if you are an Australian citizen and do not have an Australian passport but expect significant hassle with the airline and some time wasting at the border as your identity and status is confirmed. 

I don’t disagree with anything you say. 

I have always been asked to provide an Australian passport at Heathrow when checking in to fly to Australia because by law the airline must satisfy itself that every passenger on the plane is entitled to enter Australia, on pain of severe financial penalties for the airline if it fails to do so.

I always travel with two passports because there is no reason not to, however most of what one reads about “must” use such and such a passport to enter such and such country is simply false.

28 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

 

If you are a British citizen, the UK government expects you to enter the UK on a UK passport, regardless of what other citizenship you hold.

This was confirmed by a member of these forums, who enquired at Immigration when arriving in the UK and was told they must use their UK passport not their Aussie one. 

I recall that exchange. Another participant in that thread stated that, when asking an official which passport they should use to enter the UK, they received a non-committal answer.

I wouldn’t equate what the immigration official says with UK government policy or UK law. A lot of them don’t have a clue.

I cannot see anything online which suggests that the UK government “expects” a British citizen to enter the UK on a UK passport, let alone that they “should”, still less that they “must”.

15 minutes ago, welljock said:

No but it would be up to you to prove you're a citizen.

Nope, there are several countries, citizens of which do not need a UK passport to enter the UK. Australia is one of them, as are EU countries.

6 minutes ago, Parley said:

 

Australia does openly say Australians must leave and enter Australia using an Australian passport

It says “should” actually. No one has ever been able to point to statute or regulation making it a requirement.

2 hours ago, Marisawright said:

I said " you are SUPPOSED to"  not "you HAVE to".   

I am not sure there is any practical distinction between the two. Either you are required to or you are not.
 

There is nothing in statute or regulation AFAIK which requires a British citizen to enter the country on a British passport. 

2 hours ago, Marisawright said:

Strictly speaking, if you are a British citizen, you are supposed to enter the UK on a British passport. 

I think that’s another myth tbh, just like the one that you need an Aus passport to enter Australia.

Strictly speaking you don’t need any passport to enter a country of which you are citizen. It’s just a lot easier if you do have one.

50 minutes ago, AltyMatt said:

 I showed my British passport to border control but they stamped my Australian passport as that is the one I used to leave Australia.

 

Why would they do that? Why would they even know you hold an Australian passport unless you had it in your hand or volunteered that information?

I have often left Australia on an Australian passport and entered the UK on a UK passport and never had my Aus passport stamped on entry to the UK.

3 hours ago, Skani said:

I remember a discussion about this on PIO some time ago.  I think  it was concluded that  car ownership was actually cheaper in Oz because in all (except NSW?) compulsory third party insurance is included in the registration fee and in the UK required insurance in addition to the rego fee is considerably higher?   My rego (including compulsory third party) is $455.

Does that take into account the capital cost of the car? Because in my, admittedly little, experience, the cost of a car is far greater on Australia than the UK.

I'm hearing swimming pools in some parts of the UK now cost about £10k p.a. to run, with the recent increase in energy prices.

Two extremely conservative, redneck states, with not a lot going on in either. I hope you like Dr Who/the Tardis, because you will be travelling back to the 1970s.

There’s no need to inform HMRC of your departure from the UK.

However, you will generally be required to continue to file a UK income tax return if you have any UK source income.

10 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

Who said it was impossible?

I said it was impossible for the OP to get a PR visa if he goes on a WHV now and then wants PR at the end of it.  That's just a fact.  

Yes, he could be patient, get a trade etc etc. We've already had that conversation.  Personally I think he'd be better to complete the course he's doing and get some experience in that field. No one has said there aren't options, just that all of them take time -- often years -- to come to fruition.

Well I agree with your last sentence. But that’s a well known fact. 
It’ll take three or four years to do most degree courses. It will usually take 15 years minimum to make partner at a big law or accountancy firm. Nothing worth getting is obtainable overnight.

14 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

So you don’t need a trade or qualifications? That will be news to some

That’s precisely the attitude I’m criticising. 
Bloody go and get a trade and some qualifications if you have to. But don’t say it’s impossible.

20 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

....but people who have come from mud shacks in Asia are willing to put up with anything in order to achieve their goal.  They'll live in cockroach-infested flats sharing six to a room to get through a university degree, working all hours in part-time jobs to survive.  Then they end up thousands of dollars in debt by the time they get their PR, and then they just get on with working off the debt without complaining. 

There's a difference between being determined to achieve something and having unrealistic dreams.   People need to know the size of the mountain they're proposing to climb, so they can prepare appropriately.  It's not helpful for others to say, " don't worry, it's not Everest, it's just a little hill, you'll be right". 

IMO, obtaining Australian permanent residency is comfortably within the reach of any Brit who has the financial means to buy an internet connection and is sufficiently literate to search for, post on, and enter into dialogue with other contributors to, a forum for expats.

It is by no means an unrealistic dream. If everyone had your attitude there would be no immigration to Australia at all.

1 hour ago, Blue Flu said:

Exactly to what I referred to. It happens a lot. Why some labour under the misconception that it is all too hard I've no idea. Australia is not 'difficult' , just knowing the right people. 

I’ve always subscribed to the view that if you want something enough, you can get it.

That certainly applies to obtaining visas that offer pathway to PR and hence citizenship. You just have to make it happen.

Heck, there are people who have come from mud shacks in Asia, not too long ago, who have managed to stay in Australia permanently. For people from the UK it should be much easier.

14 hours ago, Marisawright said:

However that was NOT due to the costs of moving back to the UK for a period.  It was SOLELY because of the decision to sell our home before we did so.   The actual cost of spending a year in the UK was no worse than having a few holidays at the end of the day, if we had kept our home.   So it is not an expensive decision if properly planned.

Yes, I can imagine the costs of moving back to the UK for a period, in themselves, are relatively small - perhaps just a return flight. Bills and daily costs etc may well have been comparable to what they would have been in Australia.

Where losses do rack up is if you sell your home in a rising market and buy back a year later having rented in the meantime. One will have lost a significant sum of money in the process.