This article explores tax residency for forcibly displaced persons, suggesting a model to ensure legal certainty and fairness.
The issue of determining the tax residence of refugees has become increasingly relevant in light of rising global mobility and systemic instability caused by wars, disasters, and humanitarian crises. Traditional approaches to determining individual tax residence are predominantly based on formal criteria - such as the number of days of physical presence, center of vital interests, or habitual abode - without adequately accounting for the individual’s intent, vulnerability, or the involuntary nature of their displacement. As a result, individuals who relocate to another jurisdiction due to force majeure circumstances may be deemed tax residents without any genuine or voluntary connection to the host state, thus conflicting with the principles of legal certainty, fairness, and proportionality. This paper advocates for the implementation of the concept of “forced” (non-voluntary) tax residence, aimed at establishing a distinct legal regime for persons who have been displaced due to extraordinary events beyond their control. The model introduces a transitional exemption period of up to 365 days during which such persons shall not be considered tax residents of the host jurisdiction, thereby providing temporary relief, legal clarity, and administrative consistency. At the same time, the approach incorporates a flexible assessment of individual adaptation, proposing that indicators of integration into the new society - such as long-term employment, education of children, social participation, or family reunification — can serve as triggers for early reassessment of status. The article further explores the relationship between this concept and the traditional criteria of center of vital interests and domicile, and outlines possible instruments for international coordination, including model tax conventions, bilateral agreements, and multilateral frameworks. The proposed solution enables a balanced response that integrates fiscal efficiency, humanitarian considerations, and rule-of-law safeguards in international tax policy, ultimately contributing to a more equitable and coherent global tax system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
M. S. Vitiuk (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: