Many Mauritians leave the country for employment opportunities but still plan to return home at a later stage. A common question is whether they remain tax residents of Mauritius while living and working abroad.
Mauritian tax law sets out several ways to determining tax residency. The primary and most straightforward test is physical presence: an individual is generally considered a resident if they are present in Mauritius for 183 days or more in a tax year.
However, for those working abroad, the physical presence test is often not met. In such cases, the law looks to other factors to determine residency. One of the most important is whether an individual still regards Mauritius as their permanent home in Mauritius or whether they have clearly established a permanent home outside Mauritius. This secondary test is crucial where an individual has relocated overseas on a temporary basis.
The Dilloo case
The Supreme Court considered this issue in the case of Mauritius Revenue Authority v Dilloo (May 2024). Mr Dilloo, a Mauritian citizen, lived and worked in Saudi Arabia for employment purposes. Even though he was physically absent in Mauritius, the Court concluded that he remained a tax resident of Mauritius. The court placed significant weight on the fact that he had not established a permanent home elsewhere and intended to return to Mauritius.
This case shows that physical presence alone is not always the deciding factor and that all relevant facts must be considered together when applying the “permanent home” test.
Mauritius Revenue Authority (MRA) ruling in Tax Ruling 289 (December 2025)
More recently, the MRA reached a different conclusion in Tax Ruling 289.
The case involved Mrs A, a Mauritian citizen who moved to Singapore with her family for employment opportunities. The facts showed that:
- her stay in Singapore was temporary;
- she was uncertain whether she would settle there permanently;
- she continued to regard Mauritius as her home;
- she owned a house in Mauritius that she rented out; and
- her close family members continued to live in Mauritius.
Despite these connections, which appeared similar to those in the Dilloo case, the MRA concluded that Mrs A was not a tax resident of Mauritius.
Why is this important?
This ruling raises questions about how Mauritian tax residency should be interpreted.
Based on the facts, Mrs A maintained strong ties to Mauritius. Her reason to move abroad was for work and did not clearly show an intention to leave Mauritius permanently. These facts appear similar to those in Dilloo’s case, where the Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion.
This creates significant uncertainty for taxpayers. The key question is whether tax residency depends mainly on whether a person still considers Mauritius to be their permanent home, or whether it depends on a wider set of factors that could be interpreted differently on a case-by-case basis. The ruling does not fully explain why the outcome was different from Dilloo’s case, leaving room for differing interpretations.
Could a taxpayer be resident in two countries?
It is also possible for a person in Mrs A’s position to become a tax resident of Singapore while still being regarded as resident in Mauritius. This creates the possibility of dual tax residency and, potentially, exposure to tax in both jurisdictions.
Where this occurs, the double taxation agreement (DTA) between Mauritius and Singapore becomes important. It contains a tie-breaker rules that determine which country has the primary taxing rights.
What is the effect of a tax ruling?
It is also important to remember that a tax ruling is not the law. A ruling reflects the MRA’s interpretation of the legislation based on the specific facts presented by the taxpayer. It is binding on the MRA only for that particular taxpayer and in relation to the specific transaction or period covered.
A taxpayer can challenge a ruling if they believe it is wrong or inconsistent with the law or existing court decisions. However, the MRA will generally apply the ruling to the taxpayer who requested it, unless it is withdrawn or successfully challenged. The courts, however, are not bound by the MRA’s interpretation and may reach a different conclusion.
Conclusion
Tax Ruling 289 highlights that tax residency in Mauritius is not always straightforward, especially when people move abroad for work but still keep strong ties to Mauritius.
The difference between the Supreme Court’s decision in Dilloo’s case and the MRA’s interpretation in Tax Ruling 289 leaves important questions about the application of the residency rules are applied in practice. It is essential to remember that the MRA’s view in a ruling may not reflect the final view of the courts.
Until there is clearer guidance from the courts, taxpayers who work outside Mauritius should carefully evaluate their circumstances, consider the impact of any applicable DTA, and obtain professional tax advice before concluding that they have ceased to be Mauritian tax residents.
If you are relocating, working abroad or returning to Mauritius, get in touch with our team for tailored advice on your residency status and cross-border tax planning.
English 
French