Japan determines residents based on their principal base of living, which makes it confusing. Isn't there a clear guideline like 183 days abroad? When considering moving abroad or dual-residency living, this is usually the first question one arrives at.

There are countries other than Japan that do not determine residency status based solely on the number of days.Especially the Netherlands, Belgium, and France cannot explain their general determination frameworks with a single figure of "183 days a year." Moreover, Japan also has a period criterion of "a place of residence continuing for one year or more up to the present." The question "only Japan has no day count rule" deviates from the starting point unless we distinguish what is being called a day count rule.

Based on the laws, regulations, and tax authority materials verified on September 20, 2026, this paper examinesdetermination of residency status for individual income tax purposescomparing them across 13 countries. Focusing narrowly on general domestic law entry points, we treat nationality/residence status, corporate tax residency, inheritance and gift taxes, and special tax regimes for migrants as separate issues. We also distinguish between the conditions written in the statutes and the figures provided by authorities as interpretations of the statutes or practical guidelines.

First, break down the meaning of "there are no day standards" into three parts.

First,The general definition of resident does not set a fixed number of days or months of stay.means that. The Netherlands determines residency based on circumstances, and Belgium also uses the factual basis of the center of one's domicile or property management. Furthermore, the number "183 days" does not appear in the French Income Tax Act's definition either. However, since duration is involved in determining the primary place of stay in France, it cannot be said to be a system that ignores time entirely.

Second,There are regulations regarding the number of days and the period, but a person also becomes a resident under other independent criteria.That means... Japan, Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and others fall into this category. The reason you cannot read it the other way around as "non-resident if less than 183 days" is because of this independent entry point.

Third,Instead of writing 183 days, the French text sets temporal conditions such as "the majority of the tax period" or "more than half of the income year".This is the case. Some criteria in Italy and Australia apply. You must not classify it as "no day limit" on the grounds that a string of numbers cannot be found. Conversely, you cannot assume that the same number exists in the legal text simply because 183 days is written in the administrative explanation.

The following classification is not an official classification of each country, but rather an arrangement by this paper to compare documents. "No day limit" is an explanation regarding the general entry point and does not claim that there is not a single provision using days in the tax laws of that country as a whole.

Compare 13 countries in a list

The rationale is provided in the section for each country. This table is not a list of the maximum allowable days of stay. It is a list designed to distinguish between "or more" and "exceeding," calendar years and tax years, and actual days present in a country versus the duration of residence.

Japan: The entrance for registered addresses and the entrance for places of residence of one year or more are separate.

Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Income Tax Act defines a resident as an individual who has a domicile in Japan or who has continuously had a residence in Japan for one year or more up to the present. Non-residents under Item 5 of the same paragraph are individuals other than residents. The National Tax Agency explains a domicile as the center of one's life and states that it is determined based on objective facts. In other words, rather than saying "Japan has no period criteria,"Because there is an independent standard of address, it is not determined solely by the number of days spent in the country per year.is.Article 2 of the Income Tax Act、National Tax Agency: Classification of Residents and Non-Residents

Having an address in Japan does not mean you will not become a resident until a year has passed. On the other hand, merely having a schedule such as "staying in Japan for 182 days or less per year" or "staying overseas for 183 days or more" does not mean that your Japanese address has ceased to exist. The center of one's livelihood is evaluated based on factors such as housing, occupation, family sharing the same livelihood, and assets.

Articles 14 and 15 of the Enforcement Order of the Income Tax Act also include provisions that presume the existence of an address within or outside Japan. For example, future circumstances, such as an occupation that typically requires residence for one year or more, differ from the mere task of adding up past days of stay. Even with the identical word "one year," one must read the duration of a residence under the law separately from the conditions concerning the presumption of an address under the Enforcement Order.Explanation by the National Tax Agency and underlying laws and regulations

The starting point for an address is Article 22 of the Civil Code. However, Article 23 should not be mechanically applied to income tax.

Article 22 of the Civil Code defines each person's "principal base of living" as their domicile. It serves as a starting point for determining not only where resident registration is filed, but also where the center of one's daily life actually is. Income Tax Basic Directive 2-1 also explains that a domicile is the principal base of living and is determined based on objective facts.

On the other hand, Article 23 of the Civil Code provides for treating a residence as a domicile. Paragraph 1 stipulates that if the domicile is unknown, the residence is deemed to be the domicile, and Paragraph 2 stipulates that for persons who do not have a domicile in Japan, regardless of their nationality, their residence in Japan shall be deemed to be their domicile. Paragraph 2 also provides for exceptions where the law of the domicile applies in accordance with laws determining the applicable law.Articles 22 and 23 of the Civil Code

Here, it is important not to confuse the provision regarding the deeming of domicile under the Civil Code with the scope of residents under the Income Tax Act. Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 3 of the Income Tax Act clearly distinguishes between a "domicile in Japan" and a "residence in Japan that has continued up to the present for one year or more." Taking Article 23 of the Civil Code in isolation, it cannot be interpreted to mean that even a person whose center of living is abroad immediately becomes a resident for income tax purposes simply by establishing a short-term residence in Japan.

For example, a tourist's temporary stay at a Japanese hotel is a different fact from that person's principal base of living having shifted to Japan. Also, in cases where a principal base of living in Japan is maintained even while away from Japan on a business trip, physical absence alone does not provide a complete explanation. By separating the three considerations of determining an address, the continuation of a residence, and the presumption of an address, one can think about the matter without confusing the Civil Code and the Income Tax Act.Income Tax Basic Directive 2-1 and 2-3

Netherlands: The legal text stipulates "to judge depending on the circumstances"

A clear counterexample outside of Japan is the Netherlands. Article 4, Paragraph 1 of the General State Taxes Act (AWR) adopts a structure where residency is determined based on various circumstances. Under this paragraph, the general determination of residency does not rely on a fixed stay duration of 183 days per year. The legal text is also cited in the residency determination evaluation materials published by the Dutch Ministry of Finance on March 31, 2025.AWR 4th Article、Ministry of Finance "Evaluation of Tax Residency Determination", pages 2-3

This Ministry of Finance document explains that, according to case law, ongoing personal ties with the Netherlands are at issue. It provides examples such as daily shopping, resident registration, family residence status, and accommodation conditions, stating that conclusions are not reached based on a single circumstance alone, but rather by looking at the whole picture. Therefore, it is not a system where the determination is completed solely by the cancellation of registration or an outbound flight ticket.

Even easier to overlook is the fact that those personal ties do not necessarily need to be stronger than the ties with other countries. For someone who retains sufficient ties to the Netherlands, it does not automatically follow that "because their life is centered abroad, they are naturally a non-resident under domestic law." The order of operations is crucial: first determine residency under domestic law, and if dual residency results, resolve it through a tax treaty. This is a point that should be understood based on Dutch standards, rather than glossed over using terminology similar to Japan's "center of vital interests."See page 3 of the same document

Belgium: Look at the center of address and property management, place presumptions on registration

The residency documentation submitted by the Belgian authorities to the OECD describes individuals whose domicile or center of wealth management is in Belgium, based on Article 2, paragraph 1, item 1 of the Income Tax Code (CIR92). Domicile is the factual matter of the actual place of residence and living, and the center of wealth management is the location where wealth is managed. The Belgian government's public explanation outlines the same framework.Submitted to Belgian authorities: Tax residency、Belgian Government "Impôts"

The condition of "183 days a year" is not indicated in this general definition. Having real estate in the country and that place being one's living environment are different things. Also, it is not appropriate to equate the expression "center of asset management" with the country where assets are physically located or simply the country where a bank account is held.

Resident registration cannot be understood with the same mindset as in Japan, either. Official documents explain that an individual registered in the national register is treated as a resident unless proven otherwise. While this is a system that places emphasis on registration, it does not mean that the examination of factual circumstances becomes unnecessary solely based on the presence or absence of registration. It is also explained that a temporary absence from the country does not change one's place of residence.

This section on Belgium is confirmed based on explanatory materials from the government and authorities. Because we have not been able to obtain and verify the full text of the current consolidated provisions of CIR 92 itself, we cannot confirm that every detail in the provisions—including special status and family relationships—has been fully checked.

France: Separating the legal term "principal place of residence" from the administrative guidance of 183 days

Article 4B of the French General Tax Code (CGI) sets out multiple criteria: the home or principal place of abode, a professional activity that is not of an ancillary nature, and the center of economic interests.There is no figure of 183 days in this article itself.Because there are also criteria for occupational activities and economic interests, it is not a system that relies solely on the number of days spent staying in the first place.CGI Article 4 (Feb. 16, 2025 Edition)

Now, looking at the French government's public-facing pages, there is a section that explains the principal place of residence as "at least 183 days a year." There is a background context to understanding this explanation as "France has a 183-day rule." However, presenting the definition in the legal text and the explanation by the administration as the same thing will lead to an incorrect conclusion.Service Public "How to determine your tax residence"

While the tax authorities' detailed commentary, the BOFiP, generally treats a stay of over six months in a year as the primary place of residence,Over 6 months is not an absolute standard.and explains. It also gives an example taking into account the circumstance that the stay in France is clearly longer compared to stays in other multiple countries. Furthermore, it is not appropriate to skip the issue of determining the family's base and only perform a comparison of days from the beginning.BOFiP, specifically paragraphs 120 to 150、Tax authorities: "Do you qualify as a non-resident?"

Therefore, while France is a suitable example of a country "without a statutory uniform 183-day rule," it is not an example of a country "that does not use the length of stay for determination." Furthermore, Article 4B, as amended in 2025, stipulates in its main text that even if the domestic criteria are met, individuals who are not considered French residents under tax treaties shall not be deemed to have a tax domicile. It is necessary to read this to the extent of understanding the relationship between domestic law and treaties.Article 4, paragraph 1, end of CGI

Germany and Finland: combining the "over 6 months" and housing criteria

Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the German Income Tax Act establishes a domestic residence or habitual abode as the gateway to unlimited tax liability. Residence under Section 8 of the Fiscal Code is a residence secured under circumstances that presume it will be maintained and used. Rather than simply expressing the ownership of real estate, it focuses on the available dwelling and the reality of its use.Section 1 of the German Income Tax Act、Article 8 of the Act on General Rules for National Taxes

Article 9 stipulates that, as a rule, a regular stay is considered to be one exceeding six consecutive months from its commencement, without taking short interruptions into account. However, there is an exception where this six-month rule does not apply to stays that do not exceed one year and are solely for private purposes such as visiting, recreation, or medical treatment. Therefore, the explanations that "it switches at 183 nights" and "if it is six months or less, one is a non-resident even if they have a residence" are both inaccurate.Article 9 of the Act on General Rules for National Taxes

Finland also distinguishes between cases where the primary residence and home are in the country and cases of a continuous stay exceeding 6 months. Based on Sections 9 and 11 of the Income Tax Act, tax authorities explain that temporary absences do not necessarily break continuity, and the 6-month period is unrelated to calendar year boundaries. A distinction is also made between exactly 6 months and over 6 months. Furthermore, the departure of Finnish citizens is generally subject to special rules regarding the year of departure and the following 3 years, and cannot be handled by the same yardstick as the entry of foreigners.Finnish Tax Administration, Sections 2.3, 2.5, and 3.2

US - Days in the current year and weighted days for the 3-year period are separate

What is being compared here in the US is primarily the federal income tax classification of individuals who are not US citizens. The IRS sets forth the green card test and the substantial presence test. The taxation of US citizens must not be confused with the mechanism by which foreign nationals are evaluated based on the number of days.IRS "Individual Tax Residence"

The substantial presence test generally requires you to be present for at least 31 days during the current year, and a total of 183 days or more over a 3-year period that includes the current year, 1/3 of the days in the previous year, and 1/6 of the days in the year before that. For example, if you stay 150 days in each year, it would be 150 (current year) + 50 (previous year) + 25 (year before previous) = 225 days. Even if you are present for less than 183 days in the current year, you meet the basic calculation.IRS Substantial Presence Test

This calculation example is for cases where there are no exclusion days and no other exceptions are taken into account. The conclusion may change if you consider exclusion days for certain students, teachers, etc., exceptions regarding closer relations with a foreign country, or the application of treaties. "Less than 183 days in the current year" and "less than a weighted 183 days over a 3-year period" are not the same claim.

UK — A high number doesn't mean simplicity

The UK Statutory Residence Test combines automatic overseas tests, automatic UK tests, and sufficient ties tests if the outcome is still not determined. Being present for 183 days or more in a tax year is a clear entry point, but even with fewer days, individuals can become residents depending on conditions such as accommodation, work, and family. Past residence history is also relevant to the ties tests.HMRC Statutory Residence Test

Since the UK tax year runs from April 6 to April 5 of the following year, the Japanese calendar year schedule cannot be used as is. In addition, while the "number of days" is fundamentally based on whether a person is in the UK at the end of the day, there are rules regarding transit, exceptional circumstances, and other situations. For individuals moving from the UK to Japan, simply dividing the number of days in a calendar year into two parts does not complete the UK residency determination.UK Government "Residence"、HMRC determination procedure

Canada: Deemed 183-day rule and residency based on residential ties

When determining residency, Canadian tax authorities place significant emphasis on important residential ties such as a home, a spouse or common-law partner, and dependents. They consider not only the length of time spent outside the country, but also the purpose, continuity, and ties maintained within the country. It is necessary to distinguish between this factual residency and deemed residency resulting from a temporary stay of 183 days or more.CRA "Determination of Residency Status"

The detailed explanation of the CRA explains that if a person stays temporarily for a total of 183 days or more in a calendar year, even without sufficient ties to daily life, they are deemed to be a resident for the entire year pursuant to Article 250, Paragraph 1, Item (a) of the Income Tax Act. Conversely, failing to reach 183 days does not mean that pre-existing ties to a residence and family are ignored. The provisions for deemed non-residents, who become residents of another country under a treaty, will also be checked separately.Documentation for determining CRA residency

Australia and Italy: Even without the words "183 days," there is a period condition.

Australia’s taxation authority ruling TR2023/1 cites section 6(1) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and outlines four gateways: residency according to ordinary concepts, domicile, the so-called 183-day test, and the test concerning certain Commonwealth superannuation schemes. Because it is necessary to consider whether any of these are met, failing just one days-test does not conclude the determination.ATO "TR 2023/1" paragraphs 10 to 15

The period condition in the legal text has a structure of "more than half of the income year." Furthermore, there is an exception in cases where the authorities recognize that the person's usual place of abode is overseas and they have no intention of residing in Australia. The common name "183-day rule" alone cannot express the length of the year or the exceptions. The term "domicile" here must also be read as a concept under Australian law, and it is dangerous to equate it solely with the Japanese translation of "address" (jūsho).

In Italy, the amendments starting in 2024 are important. Legislative Decree No. 209 of 2023, which amended Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Consolidated Income Tax Act, establishes that for the majority of the tax period, either civil law residence (residenza), domestic domicile (domicilio), or actual presence within the country must be met, taking into account even a fraction of a day. Regarding domicile, it introduces a tax law definition as the place where personal and family relationships are primarily developed.Section 1 of Legislative Order No. 209

In this system, actual residence is not the only entry point; a time condition of "the majority of the taxable period" also applies to entry points related to daily life. Therefore, summing it up as "since it's a country that looks at residence, there are no period requirements" is also incorrect. It is necessary to grasp this intermediate structure that falls through the dichotomy of countries with and without day counts.

South Korea and Singapore: There is no single 183-day rule in Asia either

Official documents concerning Article 1-2 of South Korea's Income Tax Act describe a resident as a person who has a domicile in the country or maintains a place of residence there for 183 days or more. Domicile is determined by objective facts of living relationships, such as family members sharing livelihood and domestic property. Although it differs from Japan's requirement of a place of residence for one year or more in terms of the number of days, there is a commonality in the structure of separating domicile and residence.Documents submitted to Korean authorities, explanation of Article 1-2 of the Income Tax Act and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree

Singapore's IRAS outlines administrative treatment for foreigners who stay and work for 183 days or more in the preceding calendar year, as well as for certain consecutive employment spanning three consecutive years or across two calendar years. The latter is subject to conditions such as a total stay of 183 days or more, and it is also necessary to verify the scope of eligible roles, such as directors, public entertainers, and certain professionals. This must be read separately from the explanations for citizens and permanent residents who are ordinarily resident.IRAS "Working out my tax residency"

For example, if you enter the country at the end of the year and work into the following year, even if each calendar year is under 183 days separately, there is room to review the treatment spanning multiple years. However, from this example, one cannot generalize that "anyone is fine as long as it is 183 days over two years." The first step is to compare the eligibility of the person being evaluated and the continuity of their employment against the authorities' conditions.

Even though it is the same 183 days, what the number represents is different.

The number of days under domestic law to determine residency and the 183-day requirement regarding salaries for short-term residents under tax treaties are separate issues. The former concerns who is treated as a resident, while the latter concerns whether taxation by the country where the services were performed can be restricted for certain salaries. In addition to the period of stay, the employment income article also includes conditions regarding the employer and the burden of remuneration, and the method of counting the applicable period must be checked for each treaty.

Also, a "non-permanent resident" under the Japanese Income Tax Law is a type of resident. This is not a direct transfer of the categories of permanent resident or non-permanent resident under the Immigration Control Act. Whether a person qualifies as a resident, which scope of a resident's income is taxed, and to what extent taxation is restricted by a tax treaty are issues that must be addressed in a different order.Article 2 and Article 7 of the Income Tax Act、Ministry of Finance "List of Tax Treaties and Other Instruments"

If you become a resident of two countries—apply the treaty tie-breaker rules in order.

Since each country has its own criteria for residency, it is possible for a single individual to meet the residency requirements of multiple countries. The tie-breaker rules for individuals under Article 4 of the Japan-France Tax Treaty are structured to be examined in the following order: the permanent home available, the country with closer personal and economic relations, the habitual abode, nationality, and mutual agreement between the competent authorities. It is not a mechanism that simply selects the "country of longer stay" or the "country of nationality" from the start.Article 4 of the Japan-France Tax Treaty

The following is a hypothetical example for understanding the system and does not recommend any specific immigration method. Suppose a person subject to residency requirements in both Japan and France has homes in both countries that they can use continuously, lives with their family in Japan, and engages in professional activities in France. In this case, the decision is not based solely on having residences in both countries; further examination of personal and economic ties is required. A schedule of "200 days in France and 165 days in Japan" alone is not sufficient to reach a conclusion under the treaty.

In another hypothetical example, if one residence is rented out to a third party for the long term and cannot be used by the owner, while only the other residence remains continuously available for use, this becomes a circumstance that influences the conclusion at the initial stage of permanent residence. This is the difference between how many real estate properties one owns and where the individual is actually able to use as a residence. In practice, the contract details and actual usage conditions are verified.

It is also necessary to confirm on a country-by-country basis how the allocation of tax treaties affects domestic law. There are examples, such as Article 4B in France, where adjustments regarding tax treaties are incorporated into domestic law. Even if treaty residency is determined, taxation, filings, and information reporting in the source country do not automatically disappear across the board. The treaties of the two relevant countries must be reviewed, and the results translated into taxation and procedures for each type of income.

In practical work, we overlay the "number of days chart" with the "chronological timeline of daily life."

When preparing verification documents, first align the tax years of each country, and list the dates for entry and exit, places of lodging, places of employment, and purposes of temporary returns. On top of that, overlay the periods when housing is available, actual move-in dates, family relocation, children's schooling, and changes in duties or business operations. If the schedule differs from the actual results, review the determination based on the actual results.

We also divide the roles of the evidence. Airline tickets and entry/exit records indicate travel, but they alone do not determine the principal base of living. A lease agreement indicates available housing, but it alone does not show daily life. A notification of moving out is an administrative filing and is not a document that simultaneously changes the conclusion under each country's income tax law.

Before considering "how many days I can stay," I will check: (1) which country's residency requirements are in question, (2) whether those requirements pertain to the number of days of stay, continuity of residence, or personal and economic ties, (3) whether the requirements are also met in the other country, and (4) how the treaty coordinates them. Thinking in this order reveals issues that cannot be resolved simply by adjusting the number of days.

It's not only Japan that is looking at the reality of daily life.The Netherlands, Belgium, and France cannot be explained by fixed days alone, and countries like the US and the UK, which set clear numbers, also have alternative entry points and exceptions. What is important in international comparison is not counting the presence or absence of 183 days, but understanding which facts and over what periods each country uses to capture the "ties between a person and a country."

Material Verification Date: September 20, 2026. This is an explanatory guide comparing general personal income tax determination frameworks and does not cover all exceptions of each country, future-enacted amendments, individual tax treaties, or filing procedures. Authority explanations and laws/regulations are displayed separately, and the limitations of Belgian legal text verification are noted in the relevant section.