In this article, the author examines the outcome in the recent Australian High Court case, Bywater Investments Ltd v. Commissioner of Taxation; Hua Wang Bank Berhad v. Commissioner of Taxation, and contrasts it with earlier court decisions on the meaning of central management and control to ascertain whether the Bywater decision is a major step forward in jurisprudence determining the place of corporate residence, or merely a reaffirmation of the approach taken in the earlier cases. The article also canvasses evidentiary matters concerning the independence of board decision making and the meaning of carrying on a business in the context of passive investment entities.