KhunHeineken

Clearly, you did a poor job of conveying it. No paranoia from me. Just covering my a**. TiT. Your words, not mine. "Expats need to be familiar with DTAs of the countries from which their income originates (to assess if a Thai tax return needed) and expats need to be familiar with some relevant Thai ministerial directives (to assess if a Thai tax return is needed) and even familiar with some Thai Royal Decrees that are associated with Thai tax law." Most expats would be living here on assessable income that is over the threshold, and they know it. Many of whom did not file. Not currently, but it's possible in the future. You have no idea what they are planning. I gave examples. Eg. cannabis and the TM6. Next week casinos could be legal. They can do anything anytime here, particularly to foreigners. It's always been "MAY." Can you give some examples? Maybe believe their DTA means if they pay tax in one country, they don't have to pay tax in another country. It's a myth. This guy explains it quite well. Time will tell what path Thailand take, including taxing worldwide income. I don't see it as being paranoid to consider Thailand will gain more bureaucracy, and widen their tax base in the future, after all, most of us come from countries that went down that path, why couldn't / shouldn't Thailand do the same?

Do you have any idea how much a medivac costs? As an Australian, it's over $200,000AUD. Your theory is an injury or illness will happen in the distant future, AFTER the member/s have had time to save premiums, and the member/s are still able to afford treatment, but you can not guarantee such an injury or illness does not happen next week, and the member/s already have some money to pay. Emergency medical treatment here can ruin you financially and / or you die, because you can't pay. You are right, it's not a joke. There is no free medical for foreigners in Thailand. You can pay and live, but go back to your home country broke, or be unable to pay and die, or be insured and have piece of mind. I am insured. As for the grand idea of "I will just fly back to my home country for free treatment" that's fine for something like cancer, but if an airline does not deem you "fit to fly" you are stuck in the Thai medical system where you are facing the decision above. Lose your life savings and live, and that's if one has enough savings to cover the cost, or if unable to pay, you die. If uninsured, you roll the dice.

Rubbish. I've never suggested such a thing. The current 90 year laws will be modernized, it's not if, just when, and then many loopholes will be closed. Many, including myself, have never paid a cent in non resident tax, and neither have pensioners. Living in Thailand full time, how can any of us possible argue we are a Australian resident for tax purposes after the new laws are passed? It's been proven the aged pension is deemed an income. The first non resident tax bracket is 30% from $0 to $135,000. There are no exemptions in the proposed changes. Put the above together and it's 45 days in Australia each year, and meet two of four factor tests, or live of 30% less income derived from Australia. I really thought they would add a tax free threshold to the non resident tax brackets to cover pensioners living overseas. Just a small threshold of say $30,000, but they didn't, so what does that tell you?

In case you missed it, here it is again. From a previous post: "When the proposed changes are passed into law, if you are outside of Australia for 183 days, you will be deemed a non resident for tax purposes. That's the "bright line" test. If you are inside Australia between 45 days and 183 days, you have to meet two out of four factor tests. The pension is deemed to be an income. Non resident tax is 30% from $0 to $135,000. There are no exemptions in the proposed changes. There are no changes to the non resident tax brackets in the proposed changes. Eg. the introduction of a tax free threshold to cover pensioners. There is no means testing in the proposed changes. The Australia / Thailand DTA does not cover the aged pension, it covers "service pensions." A member asked what are the four factor tests. Here is a simplified version of them: "The secondary test is a ‘Factor Test’ which applies to individuals who spend more than 45 days but less than 183 days in an income year. The secondary tests focus on four factors, two of which must be satisfied by that person to be deemed as resident for tax purposes. Factors include: The Right to reside permanently in Australia (e.g. citizenship or permanent residency); The ability to access accommodation in Australia (e.g. rights of ownership, leasehold interest, licenses); Whether the individual’s family (spouse or any of their children under 18) are generally located in Australia; The individual’s Australian economic connections (employment, carry on business, interests in Australia)." You can find the expanded version in the government's consultation paper. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-07/c2023-205344-cp.pdf Most expat retirees, but particularly pensioners, would want to remain a resident of Australia for tax purposes in order to avail themselves of the tax free threshold. If they are deemed to be a non resident for tax purposes, it's 30% tax from $0 to $135,000. Immigration, the ATO, and Centerlink are all government departments. They can easily withhold 30% of one's pension once they are outside of Australia for 183 days. They already do this with the pension supplements after 6 weeks. The easiest way I can see for an Aussie expat, pensioner or not, to remain an Australian resident, but still spend most of their time in Thailand, is to go back to Australia for 45 days every year, and be able to meet two out of the four factor tests. Certainly, one of the factor tests is easy, that being, "the right to reside." Being Australian, with an Australian passport, meets this factor test. Each member will have to see if they can one of the other three factor tests. The days of living overseas but still having the ATO assess you as a resident for tax purposes, the "long holiday" loophole, will close when these laws are passed, and no, Albo didn't scrap them. In fact, Labor progressed them to the consultation stage, so the laws have the support of both major political parties. To summarize, it's 45 days in Australia and meet two out of four factor tests, or live in Thailand on 30% less income derived from Australia, and yes, the pension is deemed an income.

So, how "grey" is it? Clearly, $10 in a bank account isn't a "significant cash deposit." I've given my OPINION on it. For expat retirees, it could be their Super. For many it could be their life savings. For some it could be the proceeds from the sale of a property. For others it could simply be an investment. I conceded I do not know the dollar figure. This is the ONLY grey area you nominated, so only one. Once again, realistically, how grey is it though? Yes, a lot more simple than the current 90 year old laws, which are complex and subjective. These outdated laws are the reason myself, and many other Australians, including pensioners, all around the world, have never paid a cent in non resident tax, despite deriving an income from Australia. All that will finish with the "bright line test" and the four "factor tests." It's clear that 183 days inside Australia, resident. Thus, 183 days outside Australia, non resident. 45 days to 183 days, one must meet two out of four of the factor tests. Less than 45 days is non resident. The three consecutive years isn't really applicable to expats who have been living here for years. There's the new laws in just a few sentences. How is that "not simple?"

Something you have proven very well in the USA thread. Geez, we even had Americans trolling on the Aussie thread, just because you were trolling on their thread. Something I had never seen before on this forum.

I put this forward months ago, and used the Certificate of Residence as an example. It should be free, but most pay 300 baht for it. Is it really scaremongering to at least consider they MAY require expats to product a flat rate Certificate of Clearance at extension time, and it will cost 500, 800, or some other amount of baht? It will just be another earner, just like the Certificate of Residence. For those who do not have to pay tax, they will have to pay the "fee" and for those who do have to pay tax it will be laughable because they probably should be paying a lot more in tax than the cost of the flat rate Certificate of Clearance. Of course, the TRD can pull out the rule book for any high net worth individuals that they want to properly tax at any time. They have been doing it with the Certificate of Residence for decades. What's stopping them doing it with the Certificate of Clearance?

Old saying about Thailand, "TiT." Anything can happen here, and farang are easy targets.

Yes, it does. In a previous post you said this: "That should be sufficient to scare expats." You then said this in the same post: "Don't get me wrong. Expats need to be familiar with DTAs of the countries from which their income originates (to assess if a Thai tax return needed) and expats need to be familiar with some relevant Thai ministerial directives (to assess if a Thai tax return is needed) and even familiar with some Thai Royal Decrees that are associated with Thai tax law. So, if they should make themselves familiar with all these things, why not at least consider the possibility that a certificate of clearance MAY be needed in the future? Of course it's MAY be required in the future. I have never said WILL be required in the future. Which can change at anytime, so why not at least consider any possible changes? I think many expats remit an amount of money that is assessable, and over the threshold, but have not filed. For how long do you think the Thai government will give them a free pass? As mentioned, I never used the words WILL be required in the future. I don't share your confidence as there's more money to be made with it now. You base your argument on "Thai history" and it being a "PIA." I just see it as another document that MAY be required at extension time in the future, similar the the bank documents. As usual, the "PIA" is all the farang's, meanwhile, the Thai Revenue Department widens it's tax base and generates more revenue. Time will tell.

You mean (c) under No. 4. So, if there are no others, that makes the law quite simple. You used the words "grey areas" as in, plural, more than one. And, surprise, surprise, there's only one.

What is incorrect? I requesting you to clarify at what point does "D" become "an ordinary resident" and can apply? That was 10 to 15 years ago. It's irrelevant now. In his late 70's, and working up to 65, he is eligible, but I am requesting YOU advise the OP on how "D" can be deemed "an ordinary resident" before he applies? I wasn't comparing. I simply added the way the Australian system works. Once again, irrelevant. It was 10 to 15 years ago. What sh*t storm will he have to face? Would it be he needs to meet the below criteria, or, does he meet the criteria as soon as his plane lands? When deciding if someone is ordinarily resident in the countries listed above, we look at: their intentions towards these countries, including their reasons for periods of absence and return the length of time they spend in these countries on a continual basis property and asset ownership. Do they own a home or any other large assets in these countries? the location of their cash assets: investments and bank accounts whether their income is earned in these countries or overseas whether they pay taxes in these countries whether they still vote in or still qualify to vote in these countries general elections their commitment to these countries, such as involvement in the community, clubs or other groups.

Both threads running have the common denominator of requiring one to be an "ordinary resident." It's my understanding the application from overseas can only be done from a SSA country, of which Thailand is not one of them. Even the OP says this: "I have looked at the pension registration form and it looks like I have to go back to submit required paperwork?" Can you say when the OP will be deemed an "ordinary resident?" Eg. is it when his plane land in NZ.

Are you going to rely on Go Fund Me one day?

As I just posted, "a significant cash deposit" would be an amount of money that shows one has maintained an economic interest in Australia. Can you name another part of the proposed changes that you see as a grey area?

In my opinion, and I'll post that again, in my opinion, that represents "a significant cash deposit." It's an amount of money most people would not walk away from. It's an amount of money that makes interest. It's an amount of money that shows you have maintained an economic interest in Australia. "A significant cash deposit" is not $10 just to keep the account open.

Think what you want. I couldn't care less. Bubba-bubba.

I have it. I paid an agent and some tax in order to get it. The reason was to cover my a**. As many suggested, I may never need it, and paid money and tax for nothing, but I am prepared for any "issues" that may arise here in the future regarding non compliance. Basically, where money is involved, I don't thrust the Thai Government, or any Thai officials. Like many here, I actually knew I had to pay tax, and chose to do so. Once again, to cover any nasty surprises the Thai government might have at a future date. I've never posted a photo or a screenshot on any forum. Reason is, they contain identifiable meta data. Call it whatever you want. I paid for it and have it. I'll probably never need it, but who know here. TiT.

Yes, but as I said, "TiT" Things can change quickly here. I have read articles about this. It is focused on Thai high net worth individuals. They want them to repatriate their profits back into the Thai economy. Do you also sell immigration smart gates? Who would have thought such technology would be used by immigration? So, the possibility should not be given any consideration at all. Is that right? Which contradicts your argument. Why? Examples: One day you go to gaol for possessing cannabis, the next day you can buy it in a shop. One day you have to fill in a TM6, the next day you do not. Similarly, one day no Thailand Digital Arrival Card, the next day it is required. Today, a tax certificate is not required, who knows about tomorrow? TiT.

I compared my stamp with a friend's, who does his own extensions, a few years ago. From memory, I didn't notice a difference.

From the below document from the Treasury Department. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-07/c2023-205344-cp.pdf This is "Point 4" from that document. "Australian economic interests 50. Under the Board’s model, an individual would meet this factor if they had any of the following Australian economic connections: (a) Employment in Australia – they commonly (not infrequently) carried out their employment duties in Australia, regardless of whether their employer was an Australian resident or a foreign resident. (b) Active participation in the carrying on of a business in Australia - they controlled (directly or indirectly), or played a significant role in, the operations or management of a business in Australia. (c) Direct or indirect interests in Australian assets – they had an interest in taxable Australian property, a bank account with an Australian bank with significant cash deposits, an interest in a family trust, or they received Australian social security payments in the preceding income year." There is (a), (b) and (c) within "Point 4" of the factor tests and you only have to meet one of them. In relation to (c), having a property in Australia, or for those receiving a pension, they received a social security payment in the preceding income year, is enough to satisfy (c). To answer your question, how much money is a "significant cash deposit" I do not know the dollar value, but it's certainly not $10 in an Australian bank account which some members believe shows one's intention to be an Australian resident for tax purposes. Yes, some members believe just because they have an Australian bank account, they are a resident for tax purposes. One member posted he's a resident for tax purposes because he still has a Medicare Card.

Great. What's your advice to the OP to be deemed an "ordinary resident" in order to apply? If he becomes an ordinary resident the moment his plane lands, as you suggest in the other thread, link please.

That's correct, he "was" and ordinary resident. Past tense. He's not an ordinary resident now, is he? He's lived in Thailand for over 10 years. So, he has to go back to NZ for a start. Now the question of portability arises. Can he fly back to NZ, apply, be interviewed and basically lie and say he's back in NZ for good, receive the pension, and fly out a week later? Returning Australians pensioners must remain in Australia for 2 years to achieve portability. Also, what will happen to his pension / superannuation after 26 weeks? You posted this in a previous post: "I would say he's eligible." I am not suggesting he's not eligible. What I am suggesting is "D" currently does not satisfy the criteria for a successful application, primarily because he is not an "ordinary resident." In this post, you say he automatically becomes an "ordinary resident" as soon as he flies into NZ for the interview. Do you have a link for this? The criteria I posted, from your own link, shows there are many things to satisfy before one becomes an "ordinary resident."

Yes, they are. I have an agent that has a "good friend" working at immigration. Was he deported? Serious question.

Not gonna happen. If I ever have any problems from any Thai government officials in relation to these documents and / or the amounts, the agent can deal with them.

I think you will find your income is assessable, and over the tax free threshold, under the law. Now, if YOU interpret the law differently, then as the bar girls say, "up to you."