KhunHeineken

Moved from the Thai Tax thread. The 90 year old tax residency laws are modernizing from "domiciled" based law to a physical presence and time based model. If you are outside of Australia for 183 days, you will be automatically deemed to be a non resident for tax purposes. It will not matter if you did 1 month in Fiji, 2 months in France etc etc. All that will matter is you have been outside of Australia for 183 days and will then be a non resident for tax purposes. No reviews. No appeals. The days are proven through immigration records. The first tax bracket in non resident tax is $0 to $120,000 at 32.5%. No tax free threshold, for any, and all of your income. Thailand, and many other countries, have moved to a physical presence and time based tax residency model, and in my opinion, Australia also will in the near future. If you plan on doing the 6 months in Australia and just short of the 6 months in Thailand in order to minimize your taxes, just remember Australia uses the financial year and Thailand uses the calendar year. Immigration records take away the current loopholes and can not be disputed. I agree with you the new laws are designed to deem people as residents, rather than non residents, but it's a double edged sword. Inside Australia 183 days, resident. Outside Australia for 183 day, non resident. It's as simple as that. The loopholes that many expat Australians have been using, including myself, will close in the near future. None of us want to do 6 months back in Australia, but if one was to stay 183 days in Australia, and less then 180 days in Thailand, they will go a long way to minimizing their tax in both countries.

Wireguard is better than that. Slowing from 200Mbps to 3Mbps means something is not right. Can you connect to a server in a different country? Chose any country. Germany, Japan, France, USA. Connect and run a speed test and let me know what you get. Also, change protocols in SurfShark. Change from Wireguard to Open VPN or whatever else they have and connect to the UK and run a speed test. Maybe SurfShark's Wireguard is playing up. Finally, uninstall SurfShark, restart your computer, and reinstall SurfShark and run the UK test. How old is your computer? What processor does it have?

Deleted. Post moved to appropriate thread in Home Country Forum.

I can't see the Thai government allowing it to be that easy to access funds, without paying the tax, but that is the topic of compliance / enforcement and will no doubt be discussed in the future when we will all see how the Thai government ensures the payment of this tax.

The policy was implemented on the 1st January 2024. The initial 180 days to qualify as a Thai resident for tax purposes isn't even up yet. If that's not "new" then what is?

The discussion on the proposed changes to tax residency laws in Australia is best left to the other thread, in the other forum. We will have to agree to disagree. For me, it's not if, just when, those new laws will pass. Until then, I will continue to enjoy the loopholes, as you do, but I would hardly call that planning for the future. As I said, at some future point, and in regards to the rental income, more than 183 days inside Australia for tax residency and the tax free threshold, and less than 180 days inside Thailand to be a non resident for tax purposes and to pay no tax on remitted funds. I know what you want to do. You want to live in Thailand, don't move the rental income to Thailand, and appear to the Australian government you are still a resident of Australia for tax purposes. The very reason the Australian government are changing their tax residency laws is to stop people circumventing them with the many loopholes in the current 90 year old laws.

This is a new policy, targeting remitted funds, which incorporates unemployed expats into the Thai tax system. A thread discussing how the Thai government will ensure collection of tax from remitted funds, and penalties for non paying said tax, may be an import thread. If you will not allow this to be discussed on this thread, should I start a new thread on the topic, or you do so?

How is the rental income tax free in Australia, as a non resent of Australia for taxation purposes? If you are referring to the current loppholes, then yes, I am using them also, but they are definitely going to change. (discussed in the other forum / thread) Once you pay 32.5% non resident tax in Australia on that rental income in Australia, you will get tax credits under the DTA with Thailand, and that rental income will not be taxed twice. What, exactly, are you trying to achieve? You are living in Thailand, therefore a non resident for tax purposes in Australia and up for 32.5% tax on that rental income, as it's from $0. Moving it to Thailand after it is taxed in Australia is protected from double taxation under the DTA.

Obviously, it may be something for the future. The policy has only been in place for 4.5 months. That's not even the minimum 180 days required to be a Thai resident for taxation purposes. No doubt, compliance and enforcement will be further discussed in another thread at some point. There will have to be some type of punishment for non compliance, otherwise, no one will bother paying their share of this tax.

True. I have no link to post about it. It was just an idea how the Thai government MAY ensure compliance. As I said in another post, they can't have expats plodding along outside of the Thai tax system. They will have to push them into the system somehow, and Immigration requiring a document from the RD stating you have either paid your tax, or are exempt from paying tax, makes sense, does it not? Mike, I typed and posted before reading your post about not posting about how the Thai government will ensure compliance. Perhaps the topic of compliance / enforcement needs its own thread, because the whole Thai tax policy on taxing remitted funds is useless without ensuring compliance / enforcement. I don't see it as scaremongering. It's obvious the Thai government is going to have to do something to get foreigners to comply with this tax policy. What they do and how they do it will be of great interest to us all.

You are missing the bigger picture. I am not suggesting Immigration do the RD's job. I am simply suggesting it's entirely possible that the Thai government uses foreigner's need for a visa / extension as an easy way to ensure compliance. Basically, you have to contact the RD and deal with them over your tax implications before they issue you some type of receipt / certificate / document that can / will / may have to be presented to Immigration before your visa / extension is issued. This would mean the Thai government doesn't chase foreigners, as foreigners have to go to them. Simple and easy way of ensuring compliance. I have no link to post about this. It's just an idea I have about how they will push all expats into the Thai tax system with the minimum of effort.

I was referring to the rental income that you mentioned in your previous post. How do you propose your rental income be tax free either in Australia, or in Thailand? Your total income in Australia, if over the tax free threshold, attracts tax. Move any of that rental income to Thailand, and it's remitted funds attracting tax.

Yes, I put forward one simple, but possibly costly solution some time ago, and that is, expats simply pull their money out of ATM's using their home country Visa / Master Card. I can't see how the Thai government can tax such transactions, especially due to the millions of tourists that do the same. If the ATM fees and exchange rates are cheaper than Thai tax, there's the solution, but usually these fees are high and exchange rates are poor. Of course, I was speaking in general. Most transfer money from their home country into a Thai bank account, which is remitted funds. Some Fly In Fly Out workers can get around the 180 days buy staying one rotation outside of Thailand, for example. Everyone has different circumstances, but your typical expat retiree may have limited options and may have to pay some tax. The Thai government can't have expat retirees plodding along doing nothing about it, so I suggest either the banks have to be involved, or immigration require tax documents every year for the extension. I have no link to show this. It's just an idea about they may go about compliance.

The Thai law seems pretty clear. Spend more than 180 days inside Thailand in a calendar year and you are deemed to be a resident of Thailand for taxation purposes and will have to pay tax. It appears to me your best solution is to spend more than 183 days inside Australia in an Australian financial year to remain an Australian resident for taxation purposes and get the benefit of the tax free threshold in Australia for your income, and spend less than 180 days in Thailand in a calendar year so you are deemed a non resident of Thailand for taxation purposes, so no tax to pay in Thailand. Note: as discussed in the thread in the Home Country Forum the 183 days legislation is yet to be passed, but in my opinion, soon will be. Currently, the laws revolve around where one is "domiciled."

True, but when immigration enter your passport number into the computer and it shows you have been inside Thailand for more than 180 days, thus a Thai resident for taxation purposes, the immigration guy may say, "Sir, where are your tax documents? No tax documents, no extension." Makes sense, doesn't? Why chase people when the Thai government knows foreigners have to eventually come to them? Easy way to enforce compliance. Of course, if you are not inside Thailand for more than 180 days in a calendar year you are not a resident of Thailand for taxation purposes and will not have to produce any tax documents.

Did you complain to WH, or inform Surfshark that one, or all, of their UK servers have been blacklisted by WH? You should not tell WH anything about what you are doing. Chances are, somewhere deep in the fine print of their T's & C's, there is a clause you can only use their website, thus place a bet, only from inside the UK, or possibly the EU, which might change after Brexit. The fact that it's geoblocked tells me there's a fair chance of this. If you were to have a big win, they might not pay out if you have corresponded with them about betting on their website from overseas. I have been paid out on a couple of occasions , both times around 150 pounds on consecutive days . At the moment I can still access W/H although my 3BB connection lets me down sometimes and the W/H site will not perform all instructions or open all aspects . Speed test shows on average 60 Mbps d/load but I am paying for a V.I.P. service that guarantees 200 Mbps minimum . 3BB techs visit my home and try many speed tests but cannot achieve 200mbps . Then the last tech used his I phone to show 1000 Mbps speed not connected to my wifi . He must of thought I would believe that . Told him to go . Trouble is that where I live there are no other providers . I mentioned before about using a sim router which my friend uses in the UK at a very much reduced cost ( bar the cost of the Archer 600 router ). Your opinion please , as you seem to have a lot of knowledge . Thanks for your interesting replies to date . Sounds like your problem is with a poor internet connection, not the VPN, but it is very common for geoblocked websites to continually blacklist VPN IP Addresses. Basically, what happens is, WH will see 50 users, for example, all on their accounts from one IP Address. This tells them it's a VPN and they blacklist (block) that IP Address. VPN's do slow down your connection. Also, what type (protocol) of VPN you use has different speeds. Currently, Wireguard is about the fasted VPN protocol. Are you running a ethernet cable from your router to your computer? Wired connections are considerably faster. They are cheap to buy. Give it a try. Can you go into your router and change the WiFi channel. The one you are on maybe getting a lot of interference. Is your phone on phone data (sim card) getting good speeds? If so, if you have a laptop, try hotspotting your phone and connect your laptop to it and see if you get better results.

Interesting webinar. At 19 minutes: "So under the Australia Thai DTA, there is no exclusion for age pension or superannuation." I said more research was needed on the provisions in Article 19, as they relate to Article 18. If what this guy says is correct, and the Australia / Thailand DTA offers no tax exemption for aged pensions, either in the source country or resident country, after the proposed changes to tax resident laws are passed in Australia, why wouldn't the Australian government want to take Thailand's slice of the pension tax pie? Why would Australia "donate" this money to a foreign government, through its expats? I mentioned it's so simple for them to exempt aged pensions, but the exemption does not appear in the proposed changes. Perhaps this is why there is no exemption in the proposed changes for aged pensions. The Australian government knows Thailand will tax the Aussie aged pension, so why wouldn't Australia want to retain primary taxation rights and give the Thai government nothing out of Aussie pensions?

As a non resident of Australia for tax purposes, the rental income will be taxed at 32.5% from $0. Thailand will give you a tax credit on the 32.5% tax that you paid in Australia if you remit that money to Thailand.

They may start asking before issuing the annual extension.

It's definitely a "time will tell" matter. I am only going on the proposed changes, and some laws surrounding them. Eg. a pension is deemed an income at law. What is finally implemented has yet to be seen. We know the government has stated they are looking at tweaking the 45 day rule. I have posted links about this before. Basically, expats had submitted that if they have their 6 weeks annual leave in Australia with friends and family, and then someone gets sick or dies and they have to come back to Australia, they go over the 45 days, so the government was considering increasing the 45 days. This is the only possible change I am aware of. Common sense says they should just exempt pensions. It would be easy to do so, but I have not seen it mentioned anywhere. Perhaps the APA did make a submission and we will see this in the legislation when it is passed. Until them, it's the pension is deemed an income, the retiree is outside of Australia for 183 days, and there is no exemption for pensions, thus, my hypothesis or opinion on the issue.

It's too late to be "active" about it. The consultation phase concluded in September 2023. I would find it hard to believe the government would purposely put forward a policy that breaches such a treaty. Sure, they will move closer to the boundary, but not breach it. I agree it's not their aim to tax pensioners. I never said it was. What I have always said is pensioners may simply be collateral damage because there's currently nothing in the proposed changes that differentiate pensioners from Paul Hogan.

I am slightly confused by this comment. They are moving away from domiciled based residency system and moving towards a physical presence and time based tax residency model. When the changes come in, no longer can you have a house in Australia that you say is your "domicile" therefore maintain residency for tax purposes when you live in Thailand and haven't been back to Australia in years. The "I'm just on a long holiday" method will be no more. Inside Australia 183 days, resident. Outside Australia 183 days, non resident. Which country you live in, where you own property etc will mean nothing if you are outside of Australia for 183 days. I have said on many occasions, pensioners may very well be collateral damage in this. I have given my reasons. Basically, I don't see anything in the proposed changes that gives pensioners a tax break. No exemptions, means testing, tax free threshold added to non resident tax brackets. Time will tell if Labor tweak the proposed changes to add an exemption, which they should. Once again, all set to change to 183 days, backed up by the immigration data base. No reviews. No appeals. I have admitted previously I, and many Aussie friends, are using the loopholes in the current 90 year old tax residency laws. As far as the ATO is concerned, I am "domiciled" in Australia. I have maintained all the "associations" you have mentioned and have never paid non resident tax. The proposed changes will scoop me up, but with the pension being deemed an income, and a pensioner being outside of Australia for 183 days, and no exemptions in place, I am wondering where they will get their tax break from. Some have suggested the DTA, and I am research more about this. I, and some friends, show an interest in this because we may very well completely restructure our finances in the future.

As another member suggested, there was a core group of "haters", or possibly the same person with multiple usernames, who may have been working for AN's major competitor. They seek to have posts removed, members banned, threads closed etc in order to push people to the other website. There was consistently zero content from them. Only baiting, flaming, abuse, trolling etc. As I have said before, the proposed changes to tax residency laws is the single biggest issue facing expat pensioners in years, and I stand by that comment. Others have suggested it's portability, but that is nothing new, and you have to do your 2 years, it's as simple as that. It's only through discussion do we get to move past the "that's only for guys like Paul Hogan" and "I still have a Medicare Card so I am still a resident for tax purposes" misinformation.

I disagree. I have put forward public information, in the form of many credible links, media releases, youtube clips, extracts of law, and the opinions of professionals. I have formed my opinion based on this research. One thing I will not be swayed on is the the passing of the laws. In my opinion, it is only when, not if. I will stand by that opinion and will not budge from it, and I have given my reasons. Other parts I am happy to listen to the opinions of others. If they have a compelling argument, it may indeed change my own opinion, but I have to say, comments like, "that's only for guys like Paul Hogan" and "I still have a Medicare Card so I am still a resident" as well as many other ridiculous comments don't hold much weight with me, and in fact, are just plain humorous. The proposed changes have not been implemented as yet, so no one knows what they will finally look like, and what method of enforcement will be used. I have put forward some ideas, and admitted they were just possibilities for the government, not necessarily my opinion on the matter. On the point of enforcement, as mentioned previously, there's not much to enforce when the payer (Centerlink) is also the taxer (ATO) using Immigration data. All three are government departments, so the non resident tax is simply withheld from fortnightly pensions, thus, automatic compliance, and no need for any enforcement. The physical presence and time based residency model makes it that easy. Computer data bases do all the heavy lifting. I didn't ask you to prove anything. I never suggested you are right and I am wrong. Or I am right and you are wrong. I simply asked what are you basing your opinion on. I am trying to see things through your eyes. I agree. The discussion has moved a long way from "that's only for guys like Paul Hogan." Do you agree with the "Paul Hogan" opinion? I don't, and I have stated my reasons. Not everything posted on here is right, and not everything posted on here is wrong. There's nothing wrong with discussing all comments. The internet and freedom of speech is a great learning tool. I personally hope pensioners do not have to pay non resident tax, but time will tell. Once again, I was only asking you what you were basing your opinion on. Hopefully, something of more substance than the "Paul Hogan" opinion.

Thanks for the new content. Can you elaborate on how this ties in with the proposed changes to the tax residency laws? Are you suggesting that the Australian aged pension, once taxed at the non resident tax rate of 32.5% then breaches the minimum amount as set out by the minimum standards in the link?