KhunHeineken

I've always paid an agent. My 800k baht sits in my fund at home making me a lot more than a Thai bank gives me, and it's safer. What it makes me is more than what the agent charges, so why would I tie it up in a Thai bank? This is nothing new, It's just that a lot of guys only see that their extension cost them 1900 baht, but they don't look at the lost earnings on the 800k.

Why not go down the Australian route? If you don't give your bank your tax number, they withhold tax at the highest marginal rate, including for deposits. Easy way to enforce compliance.

I'm living in Thailand yet still appear to be a resident for tax purposes of Australia. I derive an income from Australia, not being a pension, and I haven't paid one cent of non resident tax in years. I have explained why this has been allowed to happen for so long, and why it's set to change in the near future. So, it's not only the pensioners not paying tax, there's a lot of others not paying tax, including myself. The party couldn't last forever.

Australia taxes foreign pensions, why wouldn't Thailand? https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/your-tax-return/instructions-to-complete-your-tax-return/mytax-instructions/2022/income/foreign-income/foreign-pension-and-annuity "Most foreign pensions and annuities are taxable in Australia, even if tax was withheld from your payment by the country from which the payment came." This is interesting. "If you are an Australian resident and received income from overseas, you must show your assessable foreign income here, even if tax was taken out of the income in the foreign country. Foreign income that is exempt from Australian tax may still be taken into account to work out the amount of tax you have to pay on your other income. Under our tax treaties, foreign tax authorities tell us about foreign source income paid to (and the tax withheld from) Australian resident taxpayers. We use that information to check tax returns. Make sure you show your foreign income fully and correctly on your tax return. If your foreign pension or annuity is paid from a country with which Australia has a tax treaty, you may be able to arrange to not have tax withheld from future payments from that country." "foreign tax authorities tell us about foreign source income" - I guess that would be reciprocal, so Australia would be informing Thailand of your pension, and amount.

Been taxing Aussie pensioners in Germany since 2016, and possibly other countries. The tax treaty is not the cloak of tax protection for pensioners that you claim it to be. Why would the treaty with Thailand look any different to that of Germany's when it is updated, and Australia is updating all of its tax treaties, particularly as I would think there are a lot more pensioners living in Thailand than in Germany, thus, more tax revenue.

Two ways to look at it. Those that believe the double tax treaty with Thailand meant they pay no tax in Australia will not be happy with a possible 15% tax in the future, and those who believe the 32.5% was coming, will be happy with only 15%.

They didn't mind take 15% of the "small fry" that live in Germany. Why would Thailand be any different? Are you talking about a Super pension, which is bigger than the aged pension? I think Thailand will eventually follow other countries and just tax all worldwide income.

Question: Why didn't Jim Quinn mention Germany? His advice is completely wrong in relation to Germany, and possibly some other countries, isn't it? Incoming hand grenade. It's from the Minister of Finance and the Treasurer. I think they are a little higher than Jim Quinn. https://www.financeminister.gov.au/media-release/2015/11/13/new-tax-treaty-signed-germany

Yet, Jim Quinn is to be completely relied upon.

You can be a tax resident of both countries, or a double non resident of both countries. You never mentioned "meeting the criteria." Thailand will tax on "worldwide income" the same as Australia, and many other countries do. It appears Aussie pensioners have been paying 15% tax in Germany since 2016. I await your "interpretation" on Australia's tax treaty with Germany as to how and why Aussie retirees don't have to pay tax on their Australian pension iin Australia, when living n Germany. You did claim, the pension is tax free in Australia and every other country. I disagreed. Correct. I am using the loopholes in Australia's 90 year old laws that allows it. That's set to change when the proposed changes are passed. What you fail to understand is, the proposed changes to residency are a physical presence and time based model. There will be nothing to "elect" and no loopholes. I was researching the "provisions" in Article 19, because Article 18 is reliant upon them. I then saw the more recent tax treaty with Germany, and I have posted a link showing Australia is looking to update all of its tax treaties with various countries, so even if you are correct, it appears it's only a matter of time before Australia's tax treaty with Thailand is updated, and if it's similar to the tax treaty with Germany, pensioners will be taxed 15% of their pension in Australia.

All a moot point now, isn't it? The tax treaty was rolled out a couple of weeks ago with some conjecture about the "provisions" of Article 19, and how they relate to Article 19. Australia's tax treaty will change in the future, most likely sooner rather than later. If Australia's tax treaty with Thailand is anything like the treaty with Germany, is a 15% tax on pensions. As you say, "no ifs, not buts." Or, can you post an "interpretation" of the Germany treaty that says pensions pay no tax in Australia, and overseas? If you're an Aussie pensioner living in Germany, it appears you are paying 15% tax in Australia.

Australia is changing its double tax agreements with all countries, I believe there are 41 of them, which includes Thailand. The last tax agreement with with Thailand was in 1989, so it's 25 years old. I have posted a more recent tax agreement with Germany. You will see it's 15% tax from the source country, being Australia. It's only my opinion, but my way of thinking is the proposed changes to tax residency will coincide with changes to most tax treaties Australia have with other countries.

Correct. Just like the proposed changed to tax residency don't exist.

Australia is in the process of updating its tax treaties. (link previously provided) Check out a recent post I have made for what a tax treaty with Thailand may look like in the future.

The proposed changes to tax residency is the single biggest issue facing expat retirees in years. It will impact on many. It's extremely useful information. I don't expect you to reply.

Hopefully another member will alert you to a recent post I made. If Australia makes a similar tax treaty in the near future with Thailand, as it did with Germany, your services pension gets a free pass from being tax in Australia, the source country.

Follow the research and educate yourself.

BREAKING NEWS As I mentioned before, Australia is looking at updating its tax treaties with other countries. (link previously provided) I had a quick look for a more updated tax treaty so I could know what to expect when Australia updates its tax treaty with Thailand, which is dated 1989. I found a newer tax treaty with Germany, dated late 2015, to start in 2017. There is some good and bad news in it. I have quoted the relevant section. This is the media release setting out the treaty. https://www.financeminister.gov.au/media-release/2015/11/13/new-tax-treaty-signed-germany Pensions Pensions are generally taxable only in the country of residence of the recipient. However: Social security benefits first paid after 31 December 2016 may also be taxed by the source country but the source country tax is limited to 15 per cent of the gross payment; Contributory pensions first paid after 31 December 2016 may be taxed in the source country if the pension is attributable to contributions that received certain tax concessions in the source country for at least a 15 year period; War persecution and similar pensions are exempt from taxation; and Government service pensions are taxable only in the country of residence if the individual is also a national of that country – otherwise, the pension is taxable only in the source country. It appears to me that should Australia and Thailand have a similar treaty, the pension will be taxed at 15% in Australia, being the source country, and due to Thailand having the lesser amount, being 10%, one should receive "credits" from the 15% tax paid in Australia which would mean Thailand does not get to tax the pension. 15% is a lot better than 32.5%.

Lacessit used a link from an Australian law educational website, so I used that website as well. Below are the definitions of the word "provisions" at law. https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/act/consol_act/la2001133/s16.html#:~:text=A provision of an Act,subparagraphs%2C sub-subparagraphs%2C examples "A provision of an Act or instrument is any words or anything else that forms part of the Act or instrument. Examples—provisions consisting of groups of words sections, subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sub-subparagraphs, examples Examples—provisions consisting of groups of other provisions chapters, parts, divisions, subdivisions, schedules" Cambridge dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/provision "provision noun (LAW) [ C ] a statement within an agreement or a law that a particular thing must happen or be done, especially before another can happen or be done: We have inserted certain provisions into the treaty to safeguard foreign workers. [ + that ] She accepted the job with the provision that she would be paid expenses for relocating." NOTE: "a particular thing must happen or be done, especially before another can happen or be done." Article 18 Article 18 Pensions and annuities 1. Subject to the provisions of Article 19, pensions and annuities paid to a resident of one of the Contracting States shall be taxable only in that State. Article 19 Article 19 Government service 1. Remuneration (other than a pension) paid by one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of that State or a local authority of that State to any individual in respect of services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions shall be taxable only in that State. However, such remuneration shall be taxable only in the other Contracting State if the services are rendered in that other State and the recipient is a resident of that other State who: (a) is a citizen or national of that other State; or (b) did not become a resident of that other State solely for the purpose of performing the services. 2. Any pension paid to an individual in respect of services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions to one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of that State or a local authority of that State shall be taxable only in that State. Such pension shall, however, be taxable only in the other Contracting State if the recipient is a resident of, and a citizen or national of, that other State. 3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to remuneration or a pension in respect of services rendered in connection with any trade or business carried on by one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of one of the States or a local authority of one of the States. In such a case, the provisions of Article 15, 16 or 18, as the case may be shall apply. As per the austlii website, "provisions" are sections, subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, even sub-subparagraphs etc etc. As per the Cambridge dictionary, "provisions" are a "particular thing must happen or be done, especially before another can happen or be done." One member says, "forget about Article 19." I don't think so. Some other members say Article 18 relates to the aged pension and Article 19 relates to services pensions. Worthy of some discussion, but Article 18 relies on the "provisions" of Article 19, and if Article 19 is about service pensions, where's that leave the aged pension? See Article 19 Section 1 - "Remuneration (other than a pension) paid by one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of that State or a local authority of that State to any individual in respect of services rendered" - no services rendered for the aged pension. See subsection (a) - "is a citizen or national of that other state." Well, there's only a handful of foreigners that have been granted Thai citizenship, so I think it fair to say no members on this thread are Thai citizens. The interesting part of that subsection is "or" Subsection (b) - "did not become a resident of that other State solely for the purpose of performing the services." Once again, services mentioned. Section 2 - "Any pension paid to an individual in respect of services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions" No government functions performed. Section 3 - "The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to remuneration or a pension in respect of services rendered in connection with any trade or business" - No services rendered in connection with any trade or business. Some interesting "provisions" in Article 19 that Article 18 are subject to. How do members meet the provision of Article 19? Interesting how no one wants to comment on this, which comes from a link on the Treasury website in relations to Australia and Thailand's double tax treaty. "The agreements work be giVing the country of residence the exclusive right to tax certain catagories of income and allowing the remaining income to be taxed by the country where it was sourced. If the income is then taxed by the country of residence, it is to allow a credit for tax paid in the country of origin. Examples of catagories reserved for tax by the country of residence include: "Industrial or commercial profits where the taxpayer has no permanent establishment in the country where the profits are earned; -Most pensions and purchased annuities;" Scroll down to Thailand. https://treasury.gov.au/tax-treaties/income-tax-treaties

Why is it I perceive a one link wonder who's not gathering all the info and viewing it subjectively?

Huh? Perhaps you should elaborate on what you mean by "ATO conditions." The links are clearly discussing the residency status of pensioners, and the tax implications. Bob - "I will be retiring overseas soon on Australian age pension. I will be non-Australian resident for tax purposes and therefore I will not have the benefit of the tax threshold. My basic tax calculation on ATO site show that I will be paying approx. 30% tax on the age pension, where there would be no tax if resided in Australia. Is this correct?" Blake - " As a foreign resident for tax purposes, you will pay income tax according to foreign resident rates. This means for all income under $180k, you'll pay 32.5c per dollar. You would only report and pay tax on your Australian-sourced income to us."

You edited and added more to your post. No argument from me the hourly wage is higher in Australia, but you have to spend a lot more of that hourly wage just to be able to earn that hourly wage, such is the higher cost of living in Australia.

But you can compare the difference in purchasing power. What does 1000 baht buy you in Australia? What does the same 1000 baht buy you in Thailand? It's important to compare "like for like." That's where "The Big Mac Index" comes in. Google it.

Yet, the advice from the ATO is also this, from two members of staff. https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s0000002ngF/p00172380 https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s000000O2y4/p00197245 Why is Jim right, and the other two wrong? Why is Jim's advice "official" and the above two staff members of the ATO unofficial?

I can see your highlights, but I would be interested in your "interpretation" of the "provisions" in Article 19 that Article 18 relates to.