KhunHeineken

Well, let's see now. If a tax resident in Australia, you benefit from the tax free threshold, and you may only have to do 45 days and meet two easy criteria in the factor test, although Labor looks like changing the 45 days to be longer. Then, you can spend the resit of the year in Thailand, where you only pay about 10%, or as you say, "token tax." Yeah, yeah, I know. Article 18 that's subject to the provisions of Article 19, yet, no one wants to discuss the "provisions" of Article 19.

Wrong. You can be a tax resident of both. You just said, "all I know is in Australia, you are either a tax resident of Australia or a tax resident of Thailand." You have contradicted yourself again. No. One can't "elect" to be a tax resident One either meets the criteria, or they don't, and that criteria will soon change to a physical presence and time based model, making the criteria even more clear cut. How can it have nothing to do with it when A) the pension is deemed an income and B) the pension is taxable? How can one "elect" to be a tax resident of Australia when they live in Thailand???? You can't "choose." You are deemed one way or another, and the proposed changes are set to make that easier, and more profitable for the government. When the proposed changes come in, how can you argue you are still a tax resident of Australia when you have been outside of Australia for 183 days? There will be no tax free threshold for you as a non resident, but that's ok, because you have no income being generated in Australia, unless you receive a pension, which is deemed an income, and is taxable, then you will get the credits you mentioned, but will pay the 32.5% tax between Thailand and Australia. Can you tell me how a pension then stands outside of non resident tax? Yeah, yeah, Article 18 that is subject to the provisions of Article 19. Those pesky "provisions" again. You can be a resident of two countries. I have posted an easy example of how to be. I say it again for you. You do 45 days and meet two of the criteria in the factor test, then do 180 days in Thailand. You are a resident for tax purposes of Australia and Thailand. You can also be a double non resident. Spend 183 days outside of Australia and 180 days outside Thailand. Yeah, you could be wrong.

You posted it. These are your words: "Not to get off track here, the above highlighted states: while pensions will generally only be taxable in the country of residence." Are they your words, or not? Are you now denying you wrote them? Once again, I would be interested in your "interpretation" of the "provisions" in Article 19. No need to hightlight Article 19, you have already done that a dozen time, but can you discuss your interpretation of the provisions in Article 19? Aren't you putting it forward to be all about the aged pension? After all, it is the pension thread. You still don't get it. The "credits" are given to the either the primary taxing country or the source country for taxes already paid. I not you refuse to comment on the youtube video I post where the guy explains all of this very well. I would be interested in your comments on it.

They can also be a double non resident of two countries, as the guy in the video points out. I have posted how to do this, but many would not like to be outside of Thailand for so long.

One can't simple accept Article 18 when Article 18 states "Subject the provisions of Article 19." You said, "forget about Article 19." You simply can't, when Article 18 s subject to the provisions of Article 19. I would be very interested in your "interpretation" of the "provisions" in Article 19. I see you have highlighted Section 2, but disregarded Section 1 and Subsections (a) and (b) Can you tell me what, exactly, at law, the provisions of Article 19 are that Article 18 relies upon?

How can you "forget about Article 19" when Article 18 is "subject to the provisions of Article 19?" You have contradicted yourself, yet again. "they are both law and both apply to each respective pension" yet, "forget about Article 19. WTF? You are taking all of this very personally. No need for it.

Well, for one, they are not earning a wage to compare.

Most on this form are retired.

I'm still a resident of Australia for tax purposes, despite not living there for some years, but looking towards the passing of the proposed changes, say I did 45 days in Australia and meet two for the factor tests, which I easily can, that makes me a resident of Australia for tax purposes, does it not? Then say I also do over 180 days in Thailand, that makes me a tax resident of Thailand, does it not? Care to comment on this? One can also be a double non resident for tax purposes, and I posted about this some time ago, if one was prepared to move around. I agree. Once again, a double tax agreement ensures the money is not taxed twice, or "double." A double tax treaty isn't about having two countries tax you, or "double" the countries tax you. The highest tax rate between the two countries prevails, and credits are given by both countries towards the tax taken by each country. As for Article 18 that's "subject to the provisions of Article 19" I don't agree with another member who simple says, "Forget about Article 19." This is the same member who beats his chest saying, the link is "the law, the law, the law" but "forget about Article19" of THE LAW.

So that's it then, Thailand is the new tax haven for Aussies. They'll nick name Thailand "Token Tax Thailand" (TTT) We'll have wealth Aussies becoming residents of Thailand to escape paying tax back in Australia.

You can put whatever you want to bed for yourself, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't mean I have accept your interpretation, because that's all it is, your interpretation. I am doing more research, but will say should my research prove you to be correct, I will gladly concede. I have also explain this to you. Now you agree. You are a resident of Thailand for tax purposes. Therefore, Thailand gets primary taxing rights. The highest rate of tax prevails amongst the two countries with the treaty. If it's taxed in Australia, Thailand gives a credit, if it's taxed in Thailand, Australia gives a credit, but they will both equal to the amount of the highest tax rate of either country, so you don't get out of paying one baht or one cent of tax, just because you live in Thailand. Do you agree? Now, "while pensions will generally only be taxable in the country of residence." Don't you love the word, "generally." Do you think "generally" might be worth looking into a bit, just a bit? Like I said before, I think you may be celebrating a little too early, but I will see where my research takes me and I will gladly concede if you are correct.

What you really have posted is your "interpretation" of the law. You read it then claim a not some humble victory over me, even begging me to "come out to play." When I did reply to your posts, and with links, you totally disregarded them. Do you think it's wise to gather all the information first, I do. This came from the Treasury website on Tax Treaties. IIt's even under the Thailand heading. I have posted the link/s before. "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;" Can you see why I am reluctant concede that pensions will only be taxed by Thailand? I 100% agree that, as residents of Thailand for tax purposes, Thailand gets primary taxing rights, but that doesn't mean Australia goes and whistles and misses out. You have to remember, whilst the pension is a modest "income" as the guy in the video explain, the rich can't hide behind this. They have to pay the remainder of tax in the source country. Imaging if I owned 20 houses in Australia but was living in Thailand. I don't get to pat Thai tax on all that rent, and ad Australia gets zero. Can you post your interpretation of the above? Does the above not clearly mention the word "credit" as does your own link from Siam Legal. No, the "credit" is not just for shares, it's for the tax of each country, notice I said EACH because each country gets to tax you, just not the money getting taxed "double."

How can you forget about Article 19 when Article 18 says, "Subject to the provisions of Article 19?" Does this not mean to you, there is some relation, some connection, some correlation, some reliance, that Article 18 has on Article 19? Why don't you give us your "interpretation" of the "provisions" instead of saying "forget about Article 19" when Article 18 is subject to provision listed in Article 19? You just can't "forget about Article 19." So, like the guy in the video addressed, and assuming you are correct for a moment, why is it this is in the double taxation treaty when you are saying it set out to exclude a country, in this case Australia, from being able to tax the income, particularly when Australia is the source country? As I said, the whole idea of a double tax treaty is so the money doesn't get taxed twice, or double, not to say either Thailand gets to tax you and Australia doesn't, or Australia gets to tax you and Thailand doesn't.

You still don't get it. You have put forward the Double Tax Agreement Australia has with Thailand and them declared that it meant Australians receiving a pension from Australia, but who are tax residents of Thailand, will only pay tax in Thailand, and not in Australia, or both countries. The guy in the video, the video which you haven't even commented on, explains that the word DOUBLE in the term Double Taxation Treaty relates to the money not being taxed "double" but each country can still tax the money, just not twice. It is clear that as residents of Thailand for tax purposes, that makes most of us non residents of Australia for tax purposes, that gives Thailand primary taxation rights, but like the guy in the video explains, that doesn't mean you get to tell Australia that you don't have to pay them their 32.5% non resident tax because you are a resident of Thailand for tax purposes and Thailand's tax rate is is 10%. No, as the guy in the video explained, Thailand takes their 10% first, then Australia takes their 22.5%. As he said, you pay the higher of the two, but you do not get taxed twice, or double. You seem to think "double" means more than one country. That's not the meaning of the word "double" in the Double Tax Treaty legislation. Now, I am still looking into Article 18 and Article 19, particularly as Article 18 is under the provision of Article 19. I have not claimed I am correct, but I have not claimed I am wrong at this stage, ether. When I am satisfied with my research, I will announce my position, as me being either correct, or incorrect. In any case, I have posted links showing Australia is planning on changing its tax treaties with all countries in the near future, with a couple already being changed, also with the proposed changes to residency around the corner as well, we don't know what it could look like in the future.

Which is pretty much what some members are hoping for in relation to the proposed changes. If we ignore them, they'll go away.

I would expect most posters reside in Thailand, but it's no problem if you don't. I just find it strange you post on here about the cost of living in Australia when everyone knows living in Thailand is soooooooo much more affordable. Sure, wine and cheese, and a bulk billed visit to a doctor. Do you have anything else? Should we compare property prices and rents?

It's well known that, culturally, Thai's do not consume a lot of wine, nor eat cheese. Yes, Thai's pay the same price, I never suggested it's a dual pricing system, like entering some national parks here, but basically the Thai government is ripping off foreigners for some items they know are in demand by foreigners, all in the name of protecting Thailand's wine making industry and dairy industry.

We all know Thailand rips foreigners off on wine, and cheese as well. That said, should you be a beer drinker, that's a different story. If you are living in Australia, why such an interest in this forum?

Well, at least they are not of the professional opinion such laws "are only for guys like Paul Hogan."

Do you disagree with the information in the link?

Can the OP bump the poll date, if he has enough time in between trolling me?

You disregard every piece of information except one piece of information that meets your narrative, which is question due to its mention of another "Article" and then beat your own drum that you are right and I am wrong. I keep an open mind, and I am still researching, but there's more to Article 18 and Article 19 than you think.

Not sure, but it's difficult to treat ignorance on this forum.

You really are in denial. I'll explain it in the other thread.

Why don't you run YOUR interpretation past some companies like this one? https://www.ngssuper.com.au/articles/news/age-pension-travelling-overseas#:~:text=Yes — the age pension is,you lodge your tax return. Can I live overseas and get the age pension? If eligible, yes. Your payments will be made every 4 weeks instead of fortnightly, and you may be paid less than what you would have in Australia. Is the age pension taxable? Yes — the age pension is counted as taxable income. You can ask Services Australia to deduct tax from your payment so you don't need to pay it when you lodge your tax return.