KhunHeineken

"application of the statutory rules remain uncertain" Any comment on this? The new laws haven't been passed yet. Once again, many expat retirees have been living in Thailand, perpetually, and have not visited Australia in years. How are they possibly going to argue they are residents for tax purposes? Whilst the domicile test may or may not over rule the 183 day "bright line test" in the proposed changes, and if it does, that's a positive for me and you, as we have maintained a domicile in Australia, what about the thousands of other expats in Thailand who have not? Remember, it's a tax they should already be paying.

So, it's all just disappeared, has it?

How so? What's the point of the proposed changes if they change nothing? In your opinion, what do the proposed changes actually change then? You are not a on a full pension though, are you? Do you think the returns on your investments will get a free pass from non resident tax, a tax that you should already be paying? They will be looking to fry all manner of fish for every dollar, not just the big fish.

Hardly. No. The link is dated 8/6/23 and provided TR 2023/1, which I then found on the ATO website.

It does appear that way, yet, the proposed changes have not been passed. I've maintained a residence in Australia, for the very purpose of placing myself in the gray area of the current legislation. How many expat retirees still have a property in Australia, community ties etc? When was the last time they visited Australia? In my opinion, under the old laws, and the new proposed laws, most expat retirees in Thailand would be non residents for tax purposes.

Dated 8/6/23. https://www.minterellison.com/articles/ato-finalises-tr-20231-on-residency-for-individuals Some interesting examples on the ATO website. https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?docid=TXR/TR20231/NAT/ATO/00001

Out of courtesy, I replied to your post, but it was removed. (I am not questioning moderation) On that basis, I am reluctant to reply to your post again.

I would be interested in how you think, at law, long term Thai expats will be able to stand outside the law, other than your opinion of "fairness." As for "unworkable" computer data bases do the work, and I believe a system is already in place for pensioners who are outside of Australia for 6 weeks, but I am happy to be corrected on this. Are "long term Thai expats" not "longer terms non-residents?" This is the point of the proposed changes. To take away the "intention" of the expat, which is difficult to prove, and replace it with a time based criteria, which can not be disputed.

Correct. The proposed changes do away with pages and pages and pages of 90 year old laws that had so many loopholes and gray area that in 2023, they are no longer fit for purpose. Again, the 183 days is not a new tax. The 183 days just allows the collection of tax from expats. The best that can be hoped for is a new non resident tax bracket that includes a tax free threshold. Say $0 to $35,000 at 0% tax, or, pensions are exempt. To date, neither of these appear anywhere in the proposed changes.

Yawn. They are not "going after the little battlers" in relation to the proposed changes. It's a tax that Aussie expats who derive an "income" from Australia, and yes, a pension is deemed an income, should have been paying for decades. The proposed changes allow the ATO to finally collect this tax from many who have not been paying it, both wealthy, and battlers, and in the case of pensioners, simply reduce their pension the fortnight after they have been outside of Australia for 183 days. Basically, non resident tax does not discriminate. If / when the proposed changes are passed, there will be no chest beating by myself. The proposed changes are there for you to read, and the assistant treasurer of the current Labor government has said it is in the government's "in tray" so it didn't die with the ousting of the former Liberal government. The non resident tax brackets are there for you to read. The legislation that a pension is deemed "income" is there for you to read. Many links to the above have been posted, several times, by myself, and others. Connect the dots and you will see the picture.

Yourself, and many others, took the stance that expat OAP's have never been liable to pay non resident tax, and will never be liable for non resident tax, and anyone who suggested they should have been paying it, and may have to pay it in the future, was labeled a scaremonger. The Paul Hogan Syndrome. Are you now saying expat OAP's are in fact liable to pay non resident tax, but have been evading it for many for decades? Can you clarify your stance? At law, should expat OAP's be paying non resident tax? Yes, or no?

For how much longer do you think this will be possible? The government is aware of the loopholes, as we are. Would it be so surprising to you they make changes to close the loopholes? On the point of paying no tax, here's an interesting article. https://www.9news.com.au/finance/australia-millionaires-ato-data-rich-people-paying-no-tax/726563bf-9fd7-4da4-ae18-498308aac038 "Highly skilled accountants were able to get their clients out of over $400 million in tax." No matter how "highly skilled" accountants are, they will not be able to get around the immigration data base, and the 45 / 183 days.

The reason my posts are removed is because a small minority of "haters" constantly report them to admin and have them removed, despite their own baiting, off topic, and personal attacks on the same thread. I'm still waiting for some links from you showing my posts are incorrect. You are not hiding behind personal attacks now, are you?

If / when that does happen, what will your comment be on this forum? Once again, it's a tax they should already be paying. Do you understand that? It's not a new tax. The proposed changes are focused on enforcement. Do you know the difference? It's not about "starting" to tax them. It's about changing laws in order to be able to start collecting taxes that have been avoided for decades.

At least my posts contain links. No links from you in over 30 posts, yet YOU continually say you post links showing I am incorrect.

The front of The Warehouse was being knocked down today.

You do realize, you contradicted yourself several times in your previous post. Here's just one example. "Personally I can't see the ATO chasing OAP's for the non residents tax, that said, if they ever did, they would be within their rights," - you see, it's not about being in their rights, it's the law, therefore, it's not really about what you personally think, is it? What makes you think pensioners will be able to stand outside of the 183 day net, and non immigration tax brackets? Yeah, expat pensioners, and myself, have not been paying non resident tax rates for decades. Why would it be soooooooooooo surprizing to YOU that a goverment, of either party, would seek to stop that loophole, not just for pensioners, but for everyone, including Paul Hogan? Is it really rocket science?

You didn't even know who PWC was until I mentioned them.

Another baiting and off topic post from you, yet, not reported by myself.

The burden of proof between a civil case and a criminal case is very different.

So, you have Blake, from the ATO, replying to Bob, on an ATO forum, in which Blake clearly, in writing, informs Bob he will be a non resident for tax purposes, and will pay income tax at 32.5%. Yes, a pension is deemed an "income" by the ATO. See various links to this in previous posts. Here's the relevant line in your link. Blake from the ATO: "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." Now, your friend rings the ATO and is told by a staff member, "not interested in pensioners." Did he get that staff member's name? Did that staff member email your friend any links to relevant laws and regulations? What information do we rely on, Blake's, or the staff member over the phone? One is right, and one is wrong. Did the call center staff member tell your friend don't worry about the 183 days, and don't worry about your pension being an income, because it's not relevant to you because these laws are "not interested in pensioners." Perhaps it really is just "for guys like Paul Hogan." Did that call center staff member tell your friend "pensions will be exempt?" Did that call center staff member tell your friend, "we are making changes to the non resident tax brackets and the first $35,000 will have a tax free threshold? On what basis did the call center staff member suggest your friend will be able to stand outside the law? Again, you are using words like "I can't see the ATO going after non resident old age pensioners." They are not "going after" them. It's a tax they should have already been paying, as Blake informed Bob in your link, but outdated 90 year old non resident tax laws have seen them avoid paying it. Then, there's people like myself, and part pensioners, that haven't been paying, either. Then, I dare say, high net worth individuals have been avoiding paying it as well. It's not a new tax. What is new will be the 183 days automatic deeming of non resident status for taxation purposes, and with a pension being deemed an "income" at law, I would really like to know what information the call center staff member is basing their advice on. Do you think if he rang again, he may get different advice? Perhaps if he rang a third time, I would not be surprised if he got different advice from the first two calls. This is why I put more weight on what is in writing. "Non residents do have to pay 32.5c in the $ from income derived within Australia" - but the call center staff just told your friend he doesn't have to because they are "not interested in pensioners" and you said they are not "going after" pensioners, so why are you saying this? Do we rely on the written word of the law, or your mate's telephone call and your opinion? "that said there are also ways to get around that, e.g. non dividend paying shares. Dividend paying shares already have 30c taken out when they pay you so the ATO isn't going to chase you for the 2.5 cents in the $." - it's a pension, not a share portfolio. How does this help pensioners with the proposed changes? "Personally I can't see the ATO chasing OAP's for the non residents tax, that said, if they ever did, they would be within their rights, and it would be a downright low act IMO. - where's the "chasing?" Immigration inform Centrelink and the ATO that John Smith, the Aussie old age pensioner, has been outside Australia for 183 days, therefore, he's now deemed to be a non resident for tax purposes. If he's on a part pension, the ATO bill him for 32.5%, and if he's only on a pension, Centrelink reduce his pension by 32.5% the first fortnight after the 183 days. Simple. All this is taking place while they are still "going after" guys like Paul Hogan. These changes simply get everyone outside of Australia for 183 days. No gray area, nothing to review, nothing to appeal. It's a numbers game, and the magic number is 183. You, and others, make it sound like the ATO and Centrelink have to employ 200 extra staff, with office space, to implement this. They don't. Computer data bases will do all the heavy lifting. Tell me this, when John Smith goes to transfer his pension to a Thai bank account 6 months after these changes are passed, and sees his pension has reduced by 32.5%, what is he going to do? Is he going to fly home and take legal action in the High Court? Is he going to write a letter to his MP? Is he going to protest outside the Australian Embassy in Bangkok? No. He'll ring Centerlink to ask why, and he will simply be told "because you have been outside of Australia for more that 183 days" and that's where it will end.

For the mobile signal, have you considered something like this? https://www.lazada.co.th/products/electronicshopelectronicshop-110-220-v-tri-band-amplifier-900-1800-2100-gsm-dcs-wcdma-2g3g4g-lte-universal-booster-repeater-us-plug-i338956760.html?spm=a2o4m.searchlist.list.1.6f493c9fVmHCK2

I used to use Teamviewer, but now I use AnyDesk. https://anydesk.com/en-au

You still don't get it, do you? What does it take for the penny to drop? Blake explains to Bob that he has to pay non resident tax on his pension. That's 32.5% of it. That "tax policy" or tax law has been around for decades. It's not a new tax. You, me, and probably most members reading this thread should have been paying it every year we have been living in Thailand. Stop thinking the proposed changes are a new tax, they are not. Expat pensioners haven't been paying non resident tax because of a big gray area in current tax law, the same law Blake informs Bob about, because the ATO couldn't distinguish been an Aussie living overseas and therefore clearly a non resident, and an Aussie having a long holiday overseas. That's the brief version of it. The longer version is, consideration is given if the person has a domicile in Australia, community ties, family, a vehicle, maintains a utility bill etc etc. Basically, things that would tend to show they have every intention of returning to live in Australia. The trouble for the ATO was proving "intention" of returning, or not returning, and most expat retirees have access to a family member's residence, or domicile. How does the ATO prove one's state of thinking, or their "intention?" It was basically to time consuming and costly to try, so we all got away with not paying non resident tax. People constantly asking for reviews, appealing the adjudication, not paying etc tended to make it not worthwhile to prosecute these cases. The above is a very short and simplified version of the pages and pages of criteria of resident v non resident on the ATO website. There are people working overseas on big money, but spending a lot of time in Australia, who pay no tax in Australia, despite using all of Australia's infrastructure. Then, you had the opposite, those living overseas but deriving an income from Australia, and yes, a pension is deemed an "income" at law. This demographic is us, living in Thailand, on Aussie income, pension, or otherwise. We are stripping money out of the Australian economy. Many in the two groups above didn't really pay non resident tax. Now, the government, that's Labor and Liberal (see the Labor "in-tray" link) are changing the old way of determining someone's residency for taxation purposes from "domicile, community ties, family, vehicle utility bill etc" and "intention of returning to Australia" to 183 days inside Australia you are a resident for taxation purposes, and 183 days outside of Australia you are a non resident for taxation purposes. The non resident tax brackets haven't changed. The definition of "income" hasn't changed. It's not a new tax. It will just close the loopholes in the current non resident tax laws, which are 90 years old. What has changed is the gray area mentioned above will change to simply the amount of days inside and outside Australia a year. No more gray area. Nothing to review. Nothing to appeal. Nothing to prosecute. Basically, judge, jury, and executioner. Pensioners may wonder, well, I'm living in a village in Issan, how can they make me pay non resident tax? As I have said, pensioner's "payer" is also their "taxer" so, in my opinion, and I'll say that again, in my opinion, once a pensioner is outside of Australia for 183 days, their pension will be reduced by 32.5%, in the same way it is reduced now when outside Australia for 6 weeks. Self funded retirees with simply get a bill from the ATO. A while ago I actually read the pages and pages on the ATO website about resident v non resident. There are so many clauses and sub-clauses. It's all going to change to 45 days and 185 days. Simple as that. The government is not changing tax policy. The government is not introducing a new tax. The government is going to bring in a system that allows them to ensure compliance with existing tax non resident tax laws. Does this make it clearer for you, or are you going to tell me the 183 days only apply to guys like Paul Hogan, or you still have a Medicare Card so you are still a resident for taxation purposes, despite living in Thailand full time?

At any point in time there are around 1 million Aussies living and / or working overseas. (link already provided) What about the hundreds of thousands of other Aussie expats, many of them working on six figure salaries, do they get a free pass because the government doesn't want to force a minority of that 1 million, being expat pensioners, to pay non resident tax? If you are suggesting safety in numbers, expat pensioners don't make up the majority of the 1 million Aussie expats around the world. Like I said, expat pensioners should already be paying this tax. It's not a new tax. What is changing is compliance / enforcement, forcing expats to pay non resident tax rates in the future, and without an exemption, or a change to the non resident tax thresholds, that will include pensioners as well. The tax itself isn't changing, just how the ATO determines one's tax residency is changing, and it's based on days outside of Australia. It's funny how you will not comment on the Bob and Blake link.