KhunHeineken

Been posted many times before by me and others. Google it and you will see many pages from accounting firms, financial planning firms, also government websites about them. They are no secret.

Yet, you seem to think pensioners will get a free pass from the very same laws, despite no mention of an exemption.

All correct. Unfortunately, the unknown factor in the maths as to whether it's financially beneficial or not to return is the individual's life span. Return and pay all that money and die not long after serving the 2 years and it was wasted. Return and go on to live a very long life and it was financially beneficial to do so.

A friend of mine returned and bought a mobile home and cruised around Australia, sometimes with the Thai missus. It was his cost effective method for transport and accommodation in one, whilst filling his day and showing the missus his country. This may not be for everyone, but it is an option.

Myself, and some friends, and I am sure many others around the world who are self funded, lodge tax returns. We pay resident tax rates, due to the loopholes previously mentioned. That will change when the proposed changes are passed. We will be paying non resident tax rates at 32.5% from $0. Where this is relevant to pensioners and part pensioners is there are no exemptions for pensions in the proposed changes, nor any mention of a tax free threshold being added to non resident tax brackets, hence why I posted about it a long time ago, because a pension is deemed income, and is also taxable, and this caused some debate, which is still continuing.

Did you ever work out which pension you were on? One day it was a vet's pension, the next day it was the aged pension.

I agree with you 100%, however, I find it strange you do not accept that there could be another "checkmate" on the way, as we have been discussing. Australia is edging closer to $1 trillion debt. The money has to come from somewhere. They will be looking to implementing every "checkmate" they can.

Who are they "tracking down?" Those who lodge a tax return, they have them cold. They will get their non resident tax bill in the usual way. They will have pensioners cold as well. Immigration tells ATO and Centerlink an individual has been outside of Australia for 183 days and next fortnight the pension is reduced buy 32.5%. Where's the "tracking down" about this?

If you agree 100%, then you are contradicting yourself. Can you see how convenient the proposed changes make it for the government to either collect, or withhold pensions money, from people outside of Australia for 183 days? No tax returns needed. Just post out a bill to self funded and part pensioners for 32.5%, and withhold 32.5% of the pension from pensioners, all physical presence and time based, with the work done by computers. I see the words "my interpretation" and "it could also apply to non residents in my opinion." You have posted, "the age pension forms part of your taxable income." So, basically, as I have posted many times, and provided links, the pension is deemed to be an income, and is taxable. I have also posted the non resident tax brackets. So, can you post a link showing the pension is exempt from non resident tax? Can you post a link showing a tax free threshold for non residents? If you can't, all we have is your "interpretation and "opinion." The rest of your post is basically a personal attack. Why don't you put up or shut up? Post some links to back up your "interpretation" and "opinion."

The previous Liberal government had then drafted. The current Labor government has allowed the consultation phase which started in July 23 and ended September 23. (link already provided) Here's the Assistant Treasurer telling expats in Singapore the proposed changes are in the government's "in tray." https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/assistant-treasurer-flags-new-tax-residency-rules-20220826-p5bd1v So, out of these facts, can you tell me why you think neither political party will get them passed? How can Liberal try to block them in parliament when they were all for them and had them drafted? How can Labor try to block them when in opposition when they didn't bin them and were looking to tweak the 45 days? I can simply see the writing on the wall.

You have stated you are on a part pension. What about the supplement income you receive? How can that stand outside the proposed changes in the future? The rest of your post is just wishful thinking. As I have said, computers will do it all, and there can be no asking for a review or appeal because one has simply been outside of Australia for 183 days, proven by immigration records, and there's no getting around that.

I get it, but what you don't accept, or understand, is when the proposed changes are passed, computers will do all the heavy lifting. What part of this don't you understand? Guys like me, who appear to be tax residents on a long holiday, will end up getting a non resident tax bill. Part pensioners will be the same on their supplement income. Aged pensioner will have a 32.5% reduction in their pension. There's no way the government will pay the full pension every fortnight, then chase the 32.5% on the 1st July every year. Like the supplements,the 32.5% will be withheld after 183 days. The immigration data base already talks to the Centerlink data base, and they will be set to talk to the ATO. It's not like the ATO have to employ another 500 staff for this. Some of your post is incorrect. I think what you mean is, currently, pensioners, part pensioners, and even self funded guys like me, have always declared ourselves as residents for taxation purposes, not non residents, as you have posted. This may have been a typo on your behalf, because if we did declare ourselves as non residents, we would have to pay non resident tax. How can you class yourself as a non resident to avoid non resident tax. The way to avoid non resident tax is to be a resident. Once again, maybe a typo on your behalf. Interesting comment about self assessment. Do you think we will all be able to "self assess" ourselves out of the immigration department knowing we have been outside of Australia for 183 days? Yes, we continue on as we have been, but the proposed changes are there for all to see, and in my opinion, it's only a matter of time before either political party passes them into law.

If you ad together the stamp duty to buy, the agent's fees to sell, the taxes and fees and maintenance for 2 years, then the loss of the earnings on the capital invested elsewhere, then the high cost of living, it may not be worth buying a property for the 2 years, not to mention the risk that the property market goes down, creating further losses.

Interesting comment. With so many links from credible sources, even government websites, the proposed changes seem pretty clear to me, and not really open to "opinion" or "interpretation." 183 days outside of Australia = non resident for taxation purposes. 45 days inside Australia and meeting two of the factor tests - resident for taxation purposes. That said, you are entitled to your opinion, and I have no problem discussing this serious issue with you. The people that want to be declared as a non resident are people working, or have sizeable investments in a low tax country, who neither derive or generate zero income in Australia. You are correct, why would any expat retiree who derives or generates an income in Australia declare themselves a non resident for tax purposes, or even tick the "Leaving Australia Permanently" box on the departure card? I have given a reason for why non residents have been able to get away with this for decades in a previous post, and it's exactly what the proposed changes are going to stop. I believe an aged pensioner who does not inform Centerlink they are going overseas, after 6 weeks, they stop some of the supplements. Can a pensioner conform this? If this is the case, the framework / infrastructure for the proposed changes to work the same way for the 32.5% withholding of the pension is already in place. You say it's just "Talk" but I have posted links to the current 90 year old tax residency laws. The pages and pages and pages of this legislation will be simplified with a physical presence and time based model. Basically, the legislation around residency for taxation purposes will eventually change, either under Labor, or the next Liberal government. I have posted links showing the pension is deemed an income. I have posted links showing pensions are taxable. I have posted links showing there is no tax free threshold for non residents. If you put these fact together with the proposed changes, things aren't looking good for continuing to pay no tax. What you need to understand is, the way we have ALL been getting away with it for decades will come to an end when these proposed changes are passed. As I have said, it's not a new tax. It's n existing tax that was too cumbersome for the ATO to collect because of so many loopholes, not to mention, how can the ATO prove my "intention: in a Court when my intentions are in my own head? All I have to say is I am on a long holiday, and have maintained a domicile back in Australia, and have every intention of returning to Australia to live. The proposed changes do away with this loophole and the government will simply declare you a non resident for tax purposes based on immigration department data. There will be no way to get around this, and that's why they designed it that way. See the quote in a recent post about how strictly they will be enforcing the days.

Correct. This goes to the very point of why the proposed changes were drafted. I'm not on an aged pension. I am self funded and never paid a cent of non resident tax for all the years I have been living in Thailand. The reason for this is, I maintain a "domicile" in Australia and the ATO can not prove I have no "intention" of ever returning to live in Australia. All I have to state is I am on a long holiday and have every "intention" of returning to Australia in the future. I have a few friends that have dodged non resident tax the same way. We have all been doing it for years. Sure, we pay resident tax, and get the tax free threshold, but the government is missing out on 32.5% from $0 from us. Why wouldn't they want to close that loophole? As I have said in the past, if / when the proposed changes close that loophole, pensioners very well may be collateral damage, unless the pension is exempt, or they add a tax free threshold to the non resident tax brackets. The proposed changes mention neither. I know I should be paying non resident tax, but use the "maintaining a domicile" to circumvent paying it. It stands to reason the government, of either political party, was one day going to give government agencies the ability to force people like me to pay non resident tax. The government went for the easiest enforcement route, a physical presence and time based model, 100% proven by immigration records, which can not be denied, or appealed. See the quote I posted in a recent post about how strictly they will enforce the "days."

Albo is coming under fire for basically doing nothing other than flying around the world. He's facing pressure in the media on the cost of living crisis. It's possible he'll splash some cash around and go easy on taxes. Hopefully the proposed changes will not make the next budget also.

Why don't you go on the ATO Community Forum and ask them? I would imagine Australia Tax Law would be documents piled high to the ceiling. I'm not here to research for you the exact clause / sub clause of the act. You can do that. Maybe you can be more specific as to what you do not accept. Is the Australian aged pension deemed an "income" - yes. (links provided previously) Is the Australian aged pension taxable - yes. (links provided previously) Do non resident tax brackets have a tax free threshold - no. (links provided previously) Do you accept the above as fact? If not, please provide some links. I have provided many links, some of them from government. It appears you are hoping that the Australia aged pension somehow enjoys the benefit of a tax free threshold whilst the recipient is a non resident for tax purposes. I can only go off the non resident tax brackets which show it's 32.5% tax from $0 to $120,000. This was confirmed by Blake from the ATO in the link, and also in many other links I have previously posted. All the links confirm Blake is correct. Is the guy in the youtube clip wrong as well? How is it all this information, from multiple and credible sources is wrong, but your "interpretation" is right? Once again, please post some links showing all of this is wrong.

I've posted the same links many times for the same questions, to the point my posts have been reported and removed for posting the same links several times. I'll occasionally post them again for a newbie, but you are not a newbie. If you look at a link I posted recently, the title is, " Modernizing the individual tax residency rules." It's well known that the current tax residency laws are 90 years old. Ease of international travel, a growing global work force, skilled Australians in demand around the world, and the internet, now see these laws largely unfit for purpose, thus, they may / will change to a physical presence and time based model. I see you have made some other posts, so I will address the above in those posts.

I don't know. If it was announced, I would have posted it. In my opinion, and I'll say that again, in my opinion, Aussie expats dodged a bullet in last year's May budget. Not so sure if we will be that lucky in this year's May budget which is set for the 14th May. I have previously posted a link where the Assistant Treasurer for the current Labor government said the proposed changes were in the governments "in tray" and they were looking at tweaking the 45 days, so clearly they have no intention of binning them.

https://asia.nikkei.com/Life-Arts/Life/Mon-forge-their-own-path-in-Myanmar-s-civil-war https://news.sky.com/story/myanmars-civil-war-has-taken-dramatic-turn-and-never-has-the-ruling-military-looked-so-vulnerable-13030330 https://thediplomat.com/2023/12/is-myanmars-civil-war-pushing-the-country-toward-fragmentation/ https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/myanmar-civil-war-coup-opposition-resistance-ceasefire-4059991 https://www.cfr.org/global-conflict-tracker/conflict/rohingya-crisis-myanmar https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/26/watch-bloody-civil-war-one-outcomes-facing-myanmar/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2023/11/21/myanmar-military-karen-knu-rebels/ Speaking of Google, the above are all from the front page of quick Google search. They all mention "Myanmar civil war." Must be "fake news." Maybe it's time to take a look over the next door's fence and see what's going on in their back yard.

Click on "Consultation paper." https://treasury.gov.au/consultation/c2023-205344#:~:text=This measure was announced by,be an Australian tax resident. The paper was drafted July 23 and open for submissions that closed in September 23. Here's just one of the clauses: "A strict day count ensures that residency outcomes are clear, the rules are administrable, and disputes are avoided. Allowing days to be excluded in certain circumstances may undermine these benefits." Once again, the "bright line test" of 183 days of physical presence, or, 45 days and meeting two of the factor tests. The factor tests are not difficult to meet, but as another member pointed out previously, it may be financially beneficial for some members to just pay the 32.5% non resident tax on their pension because it may end up cheaper then airfares, accommodation, and cost of living in Australia. The current Labor government are aware of the proposed changes and have not binned them, which tells me it's not if, but when they are legislated.

Again, the pension is deemed an income. The pension is taxable. There is no tax free threshold for non residents. Show me how these add up to pensioners don't have to pay non resident tax? Read the link again. Tell me, what question would you ask "Blake" from the ATO? What argument would you put to Blake from the ATO as to why your pension is exempt when he has already told "Bob" he has to pay non resident tax on his pension if living overseas. I have posted a link where the exact point of debate on this thread has been put to a member of the ATO who has replied pensioner living overseas are liable for non resident tax. The link is not my opinion, or my interpretation. Why don't you comment on this guy's channel and tell him he's wrong also? Too funny. How many times do I, and other members, have to tell you a pension is deemed to be an income, and is taxable. If you insist a pension is neither, please post a link.

I would say, did you read the link? It comes from the ATO community website. A member of staff answered an inquiry about this very point, yet, you chose to ignore in the hope that if you post your interpretation, the law and the fact will become untrue. It's laughable. Let's not talk about what you believe. Let's talk about Australian Tax Law. Put simply, a pension is deemed to be an income. A pension is taxable. There is no tax free threshold for non residents. If the proposed changes go through, you will be deemed to be a non resident after 183 days outside of Australia. Do you agree or disagree with this simple summary? No, the game changes once you are deemed to be a non resident. They haven't been able to implement the tax / withholding pension because of loopholes in 90 year old laws. Why do you think they proposed the changes?

Nothing mentioned in the proposed changes says it will be exempted, nor means / asset tested, nor a new tax free threshold added to non resident tax rates. If they wanted to give pensioners a free pass, I am sure these would have been mentioned, but they weren't. Read the link. https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s0000002ngF/p00172380 It's tax expat pensioners should have been paying for years, and the government is proposing legislation to be finally able to collect it. What part can't you understand about it?

Marry a Thai to avoid Thai taxation policy. Great advice.