KhunHeineken

From the below document from the Treasury Department. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-07/c2023-205344-cp.pdf This is "Point 4" from that document. "Australian economic interests 50. Under the Board’s model, an individual would meet this factor if they had any of the following Australian economic connections: (a) Employment in Australia – they commonly (not infrequently) carried out their employment duties in Australia, regardless of whether their employer was an Australian resident or a foreign resident. (b) Active participation in the carrying on of a business in Australia - they controlled (directly or indirectly), or played a significant role in, the operations or management of a business in Australia. (c) Direct or indirect interests in Australian assets – they had an interest in taxable Australian property, a bank account with an Australian bank with significant cash deposits, an interest in a family trust, or they received Australian social security payments in the preceding income year." There is (a), (b) and (c) within "Point 4" of the factor tests and you only have to meet one of them. In relation to (c), having a property in Australia, or for those receiving a pension, they received a social security payment in the preceding income year, is enough to satisfy (c). To answer your question, how much money is a "significant cash deposit" I do not know the dollar value, but it's certainly not $10 in an Australian bank account which some members believe shows one's intention to be an Australian resident for tax purposes. Yes, some members believe just because they have an Australian bank account, they are a resident for tax purposes. One member posted he's a resident for tax purposes because he still has a Medicare Card.

Great. What's your advice to the OP to be deemed an "ordinary resident" in order to apply? If he becomes an ordinary resident the moment his plane lands, as you suggest in the other thread, link please.

That's correct, he "was" and ordinary resident. Past tense. He's not an ordinary resident now, is he? He's lived in Thailand for over 10 years. So, he has to go back to NZ for a start. Now the question of portability arises. Can he fly back to NZ, apply, be interviewed and basically lie and say he's back in NZ for good, receive the pension, and fly out a week later? Returning Australians pensioners must remain in Australia for 2 years to achieve portability. Also, what will happen to his pension / superannuation after 26 weeks? You posted this in a previous post: "I would say he's eligible." I am not suggesting he's not eligible. What I am suggesting is "D" currently does not satisfy the criteria for a successful application, primarily because he is not an "ordinary resident." In this post, you say he automatically becomes an "ordinary resident" as soon as he flies into NZ for the interview. Do you have a link for this? The criteria I posted, from your own link, shows there are many things to satisfy before one becomes an "ordinary resident."

Yes, they are. I have an agent that has a "good friend" working at immigration. Was he deported? Serious question.

Not gonna happen. If I ever have any problems from any Thai government officials in relation to these documents and / or the amounts, the agent can deal with them.

I think you will find your income is assessable, and over the tax free threshold, under the law. Now, if YOU interpret the law differently, then as the bar girls say, "up to you."

Like many other countries, Thailand has rising debt. The government will be chasing every baht they can. https://www.focus-economics.com/country-indicator/thailand/public-debt/#:~:text=In the year 2024%2C the,information%2C visit our dedicated page. Computers do most of the heavy lifting these days. I think you will find most expats, even those living here on a government pension from their home country, go over the tax free threshold. You just said it was all just scaremongering, now you are saying expats need to be aware of the law. Is it "real" or "scaremongering?" Which one is it? I read similar articles. They are focused on Thai high net worth individuals. They want them to repatriate their profits back to Thailand. My view is "TiT" and things can change here very quickly. I remember many members posting that cannabis would never be legalized in Thailand and look what happened. Is it so left field to even consider a document from the Thai Revenue Department MAY be needed by immigration in the future, in a similar fashion that 800k and a bank document is required?

There are many people that want to be a non resident for tax purposes because it's financially beneficial for them to be a non resident, however, I would suggest most expat retirees would wish to be a resident for tax purposes to avail themselves of the tax free threshold, otherwise it's 30% tax from $0 to $135,000. This will mean doing 45 days in Australia, and meeting two of the four factor tests. Correct, however, many members of this forum thought Albo / Labor would never put the proposed changes to parliament. Labor did not bin them, and have progressed them to the consultation stage. This shows that eventually they will be put to parliament and will be passed with little to no opposition because they have the support of both Labour and Liberal. It's only a matter of time before they are passed and implemented. Members should plan how they can be a resident or non resident for tax purposes under the proposed changes, whichever one is more financially beneficial for them.

The current laws, which are 90 years old, are a grey area. They have a lot of loopholes in them. Many Australian expats have avoided paying non resident tax for years, including myself. The proposed changes, that's the 183 day "bright line test" and the four secondary factor ,are designed to do away with complex and subjective residency for tax purposes laws and replace them with a time based, counted in days, and physical presence model, which is similar to many other countries. This will mean, no longer can one reside in Australia but claim to be a non resident for tax purposes, and no longer can one reside overseas, but claim to be a resident for tax purposes. If / when the new laws are passed, your physical presence, and for how many days, will determine your tax residency. Both Labor and Liberal will remove the current grey area with this new law, thus simplifying the laws. Given Liberal drafted the proposed changes, and Labor did not scrap them, and in fact progressed them to the consultation stage, show they will be passed in parliament with little to no opposition, although Labor has said they will review the 45 days and possible increase these days. In my opinion, if they do increase these days, it would probably be to 60 days or similar, so, if you wish to remain a tax resident of Australia, thus benefiting from the tax free threshold, one will need to be prepared to stay in Australia for 45 days, or possible a little longer, and be able to meet two of the four factor tests. No grey area at all. Immigration records will show you are inside or outside of Australia, and for how long, thus a resident or non resident for tax purposes. No reviews, no appeals, no exemptions. All very simple.

What do they call superannuation in NZ?

You keep using the word "superannuation." The thread title is: "New Zealand old age pension." The old aged pension is different to superannuation. My question still stands. How do YOU propose "D" becomes an "ordinary resident" of NZ again? He has not resided in NZ for over 10 years. What criteria must he meet to be deemed an "ordinary resident?"

"The closing date for submissions was 2 years ago. Nothing has changed yet. Nothing is scheduled to change yet." And, apparently, it's only for guys like Paul Hogan, so why do you need to know the four factor tests?.

Yep. Same stamps. Nope. Just order their IO's they can not accept applications / money from agents and the whole system stops. I did. Now, who is more legal, tax wise, me, or you?

This is from the OP: ""D" is in his late 70s, and moved to live in Thailand on his retirement aged 65." I take this to mean he has been living in Thailand for around 10 to 15 years. How can you claim that he is "an ordinary resident in New Zealand" when he's been living in Thailand for years? = "Box not ticked." Look at the criteria for "ordinary resident." I posted it. There are many ways they assess your residency, but how would he get away with the below, being outside for more than 26 weeks? Generally you're not considered to be ordinarily resident in these countries if you either: leave them for more than 26 weeks, or spend more time outside of them than inside. Please note: a person cannot be ordinarily resident in 2 places at the same time.

Huh? Is it a pension or superannuation? I understand the word "pension" is sometimes used to describe receiving a superannuation payment each month, but there is a big difference between the two.

Told the agent I wanted both, so I believe I have both. It was an old law. It has not been implemented for years. What's stopping them from bringing it back? I said months ago, I would not be surprised to see a tax desk sitting next to the overstay desk at the airport. Cha-Ching.

Who would ever think that covering your a$$ in Thailand is a prudent think to do? They are the same stamps as you have, are they not? Exactly why I actually wanted to pay a few baht tax, so I can not be extorted at a later point in time. Or, they can simply stop agents from providing their dodgy services. In which case, I'll have to make adjustments. Maybe, maybe not. TiT. Be prepared for everything and anything here. It's funny how you try to put an argument across that because one can get an extension without 800k baht in a Thai bank, this is the reason they will never link paying resident tax to extensions. I would not be surprised if immigration require it and make yet another "service" agents can offer for which immigration receive "tea money." You do know how things work here, don't you?

When he proposed changes are passed into law, if you are outside of Australia for 183 day, you will be deemed a non resident for tax purposed. That's the "bright line" test. If you are inside Australia between 45 days and 183 days, you have to meet two out of four factor tests. The pension is deemed to be an income. Non resident tax is 30% from $0 to $135,000. There are no exemptions in the proposed changes. There are no changes to the non resident tax brackets in the proposed changes. Eg. the introduction of a tax free threshold to cover pensioners. There is no means testing in the proposed changes. The Australia / Thailand DTA does not cover the aged pension, it covers "service pensions." So, Henny Penny, what of the above do you disagree with? It's all in writing, and from the Australian Government, and not from India.

Is it from India, or from the Australian Government Treasury Department? Yes, but under the current Labor government, which shows Labor has not binned the proposed changes drafted by the previous Morrison Liberal government. This basically means it does not matter if it's Labor or Liberal in government, the laws will be eventually passed and implemented. Have you got a place to stay in Australia for 45 days each year?

The point is, the proposed changes were drafted by the Morrison Liberal government in 2020 / 21. When Albo was voted in, many members of this forum thought they would be scrapped by the new Labor government. Does progressing to the consultation stage in 2023 show that Albo and Labor have scrapped the proposed changes?

How about you play the post, not the poster. The law is there. We have all been informed about it. Many other countries are doing similar. I minimized my remittances and paid a small amount of tax. I have a magic piece of paper to prove it. If / when they stop foreigners from exiting Thailand if they haven't got a tax clearance, I'll be fine. They used to do this many years ago. What's stopping them from bringing it back? Then, they have enforcement through visa extensions. Well debated, but once again, I'll be fine. You just keep waiting and waiting. It will all go away.

I was not the one that posted the link from India. My link is from the Australian Government - Treasury Department. Do you think an Australian government source is not credible? It's the Australian Government, not social media, or click bait from India. The fact that accounting firms, law firms, financial advisors etc have put it on their websites, or made a youtube clip about it, doesn't make it click bait. Here's the link again. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-07/c2023-205344-cp.pdf

The below words appear in your thread title. "(for bank proof of life)"

I didn't "wait" but what I did do was minimize my remittances using a variety of methods, then went to an agent and declared, filed, paid a small amount of Thai tax, got a document proving I did, so I'm all good for what they may or may not do in the near or distant future. I have no problem with those who are "waiting" or those who did nothing, but TIT, and you take your chances. The reality is, foreigners can't say they were not warned, and ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law here.

Looks like they have noticed a sharp decline in remittances. Who would have though?