KhunHeineken

This is a new policy, targeting remitted funds, which incorporates unemployed expats into the Thai tax system. A thread discussing how the Thai government will ensure collection of tax from remitted funds, and penalties for non paying said tax, may be an import thread. If you will not allow this to be discussed on this thread, should I start a new thread on the topic, or you do so?

How is the rental income tax free in Australia, as a non resent of Australia for taxation purposes? If you are referring to the current loppholes, then yes, I am using them also, but they are definitely going to change. (discussed in the other forum / thread) Once you pay 32.5% non resident tax in Australia on that rental income in Australia, you will get tax credits under the DTA with Thailand, and that rental income will not be taxed twice. What, exactly, are you trying to achieve? You are living in Thailand, therefore a non resident for tax purposes in Australia and up for 32.5% tax on that rental income, as it's from $0. Moving it to Thailand after it is taxed in Australia is protected from double taxation under the DTA.

Obviously, it may be something for the future. The policy has only been in place for 4.5 months. That's not even the minimum 180 days required to be a Thai resident for taxation purposes. No doubt, compliance and enforcement will be further discussed in another thread at some point. There will have to be some type of punishment for non compliance, otherwise, no one will bother paying their share of this tax.

True. I have no link to post about it. It was just an idea how the Thai government MAY ensure compliance. As I said in another post, they can't have expats plodding along outside of the Thai tax system. They will have to push them into the system somehow, and Immigration requiring a document from the RD stating you have either paid your tax, or are exempt from paying tax, makes sense, does it not? Mike, I typed and posted before reading your post about not posting about how the Thai government will ensure compliance. Perhaps the topic of compliance / enforcement needs its own thread, because the whole Thai tax policy on taxing remitted funds is useless without ensuring compliance / enforcement. I don't see it as scaremongering. It's obvious the Thai government is going to have to do something to get foreigners to comply with this tax policy. What they do and how they do it will be of great interest to us all.

You are missing the bigger picture. I am not suggesting Immigration do the RD's job. I am simply suggesting it's entirely possible that the Thai government uses foreigner's need for a visa / extension as an easy way to ensure compliance. Basically, you have to contact the RD and deal with them over your tax implications before they issue you some type of receipt / certificate / document that can / will / may have to be presented to Immigration before your visa / extension is issued. This would mean the Thai government doesn't chase foreigners, as foreigners have to go to them. Simple and easy way of ensuring compliance. I have no link to post about this. It's just an idea I have about how they will push all expats into the Thai tax system with the minimum of effort.

I was referring to the rental income that you mentioned in your previous post. How do you propose your rental income be tax free either in Australia, or in Thailand? Your total income in Australia, if over the tax free threshold, attracts tax. Move any of that rental income to Thailand, and it's remitted funds attracting tax.

Yes, I put forward one simple, but possibly costly solution some time ago, and that is, expats simply pull their money out of ATM's using their home country Visa / Master Card. I can't see how the Thai government can tax such transactions, especially due to the millions of tourists that do the same. If the ATM fees and exchange rates are cheaper than Thai tax, there's the solution, but usually these fees are high and exchange rates are poor. Of course, I was speaking in general. Most transfer money from their home country into a Thai bank account, which is remitted funds. Some Fly In Fly Out workers can get around the 180 days buy staying one rotation outside of Thailand, for example. Everyone has different circumstances, but your typical expat retiree may have limited options and may have to pay some tax. The Thai government can't have expat retirees plodding along doing nothing about it, so I suggest either the banks have to be involved, or immigration require tax documents every year for the extension. I have no link to show this. It's just an idea about they may go about compliance.

The Thai law seems pretty clear. Spend more than 180 days inside Thailand in a calendar year and you are deemed to be a resident of Thailand for taxation purposes and will have to pay tax. It appears to me your best solution is to spend more than 183 days inside Australia in an Australian financial year to remain an Australian resident for taxation purposes and get the benefit of the tax free threshold in Australia for your income, and spend less than 180 days in Thailand in a calendar year so you are deemed a non resident of Thailand for taxation purposes, so no tax to pay in Thailand. Note: as discussed in the thread in the Home Country Forum the 183 days legislation is yet to be passed, but in my opinion, soon will be. Currently, the laws revolve around where one is "domiciled."

True, but when immigration enter your passport number into the computer and it shows you have been inside Thailand for more than 180 days, thus a Thai resident for taxation purposes, the immigration guy may say, "Sir, where are your tax documents? No tax documents, no extension." Makes sense, doesn't? Why chase people when the Thai government knows foreigners have to eventually come to them? Easy way to enforce compliance. Of course, if you are not inside Thailand for more than 180 days in a calendar year you are not a resident of Thailand for taxation purposes and will not have to produce any tax documents.

Did you complain to WH, or inform Surfshark that one, or all, of their UK servers have been blacklisted by WH? You should not tell WH anything about what you are doing. Chances are, somewhere deep in the fine print of their T's & C's, there is a clause you can only use their website, thus place a bet, only from inside the UK, or possibly the EU, which might change after Brexit. The fact that it's geoblocked tells me there's a fair chance of this. If you were to have a big win, they might not pay out if you have corresponded with them about betting on their website from overseas. I have been paid out on a couple of occasions , both times around 150 pounds on consecutive days . At the moment I can still access W/H although my 3BB connection lets me down sometimes and the W/H site will not perform all instructions or open all aspects . Speed test shows on average 60 Mbps d/load but I am paying for a V.I.P. service that guarantees 200 Mbps minimum . 3BB techs visit my home and try many speed tests but cannot achieve 200mbps . Then the last tech used his I phone to show 1000 Mbps speed not connected to my wifi . He must of thought I would believe that . Told him to go . Trouble is that where I live there are no other providers . I mentioned before about using a sim router which my friend uses in the UK at a very much reduced cost ( bar the cost of the Archer 600 router ). Your opinion please , as you seem to have a lot of knowledge . Thanks for your interesting replies to date . Sounds like your problem is with a poor internet connection, not the VPN, but it is very common for geoblocked websites to continually blacklist VPN IP Addresses. Basically, what happens is, WH will see 50 users, for example, all on their accounts from one IP Address. This tells them it's a VPN and they blacklist (block) that IP Address. VPN's do slow down your connection. Also, what type (protocol) of VPN you use has different speeds. Currently, Wireguard is about the fasted VPN protocol. Are you running a ethernet cable from your router to your computer? Wired connections are considerably faster. They are cheap to buy. Give it a try. Can you go into your router and change the WiFi channel. The one you are on maybe getting a lot of interference. Is your phone on phone data (sim card) getting good speeds? If so, if you have a laptop, try hotspotting your phone and connect your laptop to it and see if you get better results.

Interesting webinar. At 19 minutes: "So under the Australia Thai DTA, there is no exclusion for age pension or superannuation." I said more research was needed on the provisions in Article 19, as they relate to Article 18. If what this guy says is correct, and the Australia / Thailand DTA offers no tax exemption for aged pensions, either in the source country or resident country, after the proposed changes to tax resident laws are passed in Australia, why wouldn't the Australian government want to take Thailand's slice of the pension tax pie? Why would Australia "donate" this money to a foreign government, through its expats? I mentioned it's so simple for them to exempt aged pensions, but the exemption does not appear in the proposed changes. Perhaps this is why there is no exemption in the proposed changes for aged pensions. The Australian government knows Thailand will tax the Aussie aged pension, so why wouldn't Australia want to retain primary taxation rights and give the Thai government nothing out of Aussie pensions?

As a non resident of Australia for tax purposes, the rental income will be taxed at 32.5% from $0. Thailand will give you a tax credit on the 32.5% tax that you paid in Australia if you remit that money to Thailand.

They may start asking before issuing the annual extension.

It's definitely a "time will tell" matter. I am only going on the proposed changes, and some laws surrounding them. Eg. a pension is deemed an income at law. What is finally implemented has yet to be seen. We know the government has stated they are looking at tweaking the 45 day rule. I have posted links about this before. Basically, expats had submitted that if they have their 6 weeks annual leave in Australia with friends and family, and then someone gets sick or dies and they have to come back to Australia, they go over the 45 days, so the government was considering increasing the 45 days. This is the only possible change I am aware of. Common sense says they should just exempt pensions. It would be easy to do so, but I have not seen it mentioned anywhere. Perhaps the APA did make a submission and we will see this in the legislation when it is passed. Until them, it's the pension is deemed an income, the retiree is outside of Australia for 183 days, and there is no exemption for pensions, thus, my hypothesis or opinion on the issue.

It's too late to be "active" about it. The consultation phase concluded in September 2023. I would find it hard to believe the government would purposely put forward a policy that breaches such a treaty. Sure, they will move closer to the boundary, but not breach it. I agree it's not their aim to tax pensioners. I never said it was. What I have always said is pensioners may simply be collateral damage because there's currently nothing in the proposed changes that differentiate pensioners from Paul Hogan.

I am slightly confused by this comment. They are moving away from domiciled based residency system and moving towards a physical presence and time based tax residency model. When the changes come in, no longer can you have a house in Australia that you say is your "domicile" therefore maintain residency for tax purposes when you live in Thailand and haven't been back to Australia in years. The "I'm just on a long holiday" method will be no more. Inside Australia 183 days, resident. Outside Australia 183 days, non resident. Which country you live in, where you own property etc will mean nothing if you are outside of Australia for 183 days. I have said on many occasions, pensioners may very well be collateral damage in this. I have given my reasons. Basically, I don't see anything in the proposed changes that gives pensioners a tax break. No exemptions, means testing, tax free threshold added to non resident tax brackets. Time will tell if Labor tweak the proposed changes to add an exemption, which they should. Once again, all set to change to 183 days, backed up by the immigration data base. No reviews. No appeals. I have admitted previously I, and many Aussie friends, are using the loopholes in the current 90 year old tax residency laws. As far as the ATO is concerned, I am "domiciled" in Australia. I have maintained all the "associations" you have mentioned and have never paid non resident tax. The proposed changes will scoop me up, but with the pension being deemed an income, and a pensioner being outside of Australia for 183 days, and no exemptions in place, I am wondering where they will get their tax break from. Some have suggested the DTA, and I am research more about this. I, and some friends, show an interest in this because we may very well completely restructure our finances in the future.

As another member suggested, there was a core group of "haters", or possibly the same person with multiple usernames, who may have been working for AN's major competitor. They seek to have posts removed, members banned, threads closed etc in order to push people to the other website. There was consistently zero content from them. Only baiting, flaming, abuse, trolling etc. As I have said before, the proposed changes to tax residency laws is the single biggest issue facing expat pensioners in years, and I stand by that comment. Others have suggested it's portability, but that is nothing new, and you have to do your 2 years, it's as simple as that. It's only through discussion do we get to move past the "that's only for guys like Paul Hogan" and "I still have a Medicare Card so I am still a resident for tax purposes" misinformation.

I disagree. I have put forward public information, in the form of many credible links, media releases, youtube clips, extracts of law, and the opinions of professionals. I have formed my opinion based on this research. One thing I will not be swayed on is the the passing of the laws. In my opinion, it is only when, not if. I will stand by that opinion and will not budge from it, and I have given my reasons. Other parts I am happy to listen to the opinions of others. If they have a compelling argument, it may indeed change my own opinion, but I have to say, comments like, "that's only for guys like Paul Hogan" and "I still have a Medicare Card so I am still a resident" as well as many other ridiculous comments don't hold much weight with me, and in fact, are just plain humorous. The proposed changes have not been implemented as yet, so no one knows what they will finally look like, and what method of enforcement will be used. I have put forward some ideas, and admitted they were just possibilities for the government, not necessarily my opinion on the matter. On the point of enforcement, as mentioned previously, there's not much to enforce when the payer (Centerlink) is also the taxer (ATO) using Immigration data. All three are government departments, so the non resident tax is simply withheld from fortnightly pensions, thus, automatic compliance, and no need for any enforcement. The physical presence and time based residency model makes it that easy. Computer data bases do all the heavy lifting. I didn't ask you to prove anything. I never suggested you are right and I am wrong. Or I am right and you are wrong. I simply asked what are you basing your opinion on. I am trying to see things through your eyes. I agree. The discussion has moved a long way from "that's only for guys like Paul Hogan." Do you agree with the "Paul Hogan" opinion? I don't, and I have stated my reasons. Not everything posted on here is right, and not everything posted on here is wrong. There's nothing wrong with discussing all comments. The internet and freedom of speech is a great learning tool. I personally hope pensioners do not have to pay non resident tax, but time will tell. Once again, I was only asking you what you were basing your opinion on. Hopefully, something of more substance than the "Paul Hogan" opinion.

Thanks for the new content. Can you elaborate on how this ties in with the proposed changes to the tax residency laws? Are you suggesting that the Australian aged pension, once taxed at the non resident tax rate of 32.5% then breaches the minimum amount as set out by the minimum standards in the link?

I agree, and that's what the current Labor government did. They continued on with the Liberal government's proposed changes and moved them onto the consultation phase. Here it is again. Consultation closed in September 2023, so I suggest implementation is not so far away. https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-07/c2023-205344-cp.pdf At the consultation phase, any interested party can make a submission. Did the APA make a submission? Was it in the media? Were pensioner "up in arms?" I posted about it to show members that Labor were moving forward with it, after some members thought an Albo government will kill off the proposed changes. Well, clearly, they are very much alive and well under Labor. Once again, another credible link which goes towards the hypothesis or "opinion" that I have formed on this matter.

I mentioned in another thread that the day is coming when just about every company will require Two Factor Authentication. (2FA) This means, you will need a sim card from your home country that is registered to your account. The best sim cards for this purpose will be Pay As You Go with 365 validity for a small annual fee. It costs nothing to receive SMS when roaming, so the small annual fee will simply be to keep the sim card on the network. I expect to see more and more threads about "how to get a sim card from UK, USA, Europe, Australia etc etc in Thailand" in the future. I have one bank account that after I sign in I have to enter a code sent to that country's sim card before I can progress to my account's home screen. If I'm not in that country at the time, I have to put the sim card in the phone. Over time, more and more companies will start moving to this extra layer of security. I suggest next time members visit their home country, they pick up a cheap PAYG sim card to prepare for 2FA, or, have a friend / relative set one up for you and post it out.

Did you complain to WH, or inform Surfshark that one, or all, of their UK servers have been blacklisted by WH? You should not tell WH anything about what you are doing. Chances are, somewhere deep in the fine print of their T's & C's, there is a clause you can only use their website, thus place a bet, only from inside the UK, or possibly the EU, which might change after Brexit. The fact that it's geoblocked tells me there's a fair chance of this. If you were to have a big win, they might not pay out if you have corresponded with them about betting on their website from overseas. Do yourself a favor and buy a set of AlwaysHome. Get the set sent to you and you post the home dongle (router) to the friend or family member of your choice, or have the set sent to them and have them send the companion dongle to you in Thailand. Be careful not to mix them up. They look the same, but the home router must be in the UK to work as intended. They have serial numbers on them. You could also contact the company and see if they can split the set and post to different addresses, for a fee. The dongles (routers) do not look like the ones in the youtube clip anymore. They are about half the size of a cigarette packet and in a strong aluminium case. They are still USB powered, but with a cable and wall plug. All someone in the UK does is plugs it into power, and into their home router. That's all. No port forwarding, no settings adjustments. Zero else to do. All you do in Thailand is plug yours into power and your router, and then connect via WiFi to the AlwaysHome router with the default password and you will be on your friend's / relative's IP Address. To WH, it's as good as you living at that address in the UK. I suggest you chose someone with a decent speed and unlimited internet connection in the UK. They use next to no electric, so that will not be an issue for them. There's nothing magic or new about this. You can do it yourself with two small travel routers, or Raspberry Pi's. You can even set up a VPN from router to router on some brands. To do so takes some technical knowledge of port forwarding and and how to use the VPN config file, and you would have to buy some hardware anyway. These have all of the configuration done at the factory and you just plug and play. You will never be geoblocked ever again because you are using a VPN to a residential address in the UK, and not a data center where a VPN company rents a server that could have hundreds, possibly thousands of people, using the same IP Address, with many of them using the WH website, so WH blacklist it because it's obviously a VPN.

I accept your opinion is different to mine, which is fine. I am just trying to understand what you are basing your opinion on. Did you read a clause somewhere in the proposed changes? Are you relying on the DTA? Do you think the government will amend the proposed changes so pensions / pensioners do not pay non resident tax? Where in the proposed changes do you see an exemption for pensioners? Where in the non resident tax brackets do you see a tax free threshold? I agree with you it's not the intent of government to tax expat pensioners. I have said many times on the other thread, "pensioners may very well be collateral damage." Obviously, the proposed changes are not designed to target pensioners, but I see nothing in the proposed changes differentiating between pensioners and guys like Paul Hogan, hence, my opinion that pensioners may just be caught up in it. The way I see it, the government will not introduce a tax free threshold to non resident tax brackets to cater for expat pensioners because that would give guys like Paul Hogan a tax break. A common sense option would be to exempt pensions / pensioners, but nowhere in the proposed changes is that mentioned. Surely that is by design, so one must ask, why? You mentioned the APA. Did they make a submission during the recent consultation phase? If not, they should have, but as I said, why would they represent non members? I have been very clear what I am basing my opinion on. In summary, and this has been backed up by many links, youtube clips, and quoting relevant law, the pension is deemed an income at law. One will automatically be deemed a non resident for tax purposes after being outside of Australia for 183 days. There are no exemptions or means testing in the proposed changes. There is no tax free threshold in non resident tax brackets. Article 18 in the DTA relies on the provisions of Article 19. (as I said in the other thread, more research is needed on these articles in the DTA) These are what I am basing my opinion on. When it's in black and white, I don't think it's a "leap." Other than the "that's just for guys like Paul Hogan" and the "pensioners would be up in arms" argument, can you post what you are basing your opinion on? Is it just hope?

Yes, I am aware why the policy exists. I have posted about it previously. You state it's financially beneficial for the government to pay pensions when the person is living overseas. I asked you, if that's the case, why do they enforce the 2 year qualification for portability? Wouldn't it be financially beneficial to just pay them the pension when they reach pension age and hope they stay outside of Australia? Why force them back to Australia for 2 years, if a pensioner living in Australia is a bigger loss? Could it be there is some substance in the reasons I mentioned the government would like that pension money circulating within the Australian economy, for the taxes and flow on effect, and not growing a foreign country's economy?

In my opinion, resident pensioners will not care about non resident pensioners. Why should they? There's nothing in the proposed changes that impact them. How many expat pensioners are members of the APA? Why did you stop being a member? Why would the APA care about non member pensioners? It could all be a moot point anyway, if it's not an election issue.