KhunHeineken

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.

As I said a long time ago, the days of people retiring and being able to claim a pension are coming to an end. Most people entering the workforce in the early 90's will have contributed to their own Super until retirement age, and thus have too much to meet the criteria to claim a pension. OP, you seem to be one of these, or close to it. This is why I mentioned in the pension thread, some time ago, that basically, pensions will be a thing of the past for most Aussie retirees in the next 15 years or so. I remember crunching some numbers in that thread, and even with the average wage, over a 40 year career, you go over the allowable criteria to get a pension. That turned the focus to Super and non resident tax in that thread, which is something you need to consider. Just one of many websites with information. https://simplyretirement.com.au/tax-super-overseas "Additionally, should you draw a pension from an untaxed superannuation fund, and these are largely limited to Government, public sector funds, then you may be taxed on your pension on a non-resident basis in Australia should you retire overseas. Non-resident tax rates are higher than residents tax rates because there is no tax free alowance. That tax may, or may not, be available as a tax offset in the country of residency." The above also relates to the double taxation treaty between Australia and Thailand, which is the source of some debate in the other thread.

I posted this yesterday, well before posting the youtube clips. You totally disregarded it. It comes from the Treasury website. "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."

For those doubting the information in the first clip, here's another clip corroberating the first clip. This one is Australian. Only a short 2 minute clip.

I guess the information in the youtube clip didn't fit your narrative. Why don't you make some serious comments about it? Pick it apart. Call the guy wrong. Post a conflicting youtube clip. Etc etc. How does personally attacking me change the information and legislation?

If I was to post 10 credible links that conflict with Jim's information, would you start to consider Jim may be incorrect? If not, what about 20 links that conflict with Jim's information? Would you then have some doubts about Jim's information? If not, post how many links that disagree with Jim's information would it take for you to start to question whether Jim is correct, or incorrect. Serious question. Despite the hundreds of links that conflict with Jim's information, his link is being held out by some as the final word in the matter. Well, I am keeping an open mind and researching a little more. As I and a couple of other members have said, conflicting information is coming out of the ATO about this issue. Some members are now seeking tax refuge in the double tax agreement between Australia and Thailand, and how it will work in relation to their residency status and pension. I encourage you to also watch the video clip above and to post your thoughts about it. In relation to the 183 days, it was crystal clear. Stay in Australia for 183 days and you are a resident for tax purposes. No ifs, no buts, 100% tax resident. Stay in Australia for 45 days or more, but less than 183 days, you must meet two of the criteria in the factor test. In my opinion, they are very easy to meet, but some may have difficultly meeting a second criteria in the factor test, not to mention the cost of airfares, accommodation, cost of living etc. Stay under 45 days in Australia and it appears you are a non resident for tax purposes. Expats had made submissions to government that the 45 days was too short. Labor said they were looking at tweaking the 45 days. (link previously provided) More than 45 days is good for a typical working expat, but not very good for retirees looking to do 6 weeks in Australia to maintain their tax residency status and escape non resident tax rates, and avail themselves of the tax free threshold. The government may increase the 45 days to 90 days, which is inline with other countries. I can't see many expat retirees doing 3 months in Australia every year.

I would encourage members to watch this short youtube clip. He explains it very well. Australia and Thailand even gets a mention. I will wait for some members to watch the clip and comment on it. If he is wrong, post some information to back up your claim.