KhunHeineken

When there's tax funds involved, you can bet the laws favor the government, not the individual. The 183 days rule, as the primary test, is a big change, and I am sure they would only make a big change if they know it's going to make them big money.

They very well might exempt it, or, it's classified as "income" and is up for grabs. I think the 183 days rule coming in is inevitable. Will have to wait and see if there are any exemptions.

Don't you want to remain a resident for tax purposes?

You are / were running a similar system to me, and it worked well for years. I think that's about to change.

I have read the new rules, and I have posted links to them for others to read. Have you read them? I have a simple question for you. Once the new rules come in, how do you propose an individual who is outside of Australia for 183 days, remains a resident for taxation purposes? I'll wait to be enlightened by your answer.

I think most on this forum are expat retirees. I / we have a big vested interest in remaining residents of Australia for taxation purposes. If I was working in London or New York for an investment bank, earning millions of dollars a year, then I would definitely want to be a non resident of Australia for taxation purposes, but I don't think that describes most on this forum. You are looking at it from the opposite way most on this forum are. Many receive a pension, or income from investments, whether that be rental property, shares, superannuation, savings. They do not want to be deemed a non resident for taxation purposes because their tax liability increases, and in the case of pensioners, their pension may be cut by a non resident tax amount, as the pension may be deemed income as well. Therefore, the 183 days rule is of concern for many, including myself. The law change mentions if you are inside Australia for 183 days you are automatically a resident, but that reads to me that if you are then outside of Australia for 183 day, you are automatically a non resident. Most on this forum live in Thailand for more than 183 days a year, so it's applicable to them, and may cause them some grief in the future. It's possible many may not be able to continue to reside in Thailand after these laws are implemented, and they are deemed to be non residents for tax purposes.

Exactly, and in the past, Bruce could put his case to the ATO and say "I still have a domicile in Australia. I still have a bank account, sim card, vehicle, electricity bill, and I have every intention of returning to Australia." All that looks set to be done away with when the 183 day rule comes in. After that, what possible case can Bruce put forward to the ATO? Their primary residency test has been simplified from what you quoted in your post, to 183 days inside or outside Australia. How does Bruce get around that?

Nothing stopping the ATO using the same system, or similar.

You make it sound like it's an individual's choice. There are laws that have you "deemed" one, or the other, whether you like it, or not.

Firstly, I never used the words "cancel" or "refuse." I would think the word "withhold" or "pending" would be the nice way the government would put it, and would probably cover them legally. I never mentioned anything about cancelling citizenship. Once again, this was just my idea of a method they may use to enforce the debt. They don't have many options with expats, but the passport is one, and let's face it, it would make 99.9% of expat debtor pay, or make arrangements to pay, because without a passport, you are in big trouble as an expat, and the Australian government knows it. I just can't see them casting a big net with the 183 day rule, without anything up their sleeve for enforcement. I have posted links that one can be stopped from leaving Australia, maybe they will just leave it at that, and if / when the expat returns to Australia, then it gets sorted out.

Haven't you basically described the old system? Isn't the new 183 day law designed to be black and white. Inside Australia for 183 days = resident. Outside Australia for 183 = non resident. Bruce, in your example, being outside of Australia for 183 days, is automatically going to be deemed a non resident. The same with Jim in your example. I am interested to know what argument you think Bruce and Jim can put to the ATO to be declared Australian residents for taxation purposes, when the ATO knows they have been outside of Australia for 183 days, it's the primary residency test.

Ok, glad you understand that my "passport" posts are just my opinion, however, I have shown that one's passport is linked to their government debt. That's why you can be stopped at an airport. You are asking for a link of a case where it has happened, but is it possible that the people know this law and paid, or made arrangements to pay, they HECS debt, so they were allowed to leave? If you are looking for a news item about someone turned away at an airport, I don't have one to post, but that's not to say it hasn't happened. There are many articles saying this travel restriction is in place. Here's another one. https://www.debtfix.com.au/can-i-escape-debt-overseas This is what it says: "Being in debt doesn't usually prevent you from getting on a plane – but it can happen. In Australia, parents who have unpaid child support and other former welfare recipients with unpaid debt are technically banned from leaving the country and may be refused boarding at the airport." I found this article interesting and learned something new: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jan/01/graduates-who-move-overseas-to-be-forced-to-pay-back-student-debts I found this part interesting: "No penalties are currently in place for failing to register, but Australia has debt recovery agreements with other countries that allow for the sharing of tax information. Australians who fail to lodge their returns from 1 January could get audited. “Data sharing between countries is critical to ensuring the future sustainability of the higher education loan program and trade support loan schemes,” federal education minister Simon Birmingham said." I had no idea Australia had debt recovery agreements with other countries. I will now see if Australia has a debt recovery agreement with Thailand. If not though issuing new passports to expats, how do you think the government will enforce the debt? They could wait for the expat to return to Australia, and then stop them from leaving, and serve them with a lot of paperwork, but how do you think they will enforce the debt on expats overseas? I have put forward one idea they may implement. You have disagreed with it, and that's fine, but the days of flying away from government debt are over.

My finances have been in order for the last several years I have been living in South East Asia. My accountant submits my tax return every year. Like many others here, I have flown under the radar for some years, because technically, I am a non resident for taxation purposes. When the 183 day law comes in, I expect to get an email or phone call from my accountant to arrange a meeting to discuss a strategy, but even my accountant can't get around the simple fact I am outside of Australian for more than 183 days. How do you think your Financial Company is going to get around it?

Yes, unpaid child support is the same as the HECS debt. Say the father is already overseas, how will they enforce the debt. I think withholding the issue of a new passport would be one way. Once again, this is just my opinion only. If the father returned to Australia, well for sure they can stop him leaving. They must have something up their sleeve, otherwise why would expats care about any tax law at all?

It's more of an educated guess. The new rules have not come in yet, and have not yet been tested at law, with some test cases. I would find it hard to believe they are bringing in this new law to only catch out some very high net worth individuals. I'm sure it will scoop up the thousands of expats living overseas as well. A computer does all the work, then spits out the names. The ATO doesn't need to look into anything once these rules pass. Domicile, family ties, community ties, utility bills, vehicle and so on, don't mean anything anymore. You were outside of Australia for 183 days, here's your bill.

All I am suggesting is, the way they cancel the energy allowance because they know you are outside of Australia, may be the same way they implement the non resident taxation of pensions. Easily done, because they are already doing it for this allowance.

Well, I believe you are still entitled to it, just a reduced amount. The point being, they know you are out of the country, and to withhold the appropriate amount of pension. How convenient for them, and quite easily tweaked to fit in with their new non residency test tax laws. And that's all you do, attack people who who offer up their opinion, thoughts, predictions, examples, and links. Stop shooting the messenger, and post about the issues at hand. How doesn't it? You can tick whatever box you like. Tick them all, and take an each way bet. Immigration know you have been outside of Australia for 183 days, they pass that information on to the ATO. When the ATO contact you, be sure to tell them they have made an error because you ticked a box. ????

I would think that the country you are generating income in would be your country for taxation purposes, and should Australia be that country, and you are outside for 183 days, you will be deemed a non resident for taxation purposes, and taxed quite high. I would think in the future crypto may make things difficult for tax departments all around the world, but that's off topic. There's a reason why high net worth individuals, and companies, use tax havens. Some individuals get citizenship of the tax haven.

Come up with some content of your own. Seriously.

Yes, but should the pension be deemed "income" it could be on the chopping block for non resident taxation rates if the recipient is outside of Australia for more than 183 days.

Like I said, the noose is tightening. There's a reason why they are bringing this in, and it's all to do with scooping up more tax money off easy targets. Just on your point, I know of a few cases where guys have applied for Permanent Residency in Australia for they Thai missus. The government knew the Thai missus was outside of the country during the phone call. That's how easy it is.

Ok. The way I read it was the 183 days was the Primary Test, upon which the government will rely upon. I have no doubt there will be some test cases at court over the next few years, as wealthy individuals appeal their tax residency status. Those cases may do us all a favor. I think you are mixing up tax residency with citizenship. You will always remain a citizen of Australia, but you can be a non resident of Australia for taxation purposes. I don't think the 183 day law is about where you stay overseas, just about the fact you are overseas for more than 183 days.

Great. Why? The new laws haven't come in yet. I never said "any debt." I suggested tax debt. There's a reason why they are casting the non resident for taxation purposes net wider. They know they can scoop up a lot of people, possibly even pensioners. It's really easy, and hardly unworkable. You present at n Embassy for a passport renewal: Staff: "Sir, you must contact the ATO to resolve you tax debt matter before we can issue you a new passport." Expat: "But, but, but. I need a new passport so I can stay in Thailand." Staff: "Have a good day, Sir." Remember when embassies stopped issuing the income letters for expats? As simple as here one day, gone the next. Oh, and the Robodebt fiasco. Didn't stop them trying though, did it? You already have it. They had to pay, or make arrangements to pay back the debt.

Once again, you are disagreeing with me, which is perfectly fine, but offer no substance other than disagreeing with me. Once again, they are not going to bring in a taxation law, which is obviously designed to net them money, without implementing appropriate enforcement. Given expats are already outside of Australia, so it's not like they can stop them from leaving, they will have to have a plan on how to enforcement payment. What's the one thing an Australian needs overseas, a passport. Not a sim card, not a bank account, not a license, a passport. Guess who issues passports, the same entity that is owed money. That kinda puts them in the box seat, don't ya think? I would say the 183 day rule coming in is highly probable. What enforcement they have planned for after that, I don't know. You are correct, I only suggested it as a possibility. Do you have any suggestions on how they will make someone already overseas pay their tax liability? That future is near, not distant. I have posted links, and given factual examples. It's not <deleted>. You have posted nothing of substance to counter. No links, no examples. Just attacked the messenger, basically. Can you post why you think some, or none of all of this will happen, other than, it will be in the paper and there will be backlash? Ok. Why do you say that? Once again, you poke a joke at me, but offer no substance. Do you think the government is spending millions of dollars on changing the tax residency law just for fun?

It's because they paid, or made arrangements to pay.