KhunHeineken

It will be interesting to be updated by members who stayed their 180 days in 2024, and have their extensions due in January 2025. For those that do, I certainly wouldn't be leaving it to the last minute. I would not be surprised if different immigration offices around the country require different documents. If not at immigration, enforcement could be at the boarders. No one knows how this will play out in 2025. I expect there to be chaos, but in the end, the Thai's will turn a baht out of it, one way, or another, even if it's just 500 baht for a certificate of clearance, or some other document. Considering money is involved, I just can't see the Thai's walking away from it.

Apply again next week and you will probably get one. TIT.

I do take your point. I have offered it up as part of an annual tax minimizing strategy. I have never suggested that expats can / should do this and remit zero money to Thailand to live on. I have suggested remitting just the right amount of funds under the threshold for their individual circumstances. Perhaps using their home country's ATM card, and doing a "cash run" which, in my case, will also be the Singapore F1. I have never suggested it as a way to pay ZERO tax in Thailand, forever, only to minimize one's tax liability in relation to remitted funds. Yes, the argument about ATM use, which I put forward when all this came light, has been discussed, like many other tax minimization strategies. Time will tell how hard the Thai authorities go at this in 2025. Why not? What crime has been committed? Once again, you are confusing "tax evasion" with "tax minimization." Completely agree. I have debated with a member that should this tax policy be enforced to the letter of the law, that car / condo will cost more in the future. The particular member disagreed. Fine. I also put forward the unfortunate situation of serious medical intervention. That emergency operation and hospitalization needs to happen immediately, that's remitted funds, ASAP. The tax implications for this MAY be felt the year later. I have said many times, using your "small fry" example, maybe it's all about most expats paying 300, 500, 1000 baht for a document for their extension. Any post even suggesting a TRD document MAY be needed for the annual extension was declared scaremongering and deleted by Mods, yet, now we have a Mod posing that very question. It was obvious then, it is obvious now, I am not sure what has changed. Gifting, savings, earnings, ATM withdraws, gold, cash blah blah blah may be irrelevant for the majority. Maybe they just want to create another simple revenue earner like the Certificate of Residence that is 300 baht, but should be free. For high net worth individuals, they can pull out the law book. Time will tell.

So, if you don't know about the "rules down under" how can you say I am wrong and you are right? For the record, I am specifically talking about "tax evasion" which is a crime, not "tax avoidance" or "tax minimization" which is not a crime. A crime means you are charged, and the burden of proof is upon the government, in this case, being the accuser. That said, I do see the point you are making. A high net worth individual's law / accounting firm may argue it is tax minimization when the government may argue it's tax evasion. Should that be the case, the government has to present their case, which is defended. Quite often, one case is a test case for many others, over the years to follow. You really are blurring the lines between tax evasion and tax minimization. One is illegal, the other legal, and whilst both can end up in Court, one is a crime, the other is not. If you are American, think Al Capone.

You probably brought your house for $100,000. The same house, well, really it's just the land, is now $1.5 million in the burbs. (Sydney) Data shows people's wages haven't kept up with house prices. It's a bubble, made by interested parties, including all three tiers of government. Withhold supply to artificially drive up demand, thus prices. The banks are happy (more money in interest) the council is happy (rates) the state government is happy (stamp duty) the federal government is happy (land tax) the insurance companies are happy (higher premiums) the developers are happy (forced downsizing) the real estate agents are happy (commission) the politicians are happy (they own land set to be rezoned) employers are happy (they have property owners as slaves for employees now) investors are happy (negative gearing) and the list goes on and on. Meanwhile, here's a young Aussie couple just wanting a house in the burbs to start a family. Normal in 1991, now, they need "The Bank of Mum and Dad" to get a look in. Also, a lot of "cash in hand" back then, but not now. Difficult for young people to even save for a deposit these days. You are laughing at an Australian housing crisis that is even effecting Australia's birth rate. Australia actually needs immigration for the economy. There's plenty on the net about it. Here's an interesting historic link i stumbled across that explains my point. It's a lot worse now in 2024. https://www.9news.com.au/finance/rates-1990-versus-2007/8251875f-a878-49a5-bca6-559d2dcdb361#:~:text=Back in March 1990%2C the,up 44.99 percent of income. Maybe you can post how "lucky" these young Aussies are these days, living in "The Lucky County" while you are laughing at them at 6.5% interest rates. Clearly, you are out of touch with what is happening back in Australia to our kids, and grand kids.

I'll never be able to qualify for the aged pension. What's makes you think I would? You, on the other hand, are a freeloader.

I go to the Cambodian boarder and stay in a casino a day or two, and come back with a wad of money, under the declarable amount. You have called it out as "tax evasion" thus a crime. You state the burden of proof is on the person charged. Ok, let's go with that. My defense it I won the money. They will disprove this how?

Who said anything about suing the TRD? The TRD would be accusing me of tax evasion. The burden of proof is on them. What evidence do you think they could / would produce in Court? That said, as I mentioned to another member, NO ONE would want to be the first falang to go up against it. Not only would you not win, but no more visa for you. Remember, that retirement visa / extension is nothing more than a 1 year tourist visa. Once again. Who's talking about suing anyone? Has a crime been committed. Yes, or no? If yes, post why, and what evidence there would be. If no, case closed.

Ok, so what has language barrier got to do with whether or not an individual, from any country, has a tax liability here in 2025? Money speaks all languages, does it not? So, you are American, but you posted UK and Australians "will have no problems." Your words. What do you know of the British and Australia DTA? I am quite sure every country has their own DTA with Thailand in their own language, for their own citizens / companies. All the Thai's will understand is they can now write up a tax bill for just about every foreigner living here, and they have to pay it, or leave Thailand for 6 months of the year. That bill may or may not be the correct amount to pay, but it will be a bill. One way or another, I can't see the wealthy or the pensioners getting a free pass. You use the words "too many problems" but like most things in Thailand "problems" are measured in baht, and foreigners who are a resident of Thailand for tax purposes will have to pay.

You are the one who said, and I quote, yet again, "Forget about Article 19." Do you deny posting these words? YOU saw the words "pensions and annuities paid to a resident of one of the contracting states shall be taxable only in that state" and declared that Australian expats didn't have to pay any tax Thailand because of the DTA. I requested you to comment on the words, "Subject to the provisions of Article 19" and you declined. See the words " Government Service" in Article 19? Government Service IS NOT an aged pension from Centerlink. Do you get it now???? You can't "Forget about Article 19" because Article 19 directly relates to the function of Article 18. Here's Article 18. Article 18 Pensions and annuities 1. Subject to the provisions of Article 19, pensions and annuities paid to a resident of one of the Contracting States shall be taxable only in that State. 2. The term "annuity" means a stated sum payable periodically at stated times during life or during a specified or ascertainable period of time under an obligation to make the payments in return for adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth. Here's Article 19. Article 19 Government service 1. Remuneration (other than a pension) paid by one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of that State or a local authority of that State to any individual in respect of services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions shall be taxable only in that State. However, such remuneration shall be taxable only in the other Contracting State if the services are rendered in that other State and the recipient is a resident of that other State who: (a) is a citizen or national of that other State; or (b) did not become a resident of that other State solely for the purpose of performing the services. 2. Any pension paid to an individual in respect of services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions to one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of that State or a local authority of that State shall be taxable only in that State. Such pension shall, however, be taxable only in the other Contracting State if the recipient is a resident of, and a citizen or national of, that other State. 3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to remuneration or a pension in respect of services rendered in connection with any trade or business carried on by one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of one of the States or a local authority of one of the States. In such a case, the provisions of Article 15, 16 or 18, as the case may be shall apply. Watch between 16 minutes and 20 minutes. Civil Service pensions exempt. NO exemption for the aged pension. What's funny is, in the Australia forum you say Article 19 means no tax to be paid in Thailand, but on this forum you have said Article 19 means tax has to be paid. Simply put, your "interpretations" are inaccurate and misleading, and unreliable. In other words, useless.

There's no easier targets than foreigners in living Thailand.

In the Australia forum, in relation to Article 19 of the DTA, you said, and I quote, "Forget about Article 19." You said this because, in your "interpretation" Article 19 had no impact on Article 18, despite Article 18 relying on the "provisions" of Article 19. Now, here you are in a different forum saying Article 19 means tax must be paid. So, do we "forget about Article 19" or be concerned about Article 19?

Emails can travel 5000 miles very quickly.

Why do you think expats from US, UK, and Australia will have no problems? Money is money, and the Thai's want it from everyone.

Correct, but the banks have to tell the government, and the government informs other governments. The result ends up the same.

Matt Huisman (Sly Guy) has been shut down a few times. Maybe this time for good.

So why did you post on here?

What planet have you been living on? The government, and yes, that's Centerlink, has access to everything.

Which political party do you think is for workers? They are all in it for themselves these days.

You ignore posters that prove your data and facts to be incorrect.

I'm sure some Thai people know his address. Tick Tock. Tick Tock.

What proof would be presented at Court?

Maybe the Australian tenant "gifts" the rent money to the British landlord, into his UK bank account.

Fail.

Not really a reply, is it? The youtube video is from a tax specialist. So, is he right, or is he wrong? If right, why? If wrong, why? I have posted his credentials. Why would his professional advice not be worthy of consideration when compared to a "tax specialist?"