KhunHeineken

Old saying about Thailand, "TiT." Anything can happen here, and farang are easy targets.

Yes, it does. In a previous post you said this: "That should be sufficient to scare expats." You then said this in the same post: "Don't get me wrong. Expats need to be familiar with DTAs of the countries from which their income originates (to assess if a Thai tax return needed) and expats need to be familiar with some relevant Thai ministerial directives (to assess if a Thai tax return is needed) and even familiar with some Thai Royal Decrees that are associated with Thai tax law. So, if they should make themselves familiar with all these things, why not at least consider the possibility that a certificate of clearance MAY be needed in the future? Of course it's MAY be required in the future. I have never said WILL be required in the future. Which can change at anytime, so why not at least consider any possible changes? I think many expats remit an amount of money that is assessable, and over the threshold, but have not filed. For how long do you think the Thai government will give them a free pass? As mentioned, I never used the words WILL be required in the future. I don't share your confidence as there's more money to be made with it now. You base your argument on "Thai history" and it being a "PIA." I just see it as another document that MAY be required at extension time in the future, similar the the bank documents. As usual, the "PIA" is all the farang's, meanwhile, the Thai Revenue Department widens it's tax base and generates more revenue. Time will tell.

You mean (c) under No. 4. So, if there are no others, that makes the law quite simple. You used the words "grey areas" as in, plural, more than one. And, surprise, surprise, there's only one.

What is incorrect? I requesting you to clarify at what point does "D" become "an ordinary resident" and can apply? That was 10 to 15 years ago. It's irrelevant now. In his late 70's, and working up to 65, he is eligible, but I am requesting YOU advise the OP on how "D" can be deemed "an ordinary resident" before he applies? I wasn't comparing. I simply added the way the Australian system works. Once again, irrelevant. It was 10 to 15 years ago. What sh*t storm will he have to face? Would it be he needs to meet the below criteria, or, does he meet the criteria as soon as his plane lands? When deciding if someone is ordinarily resident in the countries listed above, we look at: their intentions towards these countries, including their reasons for periods of absence and return the length of time they spend in these countries on a continual basis property and asset ownership. Do they own a home or any other large assets in these countries? the location of their cash assets: investments and bank accounts whether their income is earned in these countries or overseas whether they pay taxes in these countries whether they still vote in or still qualify to vote in these countries general elections their commitment to these countries, such as involvement in the community, clubs or other groups.

Both threads running have the common denominator of requiring one to be an "ordinary resident." It's my understanding the application from overseas can only be done from a SSA country, of which Thailand is not one of them. Even the OP says this: "I have looked at the pension registration form and it looks like I have to go back to submit required paperwork?" Can you say when the OP will be deemed an "ordinary resident?" Eg. is it when his plane land in NZ.

Are you going to rely on Go Fund Me one day?

As I just posted, "a significant cash deposit" would be an amount of money that shows one has maintained an economic interest in Australia. Can you name another part of the proposed changes that you see as a grey area?

In my opinion, and I'll post that again, in my opinion, that represents "a significant cash deposit." It's an amount of money most people would not walk away from. It's an amount of money that makes interest. It's an amount of money that shows you have maintained an economic interest in Australia. "A significant cash deposit" is not $10 just to keep the account open.

Think what you want. I couldn't care less. Bubba-bubba.

I have it. I paid an agent and some tax in order to get it. The reason was to cover my a**. As many suggested, I may never need it, and paid money and tax for nothing, but I am prepared for any "issues" that may arise here in the future regarding non compliance. Basically, where money is involved, I don't thrust the Thai Government, or any Thai officials. Like many here, I actually knew I had to pay tax, and chose to do so. Once again, to cover any nasty surprises the Thai government might have at a future date. I've never posted a photo or a screenshot on any forum. Reason is, they contain identifiable meta data. Call it whatever you want. I paid for it and have it. I'll probably never need it, but who know here. TiT.

Yes, but as I said, "TiT" Things can change quickly here. I have read articles about this. It is focused on Thai high net worth individuals. They want them to repatriate their profits back into the Thai economy. Do you also sell immigration smart gates? Who would have thought such technology would be used by immigration? So, the possibility should not be given any consideration at all. Is that right? Which contradicts your argument. Why? Examples: One day you go to gaol for possessing cannabis, the next day you can buy it in a shop. One day you have to fill in a TM6, the next day you do not. Similarly, one day no Thailand Digital Arrival Card, the next day it is required. Today, a tax certificate is not required, who knows about tomorrow? TiT.

I compared my stamp with a friend's, who does his own extensions, a few years ago. From memory, I didn't notice a difference.

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?