KhunHeineken

So, what will you post when others apply and are issued a TIN? Is the staff member they saw incorrect for issuing them a TIN, or the staff member you saw incorrect for not issuing you a TIN? TIT, but we will all get to see if a TIN is needed early next year.

Rocket science, isn't it? Roll up and say "I am a pensioner, but I need a TIN." TRD staff say, "No need." "Ok, bye." Then, come on this forum and post how you were told by one TRD staff member, at one TRD office, at one given time, that you don't need a TIN, and declare a TIN is not needed.

If things worked so corruptly, you would be in Thailand.

Yes. It may be just another BS piece of paper that all foreigners will need at extension time, but backed up by laws that they can call in at any time for high net worth individuals, Thai and foreigners, but for most expat retirees, it MAY just be pay some money for the document, and that's your "tax" paid for the year. Like I said, we may end up laughing at it all because TIT.

But no way will they ever link that system to the ATO's for non resident tax purposes.

So, you are on a pension, or part pension. That means I'm feeding you, not the other way around.

Hardly a game changing amount, but a little out of a little can be a lot for some people's circumstances, but I believe the member's point is, doesn't that mean you now have less than 65k baht a month to live on, thus, the hint that the 65k baht may increase in the future. I have always said the 800k and 65k can't stay forever. These figures are already decades old, but this is for another thread.

Firstly, I am not upset. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this issue. I just give more weight to posts that set out how one reached their opinion, which may include links, quotes, youtube videos etc etc, rather than just throw away lines like, "The Thai's would never do that" or "Not gonna happen." You have probably read me posting that we will all have to pay "something." I have not suggested that the "something" is always going to be tax. I have also not suggested that the "something" will be a bribe, either. In your own post you have said some might have to pay for document translation, or maybe agents. Is that not a new cost for them, thus "something" more to pay next year? All this discussion about assessable income, savings, gifting blah blah blah. As I have said, for most, including pensioners, it could be as simple as paying 500 baht for a document from the TRD at extension time. Yes, we will all laugh at it, because for those who shouldn't be paying anything, they have to pay 500 baht, and for those who should be paying a lot more, they are only paying 500 baht. It's the same for the Certificate of Residence. Time will tell, but when MONEY is involved, you rarely see Thai's walk away from it.

When news of this policy broke, many, including myself, gave a thought to how they would enforce this policy. Many members posted things like, "I can't see them chasing foreigners all over the country." I, and some other members, post that they MAY require a document from the TRD at extension time, thus, no chasing, as it brings the foreigner to them, where "something" may have to be paid. I have also put forward that just like there is an overstay desk at boarders, there may be a TRD desk, where you will have to pay "something" to be able to leave. Once again, no chasing, they can just sit back and wait for the foreigners to come to them. No one knows at this stage, but why chase the sheep when you can make the sheep come to you? It's such an obvious and simple solution for Thai authorities that I would find it hard to believe they haven't considered it and / or will implement it.

Sure, but money in a Thai bank, earning interest, could meet the criteria of being an "investor." So, whilst prohibited from working, the hold of a retirement visa is still earning money in Thailand, no matter how big, or how small. Like I said, go to a different office, at a different time, with a different member of staff, and you may get a different result.

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.