KhunHeineken

Liquidating all assets in Australia and putting it into cash at bank, then officially declaring themselves a non resident for tax purposes may be financially beneficial for some. Of course, then there's the Thai tax/s to deal with, but that's running in another forum. Under the current DTA, you would get a 10% tax credit towards any tax liability owed in Thailand.

You finally got it. The penny dropped. So, as I was saying, how many Aussie expats could reestablish residency? How many can meet two of the four factor tests? One is very easy to meet, basically, have an Aussie passport. How many could meet one more out of the four? Eg. property ownership, Lease, business interests etc. How many Aussie expats can afford the flights? How many could afford to live in Australia for 45 days? I know I can. You have said you can also. What's your advice for those who can't meet two of the four factor tests, or can't afford to go back to Australia and live there for 45 days?

From one of many accounting firms alerting their clients. Now, do you see the part that says " spend more than 45 days but less than 183 days in an income year?" That's because if you spend more than 183 days outside, you are a non resident because like you said, you are either inside Australia or outside Australia and for majority of expats, the magic number of days is 183 days. As I said to another member, I am posting in general, not about specific member's personal circumstances. Most Aussie expats in Thailand have not been back to Australia in several years. They will be deemed as non residents for tax purposes under the proposed changes and proven by immigration records. https://hlb.com.au/tax-residency-changes-for-individuals/ Proposed tax residency rules Therefore, the Government in the 2020-2021 Federal Budget announced that it will replace the current individual tax residency rules with new primary and secondary tests to determine one’s tax residency. The primarily test is the 183-day test, that is, if a person who is physically present in Australia for a period of 183 days or more in any income year, this person will be considered as a resident for Australian tax purposes. The secondary test is a ‘Factor Test’ which applies to individuals who spend more than 45 days but less than 183 days in an income year. The secondary tests focus on four factors, two of which must be satisfied by that person to be deemed as resident for tax purposes. Factors include: The Right to reside permanently in Australia (e.g. citizenship or permanent residency); The ability to access accommodation in Australia (e.g. rights of ownership, leasehold interest, licenses); Whether the individual’s family (spouse or any of their children under 18) are generally located in Australia; The individual’s Australian economic connections (employment, carry on business, interests in Australia).

I have said I see YOUR point. As in YOUR personal circumstances. I have also said, how many expats are in similar circumstances to YOU? I am postng "in general" not about YOUR personal circumstances. Your typical Aussie expat hasn't been back to Australia for several years. Tell me how YOUR circumstance also apply to them? So funny that someone seems to think everyone has the same personal circumstance as yourself in regards to the proposed changes to tax residency.

Assuming an interest rate of 5%, that would be $900,000 invested to return $45,000. (not including tax)

Yes, these were my thought. One would need a considerable amount of money to earn interest over the threshold, so that would mean withdrawing the capital to maintain one's lifestyle. This would bide some time, in Mike's case, around 5 years, but probably less for many others. Ultimately, you reach a point in time where you are faced with the same situation that many will be facing early 2025.

It's been well discussed that some expats may do 184 days in Australia, and 179 days in Thailand. For many, this is either not possible, nor desirable, or both. I view it from the expat's point of view as being outside of Australia for more than 183 days, like most of are, and have been, for several years.

As a resident or non resident? Non resident, 10% tax on the interest. Resident, you benefit from the tax free threshold and resident tax brackets.

That would mean someone outside Australia for 183 days would be a non resident, right? They can't be both.

At any one point in time, yes, correct. Yes. Under the proposed changes, can you tell me how someone outside of Australia for more than 183 days will be able to argue they are still a resident for tax purposes? You answered your own question. You can't be in two places at once. You can only be inside, or outside of Australia at any point in time. Say you do 100 days inside Australia, that means you are doing about 265 days outside Australia. The 183 days is what they are calling a "bright line test." No factor tests to meet. Simply, outside Australia for 183 days, you are a non resident. Once outside of Australia for over 183 days, how can one argue that it's the days between 45 and 183 days that they were inside Australia that should be relied upon, not the over 183 days? You don't get to choose like you do under the current 90 year laws, otherwise, there's no point in the proposed changes being legislated. It's about physically being outside of Australia, and for how many days a financial year. Basically, the 183 days outside Australia overrules the 45 to 183 days and their factor tests. To my knowledge, it's total days, they do not have to be consecutive, and unlike Thailand, it's in our financial year, not calendar year.

https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/assistant-treasurer-flags-new-tax-residency-rules-20220826-p5bd1v "Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones told an Australian Chamber of Commerce event in Singapore this week the new rules for deciding Australian tax residency were in “the government’s in-tray” ahead of the October budget, and the day limit was “being looked at”. Read the article. It's obvious they are considering raising the day limit, not lowering it. The current laws are 90 years old. They can't remain in place forever. The previous Liberal government proposed the changes, and the above article shows Labor hasn't binned them. Hardly scaremongering. Just a matter of time. Thailand has the 180 day law. What's makes you think Australia would NEVER do similar?

Plenty on Lazada to chose from. https://www.lazada.co.th/catalog/?spm=a2o4m.homepage.search.d_go&q=4G router You can hotspot your phone until the router arrives.

The main two reasons for using a VPN are: 1) Anonymity. 2) Circumvent geo-blocking. If you just want anonymity, chose the VPN server in the list that is the closest to your physical location. In theory, it should be a slightly faster connection. Many VPN providers have this as an automatic feature in their software. If you need to use a website in your home country, including streaming, then you need to chose a server inside your home country. Even then, many companies blacklist VPN company's IP Addresses. If this happens, try another server in your home country. If they are all blacklisted, I suggest you contact your VPN provider and inform them. They may refresh their IP Addresses for your home country and the game starts again.

Not that it's a big problem in Thailand, but it helps to reduce inflation also.

Easy or not, why take the risk? It does happen, and members have posted their experiences of fraud attempts / successes on their card/s. Using virtual cards doesn't mitigate the risk 100%, but they make getting a new "card" easier than a physical plastic card. You get a new virtual card in seconds, so on that basis, they can be used in different ways, along with 2FA, to get as close as possible to 100% risk free. Eg. make a new virtual card, enable 2FA, move just enough money onto the card to buy that item online, buy the item, cancel the virtual card. All you ever will be able to lose is the value of the item you want to purchase and nothing more.

I haven't looked too much into bank interest earned, that's because I don't invest in Thailand, at all. Like most countries, I gather Thailand also deems interest to be an income. I know Thai banks pay minimal interest, but by the mere fact that you are "earning" it, would that not mean you also require a TIN, even if the interest earned is under the threshold?

That's definitely one scenario I am looking at. I could do 46 days in Australia, and easily meet the factor tests, however, after meeting with expat workers and hearing their concerns, Labor has said they are looking at changing the days possibly to 60, but probably to 90 days, in line with other countries. 9link previously provided) That's 3 months in Australia every year. That would not be nice. Would you do 3 months in Australia every year? How many Aussie expats could even do the 46 days?

The 183 days outside of Australia will be what they call a "bright line test." If they were to allow someone who is outside of Australia for more than 183 days to still argue they are a resident for tax purposes, then there's no point drafting the proposed changes and passing them into legislation. They would be no better than the current 90 year old laws. Therefore, outside of Australia for 183 days you will automatically be deemed a non resident for tax purposes. Stay inside Australia between 45 days and 183 days, in order to remain a tax resident, you must also then meet two out of the four factor tests. If you can, then you can remain a tax resident. If you can't, you will be deemed a non resident. Stay under 45 days in Australia and your will automatically be deemed a non resident. To you also, where's the contradiction in the above? It's a simple physical presence and time based model, based on days and geographic location.

As mentioned, you typical Aussie expat hasn't returned to Australia for some years, so it's the 183 days "bright line test" that will be applicable to most. These expats would have to return to Australia and reestablish residency, and then implement a system similar to what you have mentioned. Probably to difficult and costly for many.

No contradiction. Again: If you are outside of Australia for more than 183 days, you will be deemed a non resident for tax purposes. (called the "bright line test") If you are inside of Australia between 45 days and 183 days, you must meet two out of four "factor tests." (factor tests previously linked) If you are inside Australia 45 days or less, you are a non resident for taxation purposes. Where's the contradiction in the above? For most Aussie expats, it's the 183 day rule that would apply to them, and yes, it will be a "full stop" rule.

Under the current laws, this would work, and many would spin this yarn to the ATO if contacted, but the proposed changes will take away the ability for this yarn to be even considered by the ATO. You have been outside of Australia for 183 days, therefore, a non resident for tax purposes. No review. No appeal. End of story. It's interesting that Thailand has the 180 day law, as do many other countries, yet many on this forum have stated they don't think Australia will implement a similar model.

Strange. I just used the tool, twice, and got a definitive answer both times. The first time I answered truthfully and was classified a non resident. The second time I answered untruthfully and was classified a resident. Perhaps try a different browser. I completely agree with your assessment. Currently, it's up to one's "intention" and "appearance" that they will return to Australia. The ATO can not disprove one's "intention" in Court, and maintaining a property and "ties" in Australia further strengthens one's case against an ATO ruling because it "appears" one will return. Of course, selling up, moving overseas, and not returning to Australia for several years means the ATO has a strong case to argue that one in these circumstances is definitely a non resident, and it would be very difficult for someone to argue otherwise. Your assessment also describes, exactly, why the proposed changes were drafted. I takes away the "choice" for one to choose whether they want to be a resident or non resident of Australia for tax purposes. I am definitely a non resident, but claim I am a resident, and have done so for years. I know many friends here do the same. Currently, there's not much the ATO can do about people like us, and we are many, all across the world. Then, there are people still working, who also choose if they want to be a resident or non resident, based on which one is more financially beneficial to them. Under the current 90 year old laws, the end result is, the ATO misses out taxing people like me at non resident rates, and taxing workers at resident rates. This is because, currently, the non resident can be a resident, and the resident can be a non resident. The proposed changes will see the system change to a physical presence and time based model, with no loopholes. We always knew the party was going to end. That time is now sooner, rather than later. Once the proposed changes are legislated, 183 days later, you can expect some contact from the ATO.

The ATO have a residency tool. Go to the tool and check a few boxes to see how the ATO classifies you. https://www.ato.gov.au/calculators-and-tools/tax-return-work-out-your-tax-residency

https://www.commbank.com.au/about-us/opportunity-initiatives/policies-and-practices/fatca.html#:~:text=You will need to declare,when requested by the bank. "New laws require you to tell us about your tax residency on account opening and to let us know if this changes CommBank will need to report certain account information to the Australian Taxation Office (ATO)" The link mentions new accounts, but my banks still occasionally ask me to update my residency status. As another member said, it's up to you what you what residency status you declare to them. A false declaration would no doubt be a against the law.

Call it what you will, but it all means remitted funds and global income to Thai authorities.