Bazle

Perhaps I am not understanding your point correctly, but I do not see any discretion. This article (often referred to as the "tie-breaker" article) usually includes the words "for the purposes of this agreement", and it would have helped if they had included them here. So, you can be regarded as a resident of one country for the purposes of the legislation in that country, but can be regarded as a resident of the other country for the purposes of the treaty. And what the treaty says in relation to the taxation of any particular income or gain over-rides what domestic legislation says (unless there is something in the treaty that says otherwise).

Does that mean the days of arrival and departure are both counted?

Have a read of the OECD Commentary re Articles 15 and 18 of its Model Convention and you will conclude otherwise. https://www.oecd.org/berlin/publikationen/43324465.pdf

Firstly, thanks to @Mike Lister for compiling that document (but I wonder if you are regretting it now ). Secondly, although it is being said that we have almost 12 months to properly understand all of this, I don't agree. There might well be tax planning measures which some people might be able to put in place if those people could be certain of the law. Thirdly, the issue of co-mingled funds must surely raise its ugly head at some point. For example, you have a bank account in your home country into which you pay your pension, rental income, dividends, capital gains, etc. and you bring money from that account to Thailand. What is the nature of the funds remitted? For some people, taking account of the second and third points, it might be advisable immediately to freeze any co-mingled account, and have future monies deposited in brand new (overseas) accounts - possibly with an account for each source of income/gain.

The UK pension is not Thai-source, so that quote is not relevant.

Which office was that, please?

Do others think that BM Liquorice is correct, please?

You said that a pension could end up being taxed twice. I pointed out that the Thais are required to give a credit for UK tax, so that wouldn't be the case.

A copy of the actual treaty is available here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80bddc40f0b623026953eb/uk-thailand-dtc180281_-_in_force.pdf Note Article 23(3): " .... United Kingdom tax payable in accordance with this Convention in respect of income from sources within the United Kingdom shall be allowed as a credit against Thai tax payable in respect of that income. The credit shall not, however, exceed that part of the Thai tax, as computed before the credit is given, which is appropriate to such item of income."

Would using an agent increase the number? TIA.

I hope it's OK to hijack this thread with a third question. If you already have a Retirement Extension, how far ahead of its expiry date can you apply for a further extension? TIA.

At Swampy, I wanted to get some B&H Gold for a friend. However, they didn't stock them - only B&H Red. They said that the Red were the same as the Gold. Could someone please tell me if that is correct, please. TIA.

Thanks, UJ. Do you know if it has to be with a Thai company, please?

Thanks.

@Sjoerd You have titled this thread "Thailand Pass / enter Thailand insurance question" but then your opening post says: "Soon I will enter Thailand with a multiple Non-O visa which probably allows me a stay of 90 days. Do I need an insurance for the full lenght or can 30 days be enough?". Are you possibly conflating the visa with the Thai Pass? As I understand it, unless you are entering Thailand as Visa Exempt, you need a visa in order to get the Thai Pass. For both you need insurance, although I'm not clear if the requirements regarding the insurance are the same for both. (Can anyone advise on that, please.) I started applying on-line for a Non-O Visa, but got stuck on the insurance question: It specifically talks about a THAI insurer, but I am assured by a friend (who went through the process about 5 months ago) that a UK policy was accepted then. If a UK policy is OK, I am then faced with the problem of uploading the necessary pages from the policy. Three pages will be necessary to prove I have the insurance required, but the software does not allow more than one file to be uploaded. I'm wondering what stage you've reached in your application, and if you have had the same problems?

Pre Covid, I was making about 5 4-week trips to Thailand each year. Initially, I was entering visa exempt, but that stopped after I was told by an IO to get a visa next time: visa exemption applied only to people making temporary visits.

Your help, please. I'm trying to complete the application form for a Non-Immigrant O Visa (based on being retired, in receipt of a state pension) from the London Embassy. It is a painful process and, just when I thought I was making headway, I was confronted with this: Is that still correct - is it really necessary for it to be a Thai insurer? I have just taken an annual travel policy with a UK insurer. I have cover far in excess of what is needed for the visa. If the UK insurer is OK, how do I complete the on-line visa application which will accept the download of only one document when I need to download at least 3 pages from the 36 page insurance document to establish that I have the requisite cover? TIA

Thanks. ????

Does this mean that UK travel insurance should be sufficient: I don't need any special insurance?

Many thanks.

TAT's updated information on the Test & Go rules is contained here: https://www.tatnews.org/2022/02/thailand-reopening-exemption-from-quarantine-test-go/?fbclid=IwAR3Aw4cfjk4gJnDncW7W0h5o30JcoK9oRQgHE6xSK0_BZnPuAzlVL2DSo1s and says: The health insurance coverage has also been reduced to no less than US$20,000. TAT recommends that travellers make sure to check the small print of any COVID-19 insurance policy before purchasing. Ultimately, the policy should cover the cost of treatment and other medical expenses associated with being infected with COVID-19, including in-patient hospitalisation, hospital isolation, hotel isolation, or related quarantine. Please could I ask your help on the meaning of "recommends" here. Does it mean that it is compulsory, or just nice, to have that coverage? And what other requirements might there be? For example, I'm thinking that health insurance with an excess of, say, £1m would be useless for most people (but very cheap! ???? ). TIA.