4MyEgo

Because you won't accept what Article 18 of the Double Taxation Agreement states and that you will have to concede that you were wrong. I have highlighted it in simple terms because you just don't seem to get it, it's like telling someone that there is a difference with there, their and they're, or where, were and wear, they all sound the same, but don't know how to read them and apply them to the correct sentence. All you have to do is accept is Section 1. highlighted in bold under Article 18, Heading: Pensions and annuities, 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. 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.

I said I wasn't going to reply, BUT, you still don't get it, Article 19 relates to Government Pensions, i.e. people who worked for the government, not Age Pensioners, hence the reason I told you to forget about Article 19. But hey, you believe what you want to believe, they are both law and they both apply to each respective pension, in layman's terms, once again, Article 18 for Age Pensions, taxable only in Thailand, Article 19 for Government Pensions, i.e. those that worked for the Government and received a Government Pension, but you know all this don't you, and still can't admit that your WRONG. The above said, it's ok, we ALL know you are, except for you, must be lonely at the top of your heap. You don't say, we are all waiting for you to concede, all I can say is I'm glad your not a politician, because even those ba-stards know when to concede.

One of the main reasons I won't eat out, i.e. unless it's a smoke free environment.

I would love to get to know where they are burning in my area, do you or can you provide a link of such ? PM me if you like, appreciated.

I did provide you with some information ON PAGE 229 that I believe contradicts what you posted in my opinion, have you read it, as I note you have replied to other posts since, but not mine. Legislation is in writing, and is law, words fly and can lead others to believe the misinformation at hand, i.e. if it is not supported by a credible link or actual legislation, suffice to say, it is important that we all do our best to provide correct information to other readers so we get it right the first time around, and I will be the 1st one to admit that I was wrong, if I ever am, the same courtesy should always be reciprocated from others, but is seldom forthcoming IMO, and this is were some people on the forum lose credibility. Nothing personal. International Tax Agreements Act 1953 ARTICLE 24 Exchange of information 1. The competent authorities shall exchange such information as is necessary for carrying out this Agreement or of the domestic law of each of the territories concerning taxes to which this Agreement applies insofar as the taxation under that law is not contrary to this Agreement. Any information received by the competent authority of a territory shall be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic law of that territory and shall be disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts and administrative bodies) concerned with the assessment or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals in relation to, the taxes to which this Agreement applies. Such persons or authorities shall use the information only for such purposes. They may disclose the information in public court proceedings or in judicial decisions. https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/fulldocument?filename=PAC19530082#PAC/19530082/Sch30old-repealed-1

I also find this with a certain person on another topic, suffice to say, there is only so much a Koala can bear, and when you come to that conclusion you will do as I have done. give up. As the old saying goes, you can lead them to water, but you can't force them to ..... Perhaps its not ego's, but more so dementia setting in LoL

I knew I had this somewhere and now that I have found it and read it once again, disagree with your comments and propose you read this and then perhaps provide me with your interpretation (respectfully) if you disagree. ARTICLE 24 Exchange of information 1. The competent authorities shall exchange such information as is necessary for carrying out this Agreement or of the domestic law of each of the territories concerning taxes to which this Agreement applies insofar as the taxation under that law is not contrary to this Agreement. Any information received by the competent authority of a territory shall be treated as secret in the same manner as information obtained under the domestic law of that territory and shall be disclosed only to persons or authorities (including courts and administrative bodies) concerned with the assessment or collection of, the enforcement or prosecution in respect of, or the determination of appeals in relation to, the taxes to which this Agreement applies. Such persons or authorities shall use the information only for such purposes. They may disclose the information in public court proceedings or in judicial decisions. https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/fulldocument?filename=PAC19530082#PAC/19530082/Sch30old-repealed-1

I wonder how high the sugar content is in your wine, great for diabetes. The $37.51 per hour for a 38 hour week is a little misleading in my opinion, as it doesn't take into consideration the Medicare Levy of 2% and it could be using an old taxation table ? From my calculations using the ATO 2023 calculator for a single bloke with no claims, it works out to be $29.37 per hour for a 38 hour week. That works out to be $1,116 a week, now take out at least $500 a week for rent, then electricity, groceries, car running costs etc etc and I reckon you'd be just making drinking cheap wine alright. Each to their own.

We all know why, except you, i.e. we stumbled upon new information, e.g. Article 18 of the Double Taxation Agreement between Australia and Thailand, of which you have since been made aware of in the other thread, but are still reluctant to say you were WRONG "from your reading, above.....LoL

Your incorrect on that, they have an agreement to communicate information about citizens of each others countries that reside in each others countries for the purposes of ascertaining if they have lodged tax returns regarding residency clarification. No court orders required, however what I read was, that if it was not in the interest of public policy, then no such information would be transmitted. At the end of the day, they write the legislation and agreements, and can basically do whatever they want. We on the other have to educate ourselves on the legislation and agreements and find ways around them, if we can, after all, sitting on bar stools doesn't provide us with loopholes, only other holes.

The way I see it is, if you remit money from overseas to Thailand, after 1 January 2024 that you can prove have been savings prior to 1 January 2024 when the amendment to the code came in effect, then you are fine. The above said, I can show that those savings have been there since I moved here, i.e. in the bank, so they are not taxable here as they are not considered as being income. The shares that I buy and pay dividends, are already taxed in Oz, so they have Buckley's of taxing what has already been taxed.

As he has mentioned that he is an Australian, Australia and Thailand has a Double Taxation Agreement (DTA), and if he states that he is a resident of Australia and pays taxes in Australia, i.e. lodges a tax return annually, then Thailand cannot touch him, so to speak, but if he doesn't lodge a tax return in Australia as a resident, then the Thai Revenue department can ask the Australian Taxation Office, as they have an agreement to communicate with each other, and they will have him for breakfast. He can think he's a tourist and argue his case in front of a Thai Judge, we all know what the outcome of that would be, 180 days, go straight to jail, do not collect $200 (Monopoly) LoL.

I tend to disagree with you (respectfully), you see I am a resident here in Thailand whether I like it or not, and have been so for nearly a decade. I have family back in Oz, bank accounts, a drivers license which I renew every 5 years, and I maintain a Medicare card and renew it before it expires. I also have club memberships, but all of that doesn't make me a resident of Australia. Having kids here that go to school, can make it all that harder to say I am a resident of Australia, that said, the only tax I pay in Australia as a non resident is 10% withholding tax of the bank interest that I earn. That said, there are pluses and there are minuses being a resident of Thailand, and of course you might ask, how do I get to keep my Medicare card, well, if you read the legislation, it says if you are out of the country for more than 5 years at a time, it lapses, so I make sure I return before the 5 years is up, and no, you don't have to pay a Medicare levy if you don't work, think about that for a minute, how many Ozzies are on the dole or pension etc etc and don't pay anything for Medicare, so yes, I am special. The system is there for a purpose, i.e. for me to find ways to get a round it, where I can....LoL Regardless of what you think, Article 18 of the Double Taxation Agreement (DTA) between Australia and Thailand, grants Thailand the right to tax your age pension if you are considered a resident of Thailand. The above said, if you consider yourself a tax resident of Australia and lodge a tax return every year, as you should, then it is highly unlikely that they can't touch you. However if the Thai Revenue Department asks the ATO if TroubleandGrumpy lodges his tax return annually and the ATO says nope, then you are up S Creek and will be asked to cough up.

I hope to put this to bed as my last ever reply to your posts on the Age Pension not being tax for non residents by Australia, I have highlighted it in bold from your Treasury link and have copied and pasted it below, accept it or don't, personally I have given up on waiting for you to say you were WRONG. Papua New Guinea and Thailand The agreements with these two countries reflect the current tax agreements entered into with other countries. For example, income from land will be taxable in the country where the land is situated and business profits may only be taxed in the source country if the entity has a permanent establishment in the country. Dividends, interest and royalties maybe taxed by either country but there are limits on the tax charged by the source country, while pensions will generally only be taxable in the country of residence. The measures to avoid double taxation will be based on each country allowing a credit for tax paid in the other country. The provision designed to assist schemes designed to attract investment to these countries will be included in both agreements. Anti-avoidance measures will be concentrated on the exchange of Information between tax officials in Australia and the country concerned. However, no country will be obliged to provide information that could not be obtained under the laws of the country to which the information is to be supplied or to disclose information that would be contrary to public policy. NOTE: Above where it says Dividends, interest and royalties maybe taxed by either country, but there are limits on the tax charged by the source country. I am a non resident for tax purposes, Dividends, and interest from banks in Australia are paid to Australia, Thailand gets nothing, suffice to say, this is what I was trying to tell you in an above post about credits, i.e. if the Dividend is (unfranked), e.g. tax not taken out, Thailand can take a slice, example, 15% and Australia the other 15%, or even 17.5% if they wanted to apply the non resident tax applicable and they would be within their rights. I only own shares that pay a (fully franked) Dividend, i.e. the 30% tax is already taken out when I am paid the dividend. Now if I was to buy (unfranked) shares, then Thailand could tax me on the sale of those shares and Australia the balance. Not to get off track here, the above highlighted states: while pensions will generally only be taxable in the country of residence. Accept it, or not, up to you, everyone else here knows what's going on, and I don't expect you to admit that you understand what is going on now, because you would have to admit that you were WRONG all along because you failed to understand, and losing face in Thailand, Buddha forbid that. This is my LAST reply to HK because I am sure everyone including self has had enough of his and of course my posts. To end, I believe that I have prevailed to be right, i.e. what I have said all along, there is no tax payable by non resident Age Pensioners living in Thailand to the Australian Government, only to the Thai Government if they say cough up. Thanks to Norbra for his very valuable contributions with the Ministerial text which lead us to the DTA and Article 18 which put a nail in the coffin, regardless if HK wanted to accept it.

Seriously...... Did you post any link that stated that it was from the legislation ? What I posted is LAW and it appears that you cannot in layman's term decipher it, Article 18 is so straight forward, yet you can't accept it, i.e. that it is LAW. https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/what-is-the-difference-between-policy-act-and-legislation-in-australia#:~:text=A law passed by the,Laws are often called legislation. As for credits, I m not an accountant, but I would presume for arguments sake, as a non resident, if I purchased a share in a company in Australia, and that company paid me the dividend (unfranked), i.e. didn't take out the tax, then Thailand would take it's slice, say 15% and Australia the remaining slice of say 15%, I say 15% because shares in Australia that pay a dividend (fully franked) take out 30% tax before they pay you the dividend, and give that 30% to the tax man. Whether we as non residents who own shares in Australia are supposed to pay that extra 2.5% on fully franked dividends, I don't know, as my accountant never asked. So that leads me to the age pensions as non resident, nothing for Australia, only Thailand, i.e. if it wants to tax us under the DTA, I will say it again, there is nothing mentioned in the DTA about credits, and if that doesn't satisfy your ego, then I can't help you any further. As a famous American actor of the past once said, Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

I am hopefully that as others have said, that the penny will finally drop, i.e. Article 18 relates to Age Pensions, forget about Article 19, it relates to those who worked for the government and received government pensions etc, regardless if it says Article 18 of the Thai agreement provides that, subject to Article 19, a pension paid to a resident of Thailand is only taxable in Thailand.

Yawn. Prior to replying to a post on Article 18, I emailed the accountant that I used to use when I was paying tax as a foreign resident for certain income derived in Australia, which I have since been able to change that so I don't pay foreign resident tax on it. We won't go into that because it's complicated. The above said, the email from a different accountant came back as my accountant has since retired. I have removed my details and his in the email, but it confirms what I am saying about Age Pensioners not paying non resident tax in Australia. Thank you for contacting us. As we mention on our website, by virtue of financial regulations we are extremely limited in terms of how we can respond to specific questions outside paid professional advice, and that we mention that age pension inquiries should be made directly to Centrelink or, perhaps in this case, the ATO. Unfortunately, we have neither the ability nor the resources to provide access to free advice. All I would mention in general response to inquiry is that pensions are typically taxable in the country of residency - therefore I would normally expect, and this does not constitute advice upon which you may rely, that Thailand would have taxing rights in relation to your Australian age pension. I would also refer you to Article 18 of the double tax agreement between Australia and Thailand. I hope this is of some assistance. Believe what you want, but that has Shawn it up for me even more, suffice to say, I am right, Age Pensioners as non residents don't pay tax to the Australian Government, however, Thailand under the DTA can make Age Pensioners (non residents) pay tax, but since they haven't since the inception of the DTA, regardless of their new tax code, can't see them taxing Age Pensioners of Australia, but they can. As I haven't read anything further on your replies, e.g. I have a lot of catching up to do, I hazzard a guess you still haven't said you were WRONG.

The last laugh is on me m8ty, i.e. when you catch up.

We have discovered that there is no tax for non residents, you are the only one who doesn't seem to have caught up, because you have to answer every post, I dare say you are 3 pages behind. We also know who is WRONG and the loser. On that not, I dare say I am done, enough is enough, and yes I do have a life that I must attend to as opposed to others.

You really should turn on your notifications so that you could save all that time replying to every single post, the latter being the most relevant, but please, go ahead and knock yourself out, I did try to warn you, and also tell you that you were WRONG.....LoL No doubt by the time you get to this post the water would have dried up.....LoL

But wait, there's more......

What about his later post, you are so far behind, struggling to read everything except the latest posts, move along now, time to catch up to reality.

It would appear that you haven't caught up with the posts, that or you are insane. Article 18 (legislation) https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1989/36.html Siam (not legislation), however relevant to the cause. https://www.siam-legal.com/thailand-law/relationship-between-the-new-thai-tax-law-retirement-visa-holders-and-long-term-residency/#:~:text=A Double Tax Agreement between,Article 18 of this DTA. It's black and white, clear cut. I am done, enough time wasted leading this donkey to the water, so to speak.

Is the DTA wrong, it's legislation (law), all of the above are WRONG if they have spoken outside of the DTA when it comes to simple terms relating to Article 18 when it boils down to Age Pensioners residing in Thailand as non residents. In simple terms for the layman, there is no tax payable to the Australian Government from the Age Pension if you are a tax resident of Thailand. Do you not understand this. I am not talking about anything else, strictly Age Pensioners as non residents living in Thailand, that pay ZERO tax to the ATO, e.g. no 32.5c in the $. It's game over, admit it, you have nowhere to hide...LoL I will say it again, YOU ARE WRONG !!! LOSER LoL

Now lets put it in simple terms, when I have the evidence, and share that evidence (links) to the person at question and know that, that person just wants to go around in circles, i.e. is full of it, e.g. not prepared to back down and admit that they were WRONG on the information provided to them, then there is nothing more to discuss.