.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
- Popular Post
Fat is a type of crazy
-
Posts
2,759 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Fat is a type of crazy
-
-
7 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:
Moved from the Thai Tax thread.
The 90 year old tax residency laws are modernizing from "domiciled" based law to a physical presence and time based model. If you are outside of Australia for 183 days, you will be automatically deemed to be a non resident for tax purposes. It will not matter if you did 1 month in Fiji, 2 months in France etc etc. All that will matter is you have been outside of Australia for 183 days and will then be a non resident for tax purposes. No reviews. No appeals. The days are proven through immigration records.
The first tax bracket in non resident tax is $0 to $120,000 at 32.5%. No tax free threshold, for any, and all of your income.
Thailand, and many other countries, have moved to a physical presence and time based tax residency model, and in my opinion, Australia also will in the near future.
If you plan on doing the 6 months in Australia and just short of the 6 months in Thailand in order to minimize your taxes, just remember Australia uses the financial year and Thailand uses the calendar year.
Immigration records take away the current loopholes and can not be disputed.
I agree with you the new laws are designed to deem people as residents, rather than non residents, but it's a double edged sword. Inside Australia 183 days, resident. Outside Australia for 183 day, non resident. It's as simple as that.
The loopholes that many expat Australians have been using, including myself, will close in the near future.
None of us want to do 6 months back in Australia, but if one was to stay 183 days in Australia, and less then 180 days in Thailand, they will go a long way to minimizing their tax in both countries.
I don't think your theory makes sense. Why should someone going away for 6 months and 4 days to 10 countries and returns home to normal life be told you are a non resident no ifs or buts. Can you show me someone warning about possible implications of a one off longish holiday. It doesn't follow that because there are theoretical proposed tough rules for those saying they are non-residents who may be deemed residents that the opposite is to be enforced in the same way. Statements like 'loopholes WILL close in your future' are incorrect as you don't know that.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, KhunHeineken said:
The discussion on the proposed changes to tax residency laws in Australia is best left to the other thread, in the other forum.
We will have to agree to disagree. For me, it's not if, just when, those new laws will pass. Until then, I will continue to enjoy the loopholes, as you do, but I would hardly call that planning for the future.
As I said, at some future point, and in regards to the rental income, more than 183 days inside Australia for tax residency and the tax free threshold, and less than 180 days inside Thailand to be a non resident for tax purposes and to pay no tax on remitted funds.
I know what you want to do. You want to live in Thailand, don't move the rental income to Thailand, and appear to the Australian government you are still a resident of Australia for tax purposes. The very reason the Australian government are changing their tax residency laws is to stop people circumventing them with the many loopholes in the current 90 year old laws.
But what you leave out is that residency is not as simple as 180 days in many cases. I may go to Thailand and other places for 250 days but then return to my home in Australia. I don't think the rules are going to be as you say and I think the new rules if they do happen at some point in the future are more concerned with making sure individuals cannot say they are non resident when they residents. Things change stuff happens it is one small factor and if I did become a non resident it is not the end of the world or mean less options as such.
But back to Thai tax it feels better to know that there is no tax even if that tax would not be substantial.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, KhunHeineken said:
Once you pay 32.5% non resident tax in Australia on that rental income in Australia, you will get tax credits for the DTA with Thailand and that rental income will not be taxed twice.
What, exactly, are you trying to achieve?
You are living in Thailand, therefore a non resident for tax purposes in Australia and up for 32.5% tax on that rental income, as it's from $0. Moving it to Thailand after it is taxed in Australia is protected from double taxation under the DTA.
The point of this post is thai tax. I was happy not to be paying thai tax and to keep life a bit simple even though I may have to lodge some sort of nil return.
As I said in previous posts my plan is to spend time in both countries and sometimes that may mean more than 180 days in Thailand. As you know and as I have said in these posts the rules in Australia are not simply that being over 183 days in a different country makes you a non-resident of Australia. With an ongoing home in Australia and other links I could spend more than half of the time in Thailand and still be an Australian resident. The rules you state are inevitable have not happened. So I will not pay tax on the first dollar and taxes on superannuation pensions for public servants have a special tax offset. If I one day decide to live in Thailand full time which I do not foresee it would be a different situation.
-
24 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:
I was referring to the rental income that you mentioned in your previous post. How do you propose your rental income be tax free either in Australia, or in Thailand?
Your total income in Australia, if over the tax free threshold, attracts tax. Move any of that rental income to Thailand, and it's remitted funds attracting tax.
By not bringing those funds. Tax free in Thailand as not brought to Thailand. Simple. As I said this post is about Thai tax not Australian tax. Rent will be taxable in Australia. For people staying 12 months a year in Thailand that may cause problems but that is not likely to be my situation so simply be careful what funds are kept in each country.
-
1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:
The Thai law seems pretty clear. Spend more than 180 days inside Thailand in a calendar year and you are deemed to be a resident of Thailand for taxation purposes and will have to pay tax.
It appears to me your best solution is to spend more than 183 days inside Australia in an Australian financial year to remain an Australian resident for taxation purposes and get the benefit of the tax free threshold in Australia for your income, and spend less than 180 days in Thailand in a calendar year so you are deemed a non resident of Thailand for taxation purposes, so no tax to pay in Thailand.
Note: as discussed in the thread in the Home Country Forum the 183 days legislation is yet to be passed, but in my opinion, soon will be. Currently, the laws revolve around where one is "domiciled."
Thanks. But I won't have to pay tax in Thailand if I follow my original post and remit the work pension and saved funds only. The issue of Australian tax and residency is open to debate at this stage as discussed elsewhere depending on how long you spend in the country. The rules as they stand are not simply 183 days as discussed.
-
1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:
As a non resident of Australia for tax purposes, the rental income will be taxed at 32.5% from $0. Thailand will give you a tax credit on the 32.5% tax that you paid in Australia if you remit that money to Thailand.
In this post I was looking at Thai tax. I think for the time being I will be able to remain an Australian resident even if I spend a bit more than 180 days in Thailand based on other factors e.g. maintaining a base in Australia. If I go to Thailand full time over a longer period which is not likely at this point in time you are correct.
-
Good thing on this page posted by Dinga looking at many aspects of tax in Thailand for Australians.
-
Based on the Australian webinar from Dinga's post it seems:
- sending my superannuation pension paid as a former public servant to Thailand is not taxable as it is specifically excluded from the Double Tax Agreement;
- if I keep an account separate in Australia that has savings from before I am a resident and send the funds to Thailand either before or when I am a resident that too is not taxable;
- income such as rental income or superannuation paid from a normal non government employer related superannuation fund is not taxable as long as I don't transfer those funds to Thailand
Thanks Dinga for the helpful post. Writing it down in case someone thinks otherwise. I think I recall a retired public servant on this site saying their Government superannuation pension was taxed in Thailand but this suggests it is definitely not the case.
-
Covermore have a good inbound policy that I used in the past.
-
1
-
-
On 4/29/2024 at 10:23 PM, cdemundo said:
I think it is exactly the point, so many feel as follows:
"My convenience is so much more important than the inconvenience I cause others."
The airline I am flying has options for 7kg or 14 kg on the plane so it’s not done to inconvenience but to get somewhere as the airline recommends is appropriate. If there’s no room the airline would no doubt have to update their policy.
-
1
-
-
29 minutes ago, Lacessit said:
Very happy to be back here, I left Melbourne when it was 13 C, not counting windchill.
Hoping to survive a plague carrier seated next to me, who coughed continuously from Melbourne to Singapore. The Singapore - Bangkok leg had a howling infant a few seats away. The joys of air travel.
People will be jealous given the hellish heatscape that is Bangkok and Thailand. I am enjoying the cool Melbourne weather. But when I go to Thailand in coming weeks I have 14 kg carry on rather than normally half of that which means 2 decent sized bags so saves me having to pick up bags later.
-
2
-
3
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
Dan expert Goat reveals he still loves to talk all things Dan
-
2
-
3
-
3
-
For Australians, I like the Bankwest Platinum card travel insurance, as it has no requirements i.e. no prepurchase of travel or whatever, is covered by a good company being Covermore, no annual fee, no charge for overseas purchases.
-
When bringing my thai partner to Australia I used to use Covermore which normally had decent prices. A friend had a good experience with them when sick overseas too.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Dolf said:
60/40
40 from Trump
Kennedy is a greeny
If his name wasn't Kennedy he wouldn't be discussed one bit
-
1
-
1
-
-
45 minutes ago, Dolf said:
If Kennedy draws 60% from the left Trump wins. The polls are now pretty even but normally biased by 5 points towards Blue. So Trump is on target for a win.
60 per cent - not likely - a couple of per cent of Democrats tops - surely the same crazies who like Trump like Kennedy
-
2
-
-
5 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:
considering here merely said "hello".... allegedly.
It was hello and thank you - and we all know that in 99.9 per cent of cases it would get no reaction or a favourable reaction. So it either didn't happen or he met a psycho or there is a different reason but it clearly is not an indication of the way thai's normally behave.
-
1
-
-
Let us assume it happened and you are a long term customer who tips well. It might have been that something else tipped her over the edge. I could imagine if a customer was loud or obnoxious or seemed drunk slurring their words or was poorly dressed or flirted with the staff inappropriately she may have had enough and she was looking for an opportunity to get rid of them. Doubt these would apply to you though.
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, eggzthaioz said:
Don't understand why tourists would get a visa at all if they're here visiting. Such a rigmarole to get a plain old tourist visa why bother?
30 days and extend another 30 if they're travelling for an extended holiday.
In my case because going between 60 and 90 days. But for others I imagine it can seem better and easier to get it done at the start, as some of the stories of going to immigration offices with long queues and maybe some unexpected request, do not inspire you to take the punt when there.
-
Just now, Dolf said:
Spoke up? Just words which do no good. This is the problem with the west. The media and wokes are obsessed with language instead of solutions.
Thousands dead in Ukraine and Gaza. Thousands crossing the southern border.
Yet the media focuses on a few words.
More than one thing can be important at the same time. The topic of discussion was Trump and his comments.
-
2
-
-
40 minutes ago, Dolf said:
In a position of power only an idiot would accuse other world leaders of murder without evidence.
You are using the extreme comparative argument. I like World Leaders to take a stand in important matters like freedom to vote, freedom to protest and freedom of the press, in such a country as Russia. Freedom to live like we have. The reason for his death is highly likely not to be due to natural causes. It is not about standing on a box and saying - He Did It - but acknowledging such an events importance and significance beyond the sad death of one man. Many world leaders spoke up. Trump has no opinion and seems often to support what happens in Russia. If that's of no significance to you or even a good thing then it makes it easier for me to understand why you might support him.
-
1
-
-
10 minutes ago, Kiwifarang said:
They are probably waiting for MoFA to announce the new fees before they push the button to allow people to apply.
As a Kiwi do you have to pay much higher fees now or was that a mistake or something. Seemed bizarre. Australian fee $60 for two months the same of course.
-
Just now, Nick Carter icp said:
Trump was asked a question and he answered
Point is he can say an awful lot without saying he definitively 100 per cent knows how he died and who killed him. Put yourself in a position of power and ask yourself if you would be so cavalier and say the same.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, Nick Carter icp said:
So you also think that Putin probably was responsible for the death, but you cannot say for sure .
Keep saying the same thing. Who cares. If you don't get it that's fine.
-
1
-
1
-
Australian OAP Taxation Issues.
in Australia & Oceania Topics and Events
Posted
The proposed laws in the Consultation Paper note this:
It should be harder to cease being a tax resident than it is to become a tax resident. Once an individual has spent sufficient time in Australia and made enough connections to become a tax resident, it is appropriate for the individual to remain a tax resident until those connections are scaled back to such an extent that they no longer benefit from their connection to Australia enough to justify being taxed as a resident. Adhesive residency is a feature of the existing rules (e.g. the domicile test) and is consistent with international practice.
They note this:
The Ceasing Long-Term Residency Rule 51. Under the Board’s proposed model, a long-term resident would cease to be a tax resident if they spent less than 45 days in Australia in the current income year, and less than 45 days in Australia in each of the two preceding income years. 52. The rationale behind this test is that, consistent with the existing rules (in particular the resides and domicile tests), residency should be harder to lose for long-term residents than for short-term residents, given their stronger connection with Australia. However, the proposed rules will be much easier to apply than either the resides test or the domicile test, which require a holistic assessment of all relevant facts and circumstances, including the individual’s intention and their connections to both Australia and overseas jurisdictions. Instead, this test relies simply on day counts over three income years.
As such my 185 day holiday would not make me a non resident. Therefore the rules that say that being in Australia for 183 days makes you a resident does not apply in the opposite.
Of course this assumes these rules become law which you have no new information on either.