TroubleandGrumpy

You are clearly a rabid nutter far-left extremist. My rational logical and impartial statements are attacked like a dog with rabies - you have no ability to differentiate facts and think logically. I will now prove that easily - and ignore all of your further comments. Stalin and Mao killed between then 50+ million people - they are NOT far right - they were far left. It is estimated that Socialism and Communism have killed over 100 million people. 100 Years. 100 Million Lives. Think Twice. | Opinion | The Harvard Crimson (thecrimson.com) Now go away (blocked).

I preferred it when you said you would be ignoring me and 'not playing'. I dont mind a debate and an exchange of thoughts and ideas - but immature insults and antagonistic comments, plus no rationale or logic behind those thoughts provided, is preferred. State your case and back it up with some thoughts, comments and links/pastes with thoughts and comments. A cut and past with no comment does not cut it. Try to remember that this 'converation' is not just between or about me or you - others are reading. I have provided cut/pastes and links, AND my thoughts and reasons for the decision I have made on the wordsa in those links provided. My decision is that the OAP is not taxable income in Thailand before or when remitted into Thailand - I will now furtehr expand on why. Interpretations of written Contracts and Rules and Regulations can be a very 'flexible' matter. Topical example is that in this case TRD has decided that their interpretation of the Rule/Regulation has changed - no new Law has been passed. Their new interpretation is that 'earnings' made overseas from investments and salaries and investments, are NOT tax free (any more) when remitted back into Thailand in a year later than in the year in which that earnings was received. It was tax free if an investment realised, an earnings was received, and income was received, if remitted into Thailand in a following year ONLY because the TRD interpreted the applicable Cluase/Section that new way. Going forward, because of all the complications this change is going to be making in their administration of the income tax collections, TRD is likely in the future (if Govt directs them) will just tax all 'earnings' of all Thai tax residents made overseas - whether remitted into Thailand or not. That will take some new Law/s, but that is a lot simpler than only taxing the remittances - and it is the way this new 'global taxation system is moving all over the world - very much like the USA tax model. You have quoted Article 18 and 19 of the Aust/Thai DTA - In particular 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. And you are referring not to the 'Annuities' part but to the 'Pension' part. A pension is "a regular income paid by a government or a financial organization to someone who no longer works" (Cambridge). I will point out that 'pension' does not mean the Old Age Pension (OAP) - it means and refers to ANY regular income paid by any GOVERMENT or FINANCIAL ORGANISATION. That clause is not just about the OAP, it covers a multitude of possible regular payments from both Government and non-Government sources. Regarding the literal interpretation you imply - that some people have read that clause to mean that if you get a Pension and are a resident of a State, then you pay taxes in that State you are a resident of. That is clearly wrong IMO and is not what the Clause states at all. Before I show why I think that, I will firstly point out that interpretation and application of the whole document to any individual requires that the whole document to be applied, not merely one Clause. You can be applicable in a clause and excluded in another - who/what decides? Well in Thailand it is you - it is a self determined system - the TRD does not opertate like the ATO who determines exactly what income taxes are applicable for every person and company - and publishes complete and detailed regular guides, assesments and provides training and certifications. TRD uses self-determination system, and only gets involved if/when there is some reason to believe that a tax resdient has not lodged a tax return and should, or has lodged a tax return that is wrong. I have already shown how under Articles 3 and 4, part or all of a tax resident's earnings can be excluded. That definitely applies to myself at this time, because I am still a tax resident of Australia (will be for at least 2 years - and hope to remain that). I will now provide my interpretation of that Clause regarding pensions and annuities - as it applies to anyone/everyone. IMO Clusae 18 means that is a person is receiving a pension from one State then that pension payment is only taxable in that State. Taking Government Pensions as a separate issue from say investment pensions/annuities, the issue of differentiation realtes to the issue of 'resident'. In order to get an Old Age Pension you must be a Resident of Australia. Unlike other countries where you can apply from overseas, you must be both in Australia and a Resident and meet defined criteria to be approved to get the OAP. Once you are reciving the OAP there has been made a determination, in with International Obligations, that allows under certain very limited circumstances for a recipient of the OAP to move and reside overseas either short term or indefinitely and keep the OAP payments (albeit reduced). That does not preclude or exclude the fact that the recipient of the OAP living overseas is technically a resident for the purposes of receiving the OAP because the only people whoi can receive the OAP in Australia are residents. They can be temporarily or indefinitely living overseas in one or many countries, but they are still a resident under the OAP rules and regulations and can return to Australia at any time. The next issue as it relates to paying income taxes on the OAP in Thailand, as per the DTA, becomes a matter of 'domicile'. If any person receiving the OAP who lives in another State (any) renounces their Citizenship or Permanent Residience, they will immediately lose their right to receive the OAP. Continued receipt of the OAP when overseas, means that the person has the legal right and could at any time return to Australia. How that relates to the domicile issue within the DTA, and in genral, is that in order to be permanetly domocile in another country means having a 'permanent abode'. That is not the case for the vast majority of Expats living in Thailand. We are required to apply for and get approval to remain in Thailand for another 3 months. Plus we are required to apply for and get approval to stay in Thailand up to another 12 months, but only on the basis that we apply for and receive approval to remain another 3 months. At any time that approval to stay in Thailand can be removed at any time for any reason. I will not go into all the other facts that would prove I am not domicile and will never be domicile in Thailand - this is long enough already. I will state that the DTA with Thailand very much echos the same (almost exactly) as Aust has with many other countries. There are many other countries in the world whereby I could live and be domicile long term - particlularly in Europe (and that includes both the right to live permanently, and to own land, etc etc etc.). Suffice to state the fact that I am legally a long term Tourist in Thailand and under that fact along, let alone all the other Clauses/Sections in the DTA, I am not domicile here and am liable to pay income taxes on the OAP - no more than any other Aussie on the OAP who visits Thailand for a holiday for 3 months or longer (after approval). If I was to make money in Thailand, then yes I am liable to pay income taxes. If I was residient more than 180 days and was earning income from overseas (such as a Youtube vlogger or any other online job) then I am liable to pay income taxes in Thailand, but only when that income is remitted into Thailand. IMO I am not liable to pay income taxes in Thailand on that part of the OAP that I remit into Thailand (nor on any part that I dont remit into Thailand). That is my 'self determination' and being well versed (trained and practice) in Contract Laws I am certain my read of the Clauses/Sections in the DTA is valid.

Most small infections in a tooth can be sorted out with antibiotics. I played soccer with a bloke and he was my dentist for a few years - he said it is usually unecessary and is 'old school' mentality toi immediately undertake that proceedure. Only absolutely needed if the tooth nerve canal has become seriously infected - which can only really be seen via high quality imaging (\- not the crap old xray devices most dentists have in Thailand - I have been in one clinic where I they wanted me to go into an xray room and wear a lead cover jacket! (I smiled said sorry and walked out). Look at their chairs - is it modern and have an imaging device and does the chair/room have computer screen/s.

And this one will be 'gone' soon enough too - bad for toursim 🙂

Clearly they are worried about the negative impact of all the crime and corruption in the media right now, and its impact on future tourism - plus also the lack of the $billions they predicted from the tourism surge they tried to create by giving away 'open entry' to less than desirable people from dubious countries. Phuket has always been an awful place full of corruption and malaise - I could not give a rat's rear end about their problems. It makes me laugh at all the BS they have done over the last 10 years to get 'quality tourists' and now it is a rampant swarm of the 'less desirables' - does not bode well for future 'quality' tourism IMO.

Very true. And in most cases am older person is far better off in the long run with an implant than getting root canal which comes back later, especially if not done well and if the damage to the tooth causing the infection is not repaired completely. And in my experience, Dentists in Thailand clinics will want to do a root canal for the smallest of reasons - not just for massive infection and tissue damage (more money). These days a course of appropriate antibiotics can heal a minor infection. Root canal therapy is something that really is less and less needed as you get older - someone in the 20s 30s should generally try to save the tooth, but someone in the 60s 70s should generally remove and replace it. I was diagnosed with Sjrogens very late in life (50s) and that causes teeth decay no matter how good you try to look after them - it is very prevalent in western causcasians (UK etc.). I have had a huge experience in dealing with dentists since I was a boy - in my 50s a new dentist (good one) after hearing my 'stroy' suggested I get tested for Sjrogens. IMO most Dentists are making money by doing treatments that results in repeat business.

Well said, and yes in Thailand they make it clear up front that they exect to be 'financially rewarded' and they dont think the sun shines out of their rear end (and front) and a man must reward them with most/all their wealth if they decide to leave. Maybe you will find a good Thai girl and 'settle down' one day - there is many advantages to being in a good relationship for a bloke - and here in Thailand you can just walk away if it turns out later to not be so good (just dont ever get her prgnant - get a vasectomy).

"Refused abortions" and "voting rights for minorities" clearly shows your extreme left wing ideology - I wont bother trying to correct your views. But for those that are genuinely not puppets of the far left Democrats in USA and those other mad left Govts all around the world (like in Scotland) I will offer this link - try to read it impartially and not from a viewpoint of cognitive bias. Was Hitler Really Right-Wing? | Mises Institute The essence of right wing is personal freedoms and accountability with minimal State control of the people's economic and social lives - Reagan was classic right wing. The essence of the left wing is moderation of personal liberties and freedoms though Government intervention and the control of most aspects of people's econoomic and social lives - Clinton was classic left wing. Progressive and Woke is the left - Authoritarian and Freedoms is the right. Left is about equality of outcomes - Right is about equality of opportunities. When you view those ideals, it is clear that a bit of both is the ideal balance, and that is why we basically have 2 parties in many western countries. Hitler's political ideologoies were the worst of the far right and the far left. To state the Nazi Party did not start as left wing and also keep those centralised controls over the people's economic and social lives is delusional - as is it delusional to also state that they did not adopt the worst of the far right. Right-wing politics - Wikipedia Take a read - it is interesting read and could enlighten some people. Everyone that does not agree with lewft wing political ideologies is not a far-right Nazi, but that it is much used criticism thrown by the left wing these days - especially when criticised with facts and logic about their latest silly ideaology which they want to enshrine in laws - which in Scotland right now they have done and called them 'hate speech laws'. Have you not read 1984 or Animal Farm? Perhaps you did not learn the lessons on offer. Big Brother is very much a left wing construct.

Yes they do and in Aust it is systemic. There is a lot of men now 'going their own way' these days - and there are many 'Passport Bros' like me that left the west and went overseas for fun and maybe to find a girl that cannot financially rape me and take all the money I have earned in my life. The growing trend now in the west is for young men to avoid long term commitment and relationships with women in the west - because of the financial downsides. Check out MGTOW - despite what Wikipedia and other feminist organisations and people say (Men Going Their Own Way is an anti-feminist, misogynistic, etc etc etc bla bla bla), it is real and it is a growing movement - I wish I had known about it all over 30 years ago.

I read what you mentioned in more detail and I think I now know who you are referring to - that bloke with a beer name? That is not me mate - not by a long way - my answers can be 'long winded' at time, but my excuse is that I did long winded Government Tenders as part of my job for over 20 years so I am used to writing long detailed replies to questions. This is another one because I have decided to supply to you and others my reasons - clauses from the DTA agreement and my explanatons are below. Article 3 - General Definitions Where under this Agreement income is relieved from tax in one of the Contracting States and, under the law in force in the other Contracting State a person, in respect of the said income, is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in that other State and not by reference to the full amount thereof, then the relief to be allowed under this Agreement in the first - mentioned State shall apply only to so much of the income as is remitted to or received in the other State. What that means is if an income from one State is exempted etc. that same exemption etc. (relief) is applied in the other State when the money is transferred to the other State. The Pension is tax free when it is paid in Australia - that exemption/relief applies in Thailand. That should be enough but I will go on - as I am want to do. Article 4 - Residence: (c) if the person has an habitual abode in both Contracting States, or in neither of them, the person shall be deemed to be a resident solely of the Contracting State with which the person's personal and economic relations are the closer. In my case I have both (still) and am far 'closer' economically and personally to Australia (kids etc.). In Thailand I am a tourist on a 12 month Tourist Visa (non-Immigration) that is only extended past 90 days upon application and approval and I have no 'right of residence', and that is only extended for another 12 months vailidity upon application and approval. If you read further down under the Article 5 you will see that the DTA is written for organisations and people who work for those organisations - it was not written for people who are living in Thailand as a retired person. Article 6 - Real Property 1. Income from real property may be taxed in the Contracting State in which the real property is situated. That should alleviate those worrying about extra Thai taxes on the rent received from property in Australia - only payable in Australia. Article 11 - Interest Under Australian Tax Law 'interest' is defined as follows "Under the general law, the term "interest" signifies "a sum payable in respect of the use of another sum of money called the principal". IT 2468 (Addendum exists) | Legal database (ato.gov.au) Superannuation Growth or Decline in value does not constitute 'interest' and is not considered by Australia as 'taxable income' and is therefore not taxable income in Thailand. We have to go out for a while (wife is reminding me right now 🙂) - I will finish this off at a later time.

Not totally true - some Thai girls and their Families do not expect or ask for much, and some ask for way too much. A lot of it depends on whether she has been supporting the family before getting married and as you said whther she has kids Each situation is different, but as a general rule if she has no kids and has been supporting the family, then she is worth more sinsod than a previously married Thai girl with kid/s. Yes I paid sinsod but since then (almost 10 years) I have not been asked for anything - best 'investment' I have ever made in my life.

I hear you about USA and some States - but I can assure you in Australia they get far more than you have experienced in US. I know because I have been through it (mine was OK and reasonable), but I have known many blokes over the years who were also screwed over (we call it financially raped in Aust). I understand that the marriage laws are very much the same in New Zealand, UK and most of Europe. Let me give you just two examples of many hours I could spend writing/talking about it. Father of a close friend (late 70s) owned a big farm and his wife passed many years earlier. He somehow let a young woman come and live with him (family did not know) and within 6 months he died. She refused to leave and lodged a claim through the Family Court - it took over a year before thge family were able to remove her. They engaged lawyers etc but had to make a $120,000 payment as 'settlement' of her claim, and when she left and they got inside, she has stolen and sold many of his assets - the police refused to get involved. Bloke I knew in Sydney was divorced and single for several years- He hooked up with a girl at a party and spent the weekend with her. She was from another State and he never saw her again until 9 months later - yep she had a kid and claimed it was his - he was forced to undergo paternity testing and it was his. He hired an investigator and it was established that she had done this to 3 other men - all in interstate cities. This was found aout because she had a falling out with a girlfriend and she told the investigator and stated it in Court. The Family Court ruled that although she had deliberately done it for fianncial support money, the kid was his and he had to pay - for 18 years. He was the reason I got a vasectomy, and they both and so many other similar stories, convinced me to rent and not buy until I had retired.

Nail on the head mate - and I think many well-meaning but ignorant of that fact people need to understand it more. The radical Muslim terrorists like Hamas would willingly press the button and kill everyone in the world, including themselves, if it means that all Christians and Jews will die. They see their own death in the jihad against Chritians and Jews as a positive thing if in doing so also kills them - they see it as gaining extra rewards in the Islamic version of heaven.

We all know that Hamas' strategy has been to allow and even failitate the deaths of civilians (and Hamas non-military supporters) in order to gain world media attention (headlines like this one) and from that many world leader's support and for that 'pressure' to stop Israel finding and killing/arrresting all of them. But IMO IDF has taken far too long to find and kill/detain Hamas forces - me thinks this will be a truning point and Israel will start developing an alternative stratgey. Perhaps they will leave and just build a bigger wall and refuse anyone from Gaza to enter Israel (like Eqypt does on their border with Gaza). Or perhaps they will try to maintain a presence in Gaza and from there try to enforce law ansd order and have a genberal election which hopefully will remove Hamas from the position of authority. IMO they should just leave and follow Egypt's lead, plus actively target and destroy Hamas cells when they pop back up or build more tunnels. Hamas aint ever going to stop being terrorists and killing military and non-military Jews, and you would have more chance of killing all the coackroaches in New York than eradicating all the Hamas military and non-military supporters - short of nuclear strikes - but the cockroaches would survive that anyway.

Perhaps they took an accidental wrong turn and were going in a direction that was not 'approved' by IDF? Not stating anything as fact - just summising a reason why someone in IDF fired missiles at those vehicles. Like many people - I will wait for IDF report and then decide - if there was no extenuating circumstances, then massive pressure will be applied to Israel to stop the 'mistakes'. Yes I know that means Hamas will have 'won' because they will still be there - but too many mistakes is just too many mistakes,and Israel will have to move towards taking a different strategy for dealing with Gaza.

I believe the IDF apology and admission - and I will believe their investigation report on what happened and why. I do not believe anything coming out of Al Jazeera regrading Israel.

I have a Scandinavian relative and he knows one of those blokes that have done that - they are in Hua Hin. I tried looking for the post one of them about it last year and why he pays income taxes in Thailand and not back home - could not find it. If you did not know the taxes most scandinavians pay omn their 'retirement savings/super' is extremely high - in fact it is higher if you live overseas, than if you live in the home country. Their system is very much more complicated than the Aust system - it is run by their Government so need I say more. Yes Australian Account Based Super Funds' earnings are not taxed. But Accumulation Phase Super Fund's earnings are taxed - at 15%. Converting from Accumulation Phase to Account Based when a person retires and then receiving regular "Pension Payments" has a few ATO and CLink 'issues' (gotchas) and now doing that also has potential Thailand taxation issues too. The former issue is why I remained in the Accumulation Phase and the latter issue is another positive for having made that decision. I can stay in Accumulation Phase until I turn 75 - for the time being I will withdraw irregular payments fromk my Super account as and when I need them. Yes that spreadsheet is OK - I have made one of my own and have calculated that I paid more taxes in Aust on my Super 'earnings' last year than I would had to pay in Thailand - but the difference is not a lot so going forward so I will stay paying taxes on Super earnings/growth in Australia. Having said that, my read of the TRD Guidlines is that growth in a mutual trust fund is not 'taxable income'. However, that is obviously for mutual trust funds in Thailand and not specifically for Super mutal trust funds in Australia - they could be said to be the same thing - but I will stay away from lodging a tax return to find that out.

Good riddance - we are all far better off on this topic sharing our opinions. I have met a few dipsticks in my time and what is very much a constant with them is that they immediately abuse anyone that dares disagree or criticise what they state - and they never defend their stated position.

No - not the same. After a short period of time (1 year) in the west the wife is entitled to claim up to half of the husband's assets. In the west, after 2-3 years it is very much a given that she will get at least half the husband's assets - whether they were acquired by him before the marriage started or not. In Thailand what is the husband's prior to the marriage is his, if the marriage breaks down. Regards custody of kids and child support, you are correct - but she does not automatically get half of the assets - only half of what they have both accumulated since they got married (perhaps you mean that when using the words 'marital assets'). In Thailand the marriage laws are very much 'designed' to keep the couple together, in the west the marriage laws are very much designed for the women to get as much as possible from the man. They were not always designed that way, but a*ole men who deserted them and kids, and men hating feminists,caused the changes that we made - but they went too far - way too far. Now in the west you have a*ole women screwing blokes over - the exact opposite of the reason why the marriage laws were changed.

Yes mate - crazy biased divorce laws are why many of us left the western BS behind. I recall one debate I had with a feminist about Greg Norman (Aussie Golfer) going through a divorce and whose wife was demanding half of everything he had earned at golf and business ($millions). I pointed out the clearly logical and rational point that Greg's wife had done nothing more than any normal wife (not a golf coach or business expert) - why should she get half of his $millions. When I got all the usualy khrapp back about supporting and enabling Greg to achieve in life etc etc., I pointed out that Alan Bond was sentenced to jail for his corruption that netted him $millions, but his wife was not punished - why not??!! She had enabled and supported him !!! If looks could kill I would not be typing this right now. Western women are so full of BS they think they are entitled to all the upsides of a man but none of his downsides - the divorce system here is far more reasonable and fair.

very hard to watch women's basketball - both because not many want to watch it, and because it is so bad.

I know of a few people in the same position as yourself - paying taxes on their Aust Govt pension payments. That is taxed now only because the contributions made into that Govt super fund were given additional taxation benefits and done at a much higher rate. Other Super funds did not have those same taxation benefits, and that is why payments from them are not considered by the ATO as taxable income. I would get the latest information regarding paying income taxes in Thailand, inluding all the deductions and allowances applicable to yourself, and calulate exactly how much tax you would pay in Thailand versus in Australia. I have heard there are a few Scandinavians in Thailand who are getting their 'retirement' payments sent direct to their banks in Thailand, because Thailand taxes them a lot less than their home country does. But it means going through the process of dealing with the home country tax office (ATO for you) to set things up in that way - once done the ATO will stop taxing your Pension payments - but I dont think it will be easy.

We clearly have different opinions about whether it is taxable in Thailand. Hopewfully our discussions on the matter will give members what they need to make their own decision/s. Looking forward to your post with link/proof it is taxable. PS - anything from a tax accountant stating it is taxable is not worth the paper it is printed on - they are after your business and will and do say anything - there are SFA consumer laws here, and the TRD does not manage taxation 'experts' like the ATO and Consumer Affairs and Financial Advisers Ombudsman does in Australia. I agree 100% with your second paragraph, but I will point out that unlike the TAT and Thai Immigration, TRD do not care one bit about Expats leaving Thailand - that is not their issue and they will not take that issue into account (unless told to back down).

You sound like someone else mate - argumentative and never wrong (enlighten me/us). Please read my latest post vefore this and then please read the TRD Guidlines for 2022 and the Australian Thai DTA - all of them. Then and only then will you see what I have seen which make it IMO not taxable. PS - also look up the Thai definition of the word Pension. You are one of the many that have stated that the pension is taxable - please provide where it states clearly that the Pension is subject to income taxes in Thailand. Please post everything you have - so I can refute/correct it all in one go. Year 2022 | The Revenue Department (English Site) (rd.go.th) australia : article 1-5 | The Revenue Department (English Site) (rd.go.th)

IMO the Australian Pension is NOT subject to income taxes in Thailand. There are several reasons for that opinion. Taxation is an extremely complicated and 'difficult' area - in Aust we are extremely lucky to have the ATO - they are IMO the best in the world (I worked in IT in Canberra for 20+ years). Often this tax rule states this, and that rule states that, and both are in conflict, and another one says another thing altogether. Over many years those rules and situations are rigorously 'fine tuned' and publicised and the tax experts and public are 'educated'. ATO has over the last 3-4 decades done a great job in doing that - the TRD are a total clusterphaarrk of disjointed and conflicting arbitrary rules and interpretations. Most TRD clarifications come from Court cases - they are not rigorously removing conflicts, confusions. ommissions and errors. The issue with your question starts with being a tax resident in Thailand and/or a tax resident in Australia. I am both at the moment, and if you pay taxes in Australia (which you have already on any earnings/super etc) you probably are one too. That is a huge issue and grwatly affects income taxation in any other country. The secondary issue of whether a Govt Pension is taxable in Thailand is confusing, but IMO TRD does not consider a Government Pension (in their Taxation Rules) as taxable - but it is very much (like everything to do with TRD) open to interpretation. A 'Pension' in the TRD guidelines is any regular payment made to a person - some Companies pay a person a 'Pension' over many years in return for their service - that is taxable. The next level is whether under the DTA the Aust Govt Pension is taxable. There are many clauses and interpretations possible - mine is that it is not taxanble in Thailand. If this matter ever goes to a Thai Court for a decision - then and only then will it be clear. But even that will be subjected to 'correction' - I just cannot see the Aust Taxpayer (and therefore Govt) being happy to pay their taxes straight to the Thai Government for every person on a Penbsion and residing in Thailand for 180+ days each year. There are more complications than those above that I have only just touched on - this could go on for hours. IMO the ASust Govt Pension is not taxable. Having said that, I know one of the 'confusing' facts that has IMO caused the misinterpretation that the Pension is taxable. In Australia, the Pension (like most CLink payments) is considered 'taxable income' - but as you know it is not taxed - it is subjected to and then exempted from tax by the ATO. When a person recieves the Pension they are 'deemed' to have a taxable income that is above the tax free threshold, then if they earn money from another source, then that income is 100% subject to payment of income taxes, because it is above the tax free threshold. I think some people have confused the Pension being taxable income with being taxable in Thailand. IMO the Aust Govt under the DTA does not want its taxpayer's money being paid to the Thailand Government, and the DTA does not clearly state that the Govt Pension is taxable in Thailand. Now what TRD might think about that is unknown (they dont make the DTAs) and IMO is best left alone like a sleeping dog. IMO all Expats should avoid lodging a tax return in Thailand unless they are clearly earning income overseas (real income, not Pension) and are bringing that income into Thailand untaxed. If, like me, you dont think you have to pay income taxes in Thailand, then keep records of all payments in Australia, all transfers to Thailand, and all deposits in Thailand, and write down the reasons why you think you are not liable for income taxes (keep a file each year). Then if I am wrong (could be - doubt it - but could be) and the TRD comes knocking asking why you have not lodged a tax return, then and only then, go see a tax expert/consultant and get formal advice. If you see one now, IMO they will say "yes yes pay us money and we do a tax return for you' now and every year going forward. If you want to play it completely safe, then go see one towards the end of this year - when things will hopefully be clearer. In Thailand it can take many years to resolve the simplest of issues (criminal cases, maryjane laws, covid mandates, etc etc) - IMO this new 'tax regime' will take 2-3 years to sort itself out - best to stay quiet until then. All Thailand has to do is release a statement (like Malysia and Philippines have done and others?) making it clear that they have no intention of taxing Retired Expats who bring their own money into Thailand under their implementation of the required OECD CRS driven tax laws, designed to reduce money laundering and tax fraud. That Thailand has not yet done that despite the clearly concerned Expats (and poptential Expats) could mean they do want our money, but more likely it is because they are dont know what to do and how to do it (and refuse to look, listen and learn from their neighbours).