All Aussie Related Stuff (excluding the old age pension)

[KhunHeineken]

17 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Where does it say that in the link you provided?

Seriously.

Come up with some content of your own.

 

Seriously.  

[KhunHeineken]

7 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

I agree that you can simultaneously be an Australian citizen and a non resident for tax purposes.

Surely you have to be a resident for tax purposes of at least one country, or maybe you can be stateless when it comes to tax residency? One for the lawyers.

I would think that the country you are generating income in would be your country for taxation purposes, and should Australia be that country, and you are outside for 183 days, you will be deemed a non resident for taxation purposes, and taxed quite high.

 

I would think in the future crypto may make things difficult for tax departments all around the world, but that's off topic.  

 

There's a reason why high net worth individuals, and companies, use tax havens.  Some individuals get citizenship of the tax haven.

[oznomad]

5 hours ago, Will27 said:

Can you explain how someone who lives full time in Thailand, doesn't go back to Oz and has maybe

a bank account and the pension as income, is a resident?

 

Other than just ticking you're a resident when you're obviously not.

 

People wanting to be non-residents would be in the extreme minority on here you'd think

Sure.

To be non-resident you also have to have an abode overseas, a centre of life. The ATO isn't going to knock on your door in Thailand and ask if you live there full time. 

You are, by default, a tax resident of Aus. Unless you claim otherwise, so you shall remain.

Spending 183+ days outside in NOT something that will kick you into non-residency. You have to provide them with lots of info to be non-resident.

 

Examples:

1) Bruce flits from country to country, all year, never setting foot in Aus. He has no permanent abode. He remains tax resident of Aus.

2. Jim has a condo in Thailand. He spends all year there, fluffing about in his balcony garden, and doing whatever his wife tells him to do. Because Jim hasn't informed the ATO that his life is dead boring, they put him in the same basket as Bruce. Tax resident.

 

Wanting to be resident or non-resident boils down the individual's circumstances.

 

No, or a lower level of income in Aus, yet that bike repair shop in Thailand is making you a motza, best be non-resident.

 

No income (or capital gains) offshore from Aus, and a pension or similar in Aus, best be resident.

 

 

 

[oznomad]

59 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

I agree that you can simultaneously be an Australian citizen and a non resident for tax purposes.

Surely you have to be a resident for tax purposes of at least one country, or maybe you can be stateless when it comes to tax residency? One for the lawyers.

Nope. You don't have to be tax resident of at least one country. However, if not it can cause other forms of grief. As always, it depends on the individual situation.

[oznomad]

49 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I would think that the country you are generating income in would be your country for taxation purposes, and should Australia be that country, and you are outside for 183 days, you will be deemed a non resident for taxation purposes, and taxed quite high.

 

I would think in the future crypto may make things difficult for tax departments all around the world, but that's off topic.  

 

There's a reason why high net worth individuals, and companies, use tax havens.  Some individuals get citizenship of the tax haven.

It's ok to guess, but that's not actually how it works.

[Ralf001]

7 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Correct, and I never said it was.  Debt to the government is a different story.  

Is unpaid child support a debt to the government ?

 

[simple1]

12 hours ago, Will27 said:

Nice call.

 

Although I wasn't talking about the bankruptcy process, which is entirely different to what KH way saying.

 

He was inferring that the government wouldn't issue new passports to someone with an ATO debt and people overseas would be stuck.

 

Another "proposed change" I guess.

OK. I concur Oz government would be unable to cancel or refuse to issue a new passport if overseas for a tax debt, in effect it would be cancelling citizenship, no way government would get the law through parliament.

[Will27]

3 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

Is unpaid child support a debt to the government ?

 

The CSA is basically a collection agency.

So technically it probably is a debt to the government even though it's passed on to the payee's.

[Will27]

8 hours ago, oznomad said:

Sure.

To be non-resident you also have to have an abode overseas, a centre of life. The ATO isn't going to knock on your door in Thailand and ask if you live there full time. 

You are, by default, a tax resident of Aus. Unless you claim otherwise, so you shall remain.

Spending 183+ days outside in NOT something that will kick you into non-residency. You have to provide them with lots of info to be non-resident.

 

Examples:

1) Bruce flits from country to country, all year, never setting foot in Aus. He has no permanent abode. He remains tax resident of Aus.

2. Jim has a condo in Thailand. He spends all year there, fluffing about in his balcony garden, and doing whatever his wife tells him to do. Because Jim hasn't informed the ATO that his life is dead boring, they put him in the same basket as Bruce. Tax resident.

 

Wanting to be resident or non-resident boils down the individual's circumstances.

 

No, or a lower level of income in Aus, yet that bike repair shop in Thailand is making you a motza, best be non-resident.

 

No income (or capital gains) offshore from Aus, and a pension or similar in Aus, best be resident.

 

 

 

I don't think it's quite that simple TBH.

 

If Bruce for example has been in Thailand for 10 years pretty much full time, it would hardly be a stretch for the ATO to say Thailand is his place of abode.

 

From the ATO website with an example.

 

"Permanent place of abode"

 

The following meanings have been established through case law:

permanent does not have the meaning of everlasting or forever, but is used in the sense of being contrasted to temporary or transitory your place of abode is your residence, where you live with your family and sleep at night".

 

Example: Foreign resident for tax purposes

Bronwyn, an Australian resident, receives a job offer to work overseas for three years, with an option to extend for another three years. Bronwyn, her husband and three children decide to make the move.

They rent out their house in Australia as they intend to return one day. While overseas they rent a house with an accommodation allowance provided under Bronwyn's contract.

 

Bronwyn is unsure if she will extend her contract to stay for another three years. She will decide later depending on how the family like life.

 

Bronwyn is considered a foreign resident for tax purposes because she does not satisfy 'the resides' test. This is due to:

• the length of her physical absence from Australia
• other circumstances not being consistent with residing in Australia, even though she has retained the family home – such as
  • establishing a home overseas with her family
  • renting out her family home in Australia.
   

Bronwyn has also not satisfied the domicile test, as:

• her permanent place of abode is outside Australia due to
  • the length of time committed to being overseas
  • the establishment of a home overseas
  • her family going with her overseas
   
• the fact that she won't be selling the family home in Australia, although relevant, is not persuasive enough to overcome the finding on the basis of the other factors
• it can be argued that she has abandoned her home in Australia for the duration of her stay, by renting it out.

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

8 hours ago, oznomad said:

It's ok to guess, but that's not actually how it works.

It's more of an educated guess.  The new rules have not come in yet, and have not yet been tested at law, with some test cases.  

 

I would find it hard to believe they are bringing in this new law to only catch out some very high net worth individuals.  I'm sure it will scoop up the thousands of expats living overseas as well. 

 

A computer does all the work, then spits out the names. 

 

The ATO doesn't need to look into anything once these rules pass.  Domicile, family ties, community ties, utility bills, vehicle and so on, don't mean anything anymore.  You were outside of Australia for 183 days, here's your bill.  

[KhunHeineken]

3 hours ago, Ralf001 said:

Is unpaid child support a debt to the government ?

 

Yes, unpaid child support is the same as the HECS debt.

 

Say the father is already overseas, how will they enforce the debt.  I think withholding the issue of a new passport would be one way.  Once again, this is just my opinion only.  

 

If the father returned to Australia, well for sure they can stop him leaving.  

 

They must have something up their sleeve, otherwise why would expats care about any tax law at all?  

 

 

[Will27]

9 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Come up with some content of your own.

 

Seriously.  

One of the main issues I have with your postings, is that you say in your opinion the government will refuse the issuing of passports to people with a tax debt. Even though I don't agree, it's only an opinion.

 

You have posted this opinion several times (see below).

 

The problem I have, is that you're saying people were stopped at airports and denied leaving Australia because of HECS tax debts.

 

I can find no record of this in the link you provided, so if you could provide some proof that people were denied leaving Australia I would like to see it.

 

If you can, fair enough.

But if you can't, it really waters down your opinion.

 

"Either have I, but I have provided a link where they are stopping people with HECS debts leaving the country at the airport.  This red flag is obviously attached to their passport details." 

 

"I put forward one simple method they may implement. The method is already being used in similar situations, and I have posted a link showing one. 

The government is the creditor, and obviously also issues passports".

 

 

"Why would the government issue a debtor a new passport, when they own the government money?

What's the one thing an Australian needs overseas, a passport. Not a sim card, not a bank account, not a license, a passport.  Guess who issues passports, the same entity that is owed money.

You present at n Embassy for a passport renewal:

 

Staff:  "Sir, you must contact the ATO to resolve you tax debt matter before we can issue you a new passport." 

 

Expat:  "But, but, but. I need a new passport so I can stay in Thailand."

 

Staff:  "Have a good day, Sir."

 

 

 

[oznomad]

12 minutes ago, Will27 said:

I don't think it's quite that simple TBH.

 

If Bruce for example has been in Thailand for 10 years pretty much full time, it would hardly be a stretch for the ATO to say Thailand is his place of abode.

 

From the ATO website with an example.

 

"Permanent place of abode"

 

The following meanings have been established through case law:

permanent does not have the meaning of everlasting or forever, but is used in the sense of being contrasted to temporary or transitory your place of abode is your residence, where you live with your family and sleep at night".

 

Example: Foreign resident for tax purposes

Bronwyn, an Australian resident, receives a job offer to work overseas for three years, with an option to extend for another three years. Bronwyn, her husband and three children decide to make the move.

They rent out their house in Australia as they intend to return one day. While overseas they rent a house with an accommodation allowance provided under Bronwyn's contract.

 

Bronwyn is unsure if she will extend her contract to stay for another three years. She will decide later depending on how the family like life.

 

Bronwyn is considered a foreign resident for tax purposes because she does not satisfy 'the resides' test. This is due to:

• the length of her physical absence from Australia
• other circumstances not being consistent with residing in Australia, even though she has retained the family home – such as
  • establishing a home overseas with her family
  • renting out her family home in Australia.
   

Bronwyn has also not satisfied the domicile test, as:

• her permanent place of abode is outside Australia due to
  • the length of time committed to being overseas
  • the establishment of a home overseas
  • her family going with her overseas
   
• the fact that she won't be selling the family home in Australia, although relevant, is not persuasive enough to overcome the finding on the basis of the other factors
• it can be argued that she has abandoned her home in Australia for the duration of her stay, by renting it out.

 

 

Yes, I have read this, and all the rest of it, many times.

I am in my 23rd year of living outside Aus, and have picked and chosen my tax residency as it suited me at the time.

Of course certain factors have to be ticked off to do that. It just depends on how you are set up.

Bronwyn has a husband, 3 kids, an accommodation allowance with her job and has rented out the family home.

I dont have those.

 

Keep in mind that they want the maximum bucks out of you.

It's generally harder to become non-resident than resident.

The new (incoming) rules prove that point.

Less than 45 days in 3 consecutive years to be able, in some circumstances, to become non-resident.

 

 

[oznomad]

21 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's more of an educated guess.  The new rules have not come in yet, and have not yet been tested at law, with some test cases.  

 

I would find it hard to believe they are bringing in this new law to only catch out some very high net worth individuals.  I'm sure it will scoop up the thousands of expats living overseas as well. 

 

A computer does all the work, then spits out the names. 

 

The ATO doesn't need to look into anything once these rules pass.  Domicile, family ties, community ties, utility bills, vehicle and so on, don't mean anything anymore.  You were outside of Australia for 183 days, here's your bill.  

Umm, just no.

You might want to read the rules for some enlightenment.

[CygnusX1]

15 minutes ago, Will27 said:

From the ATO website with an example.

 

"Permanent place of abode"

Your example is the reason why, when I was absent from Australia for 9 months of each year pre virus, I made sure that I spent more time in my apartment in Australia than in my condo in Thailand. Balance of the year was spent in other countries. Easy to do if you have the resources to travel constantly and maintain properties in two countries (very cheap properties in my case!). As usual, it’s the less well-off who are hit the hardest with unconscionable tax laws.

[CygnusX1]

7 minutes ago, oznomad said:

Less than 45 days in 3 consecutive years to be able, in some circumstances, to become non-resident.

Sure hope that proves to be the case, then I can spend a lot more time in Thailand.

[Will27]

6 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

Your example is the reason why, when I was absent from Australia for 9 months of each year pre virus, I made sure that I spent more time in my apartment in Australia than in my condo in Thailand. Balance of the year was spent in other countries. Easy to do if you have the resources to travel constantly and maintain properties in two countries (very cheap properties in my case!). As usual, it’s the less well-off who are hit the hardest with unconscionable tax laws.

If they do bring in this proposed 183 day rule, surely it would be reasonable to exempt the OAP, disability and DVA pensions.

[CygnusX1]

2 minutes ago, Will27 said:

surely it would be reasonable to exempt the OAP, disability and DVA pensions.

What’s reasonable doesn’t always have much in common with what’s the law!

[KhunHeineken]

6 minutes ago, Will27 said:

One of the main issues I have with your postings, is that you say in your opinion the government will refuse the issuing of passports to people with a tax debt. Even though I don't agree, it's only an opinion.

 

You have posted this opinion several times (see below).

 

The problem I have, is that you're saying people were stopped at airports and denied leaving Australia because of HECS tax debts.

 

I can find no record of this in the link you provided, so if you could provide some proof that people were denied leaving Australia I would like to see it.

 

If you can, fair enough.

But if you can't, it really waters down your opinion.

 

"Either have I, but I have provided a link where they are stopping people with HECS debts leaving the country at the airport.  This red flag is obviously attached to their passport details." 

 

"I put forward one simple method they may implement. The method is already being used in similar situations, and I have posted a link showing one. 

The government is the creditor, and obviously also issues passports".

 

 

"Why would the government issue a debtor a new passport, when they own the government money?

What's the one thing an Australian needs overseas, a passport. Not a sim card, not a bank account, not a license, a passport.  Guess who issues passports, the same entity that is owed money.

You present at n Embassy for a passport renewal:

 

Staff:  "Sir, you must contact the ATO to resolve you tax debt matter before we can issue you a new passport." 

 

Expat:  "But, but, but. I need a new passport so I can stay in Thailand."

 

Staff:  "Have a good day, Sir."

 

 

 

Ok, glad you understand that my "passport" posts are just my opinion, however, I have shown that one's passport is linked to their government debt.  That's why you can be stopped at an airport.  

 

You are asking for a link of a case where it has happened, but is it possible that the people know this law and paid, or made arrangements to pay, they HECS debt, so they were allowed to leave?  

 

If you are looking for a news item about someone turned away at an airport, I don't have one to post, but that's not to say it hasn't happened.  

 

There are many articles saying this travel restriction is in place.

 

Here's another one.

 

https://www.debtfix.com.au/can-i-escape-debt-overseas

 

This is what it says:

 

"Being in debt doesn't usually prevent you from getting on a plane – but it can happen. In Australia, parents who have unpaid child support and other former welfare recipients with unpaid debt are technically banned from leaving the country and may be refused boarding at the airport."

 

I found this article interesting and learned something new:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jan/01/graduates-who-move-overseas-to-be-forced-to-pay-back-student-debts

 

I found this part interesting:

 

"No penalties are currently in place for failing to register, but Australia has debt recovery agreements with other countries that allow for the sharing of tax information. Australians who fail to lodge their returns from 1 January could get audited.

“Data sharing between countries is critical to ensuring the future sustainability of the higher education loan program and trade support loan schemes,” federal education minister Simon Birmingham said."

 

I had no idea Australia had debt recovery agreements with other countries.  I will now see if Australia has a debt recovery agreement with Thailand. 

 

If not though issuing new passports to expats, how do you think the government will enforce the debt?  They could wait for the expat to return to Australia, and then stop them from leaving, and serve them with a lot of paperwork, but how do you think they will enforce the debt on expats overseas?  

 

I have put forward one idea they may implement. You have disagreed with it, and that's fine, but the days of flying away from government debt are over.    

[KhunHeineken]

9 hours ago, oznomad said:

Sure.

To be non-resident you also have to have an abode overseas, a centre of life. The ATO isn't going to knock on your door in Thailand and ask if you live there full time. 

You are, by default, a tax resident of Aus. Unless you claim otherwise, so you shall remain.

Spending 183+ days outside in NOT something that will kick you into non-residency. You have to provide them with lots of info to be non-resident.

 

Examples:

1) Bruce flits from country to country, all year, never setting foot in Aus. He has no permanent abode. He remains tax resident of Aus.

2. Jim has a condo in Thailand. He spends all year there, fluffing about in his balcony garden, and doing whatever his wife tells him to do. Because Jim hasn't informed the ATO that his life is dead boring, they put him in the same basket as Bruce. Tax resident.

 

Wanting to be resident or non-resident boils down the individual's circumstances.

 

No, or a lower level of income in Aus, yet that bike repair shop in Thailand is making you a motza, best be non-resident.

 

No income (or capital gains) offshore from Aus, and a pension or similar in Aus, best be resident.

 

 

 

Haven't you basically described the old system?  

 

Isn't the new 183 day law designed to be black and white.  Inside Australia for 183 days = resident.  Outside Australia for 183 = non resident.  

 

Bruce, in your example, being outside of Australia for 183 days, is automatically going to be deemed a non resident.

 

The same with Jim in your example.  

 

I am interested to know what argument you think Bruce and Jim can put to the ATO to be declared Australian residents for taxation purposes, when the ATO knows they have been outside of Australia for 183 days, it's the primary residency test.  

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

OK. I concur Oz government would be unable to cancel or refuse to issue a new passport if overseas for a tax debt, in effect it would be cancelling citizenship, no way government would get the law through parliament.

Firstly, I never used the words "cancel" or "refuse."  I would think the word "withhold" or "pending" would be the nice way the government would put it, and would probably cover them legally.  I never mentioned anything about cancelling citizenship.

 

Once again, this was just my idea of a method they may use to enforce the debt.  They don't have many options with expats, but the passport is one, and let's face it, it would make 99.9% of expat debtor pay, or make arrangements to pay, because without a passport, you are in big trouble as an expat, and the Australian government knows it.

 

I just can't see them casting a big net with the 183 day rule, without anything up their sleeve for enforcement.  I have posted links that one can be stopped from leaving Australia, maybe they will just leave it at that, and if / when the expat returns to Australia, then it gets sorted out.  

[Will27]

8 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Ok, glad you understand that my "passport" posts are just my opinion, however, I have shown that one's passport is linked to their government debt.  That's why you can be stopped at an airport.  

 

You are asking for a link of a case where it has happened, but is it possible that the people know this law and paid, or made arrangements to pay, they HECS debt, so they were allowed to leave?  

 

If you are looking for a news item about someone turned away at an airport, I don't have one to post, but that's not to say it hasn't happened.  

 

There are many articles saying this travel restriction is in place.

 

Here's another one.

 

https://www.debtfix.com.au/can-i-escape-debt-overseas

 

This is what it says:

 

"Being in debt doesn't usually prevent you from getting on a plane – but it can happen. In Australia, parents who have unpaid child support and other former welfare recipients with unpaid debt are technically banned from leaving the country and may be refused boarding at the airport."

 

I found this article interesting and learned something new:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jan/01/graduates-who-move-overseas-to-be-forced-to-pay-back-student-debts

 

I found this part interesting:

 

"No penalties are currently in place for failing to register, but Australia has debt recovery agreements with other countries that allow for the sharing of tax information. Australians who fail to lodge their returns from 1 January could get audited.

“Data sharing between countries is critical to ensuring the future sustainability of the higher education loan program and trade support loan schemes,” federal education minister Simon Birmingham said."

 

I had no idea Australia had debt recovery agreements with other countries.  I will now see if Australia has a debt recovery agreement with Thailand. 

 

If not though issuing new passports to expats, how do you think the government will enforce the debt?  They could wait for the expat to return to Australia, and then stop them from leaving, and serve them with a lot of paperwork, but how do you think they will enforce the debt on expats overseas?  

 

I have put forward one idea they may implement. You have disagreed with it, and that's fine, but the days of flying away from government debt are over.    

Again, this is a statement with which has no basis.

It's just incorrect.

 

You're quoting from a debt collection agency which is hardly objective.

It hasn't said anything that hasn't been mentioned before.

 

As I've said, people can be stopped from leaving the country with CSA and tax debts.

It's nothing new.

 

I don't think the ATO will enforce overseas debt, unless it's a massive amount.

Even then it's hardly common.

 

It's pretty much not cost effective.

They write the debt off and it gets raised again when the person enters Australia.

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

9 hours ago, oznomad said:

Nope. You don't have to be tax resident of at least one country. However, if not it can cause other forms of grief. As always, it depends on the individual situation.

You make it sound like it's an individual's choice.  

 

There are laws that have you "deemed" one, or the other, whether you like it, or not.  

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Will27 said:

The CSA is basically a collection agency.

So technically it probably is a debt to the government even though it's passed on to the payee's.

Nothing stopping the ATO using the same system, or similar.  

[KhunHeineken]

56 minutes ago, Will27 said:

I don't think it's quite that simple TBH.

 

If Bruce for example has been in Thailand for 10 years pretty much full time, it would hardly be a stretch for the ATO to say Thailand is his place of abode.

 

From the ATO website with an example.

 

"Permanent place of abode"

 

The following meanings have been established through case law:

permanent does not have the meaning of everlasting or forever, but is used in the sense of being contrasted to temporary or transitory your place of abode is your residence, where you live with your family and sleep at night".

 

Example: Foreign resident for tax purposes

Bronwyn, an Australian resident, receives a job offer to work overseas for three years, with an option to extend for another three years. Bronwyn, her husband and three children decide to make the move.

They rent out their house in Australia as they intend to return one day. While overseas they rent a house with an accommodation allowance provided under Bronwyn's contract.

 

Bronwyn is unsure if she will extend her contract to stay for another three years. She will decide later depending on how the family like life.

 

Bronwyn is considered a foreign resident for tax purposes because she does not satisfy 'the resides' test. This is due to:

• the length of her physical absence from Australia
• other circumstances not being consistent with residing in Australia, even though she has retained the family home – such as
  • establishing a home overseas with her family
  • renting out her family home in Australia.
   

Bronwyn has also not satisfied the domicile test, as:

• her permanent place of abode is outside Australia due to
  • the length of time committed to being overseas
  • the establishment of a home overseas
  • her family going with her overseas
   
• the fact that she won't be selling the family home in Australia, although relevant, is not persuasive enough to overcome the finding on the basis of the other factors
• it can be argued that she has abandoned her home in Australia for the duration of her stay, by renting it out.

 

 

Exactly, and in the past, Bruce could put his case to the ATO and say "I still have a domicile in Australia.  I still have a bank account, sim card, vehicle, electricity bill, and I have every intention of returning to Australia."  

 

All that looks set to be done away with when the 183 day rule comes in.  After that, what possible case can Bruce put forward to the ATO?  Their primary residency test has been simplified from what you quoted in your post, to 183 days inside or outside Australia.  How does Bruce get around that?  

[Will27]

8 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Nothing stopping the ATO using the same system, or similar.  

I think the system is pretty much the same TBH.

 

It all depends on debt level and circumstances.

IMO, people getting stopped from leaving the country for a run of the mill tax debt won't happen.

[ozfarang]

10 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Like I said, the noose is tightening.  There's a reason why they are bringing this in, and it's all to do with scooping up more tax money off easy targets.  

That point is true. Also another reason for the changes are,

 

Recently, the Government announced that it would "modernise" the individual tax residency provisions in the 2021-22 Federal Budget. Whilst we are yet to see any draft legislation in relation to this, the Government did mention that the rules will be based on the recommendations made by the Board of Taxation (BOT) which we have summarised below.

PROBLEMS WITH OUR CURRENT RULES

Our current residency provisions are principle based and generally require a detailed analysis of current case law which often leads to confusion and incorrect application of our residency tests.

Currently, individuals are considered tax residents of Australia if they pass any of the following tests:

• The individual resides in Australia according to ordinary concepts; or
• The individual spends more than 183 days in Australia unless their usual place of abode is elsewhere; or
• The individual's domicile is in Australia unless they have a permanent place of abode elsewhere; or
• The individual is a member of certain government superannuation schemes.

https://www.mondaq.com/australia/income-tax/1109524/proposed-changes-to-the-tax-residency-provisions-for-individuals-explained

 

Current residency rules are complicated and this new proposal will simplify the definition of residency, when and if it is legislated.

 

Whether pensioners are affected by the proposed changes is yet to be determined.

[KhunHeineken]

41 minutes ago, oznomad said:

Yes, I have read this, and all the rest of it, many times.

I am in my 23rd year of living outside Aus, and have picked and chosen my tax residency as it suited me at the time.

Of course certain factors have to be ticked off to do that. It just depends on how you are set up.

Bronwyn has a husband, 3 kids, an accommodation allowance with her job and has rented out the family home.

I dont have those.

 

Keep in mind that they want the maximum bucks out of you.

It's generally harder to become non-resident than resident.

The new (incoming) rules prove that point.

Less than 45 days in 3 consecutive years to be able, in some circumstances, to become non-resident.

 

 

I think most on this forum are expat retirees.  I / we have a big vested interest in remaining residents of Australia for taxation purposes. 

 

If I was working in London or New York for an investment bank, earning millions of dollars a year, then I would definitely want to be a non resident of Australia for taxation purposes, but I don't think that describes most on this forum.

 

You are looking at it from the opposite way most on this forum are.

 

Many receive a pension, or income from investments, whether that be rental property, shares, superannuation, savings.  They do not want to be deemed a non resident for taxation purposes because their tax liability increases, and in the case of pensioners, their pension may be cut by a non resident tax amount, as the pension may be deemed income as well.

 

Therefore, the 183 days rule is of concern for many, including myself.  The law change mentions if you are inside Australia for 183 days you are automatically a resident, but that reads to me that if you are then outside of Australia for 183 day, you are automatically a non resident. 

 

Most on this forum live in Thailand for more than 183 days a year, so it's applicable to them, and may cause them some grief in the future.  It's possible many may not be able to continue to reside in Thailand after these laws are implemented, and they are deemed to be non residents for tax purposes.    

[KhunHeineken]

50 minutes ago, oznomad said:

Umm, just no.

You might want to read the rules for some enlightenment.

I have read the new rules, and I have posted links to them for others to read.  Have you read them?

 

I have a simple question for you.  Once the new rules come in, how do you propose an individual who is outside of Australia for 183 days, remains a resident for taxation purposes? 

 

I'll wait to be enlightened by your answer.   

[KhunHeineken]

54 minutes ago, CygnusX1 said:

Your example is the reason why, when I was absent from Australia for 9 months of each year pre virus, I made sure that I spent more time in my apartment in Australia than in my condo in Thailand. Balance of the year was spent in other countries. Easy to do if you have the resources to travel constantly and maintain properties in two countries (very cheap properties in my case!). As usual, it’s the less well-off who are hit the hardest with unconscionable tax laws.

You are / were running a similar system to me, and it worked well for years.  I think that's about to change.