All Aussie Related Stuff (excluding the old age pension)

[stud858]

12 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Sorry, you aren't making much sense to me, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

If you're living in Thailand for 50 weeks a year (for example), in 99% of cases, you aren't a resident for taxation purposes.

I'm happy with the agree disagree deal. 

If the wording was "If your staying less than 183 days then your're not a resident" it would be easy to agree with you.  

The 183 day rule is just another option for someone to prove they are a resident.  Not that they are not a resident 

[4MyEgo]

11 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

Yes, but as a tax resident, I also get back the 30% tax as my dividends are never more than the 18k tax free threshhold.

I suppose if your dividends are under the tax free threshold then its suitable in your circumstances.

[4MyEgo]

9 hours ago, Will27 said:

Sorry, you aren't making much sense to me, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

If you're living in Thailand for 50 weeks a year (for example), in 99% of cases, you aren't a resident for taxation purposes.

I have to agree with you Will27, it's as clear as daylight.

 

I remember prior to coming to Thailand to live, I researched this topic long and hard, I read countless parts of court cases, the legislation, I spoke to my accountant of 32 years who leaves no stone unturned, and also went as far as speaking to one of the ATO's staff who all confirmed that I would be a non resident for tax purposes.

 

Now for someone to come onto this forum and state that from what they have read on the ATO website says this or that in their opinion is dangerous for others to assume the same meaning without doing extensive research and getting confirmation from a qualified accountant or the ATO in writing.

 

One has to read the rest of the puzzle as you also mentioned in an earlier post, it's not cut and dry, but I have provided this link to Stud858 in a private message along with others, and he agreed to disagree, but I don't believe he has read it, reading is boring for some, personally I don't like it as it puts me to sleep, however when I am interested in a topic, I will read it and pick it apart as it suites my interest.

 

I have therefore put this link in below which has all the bits and pieces to the puzzle and tells me what you also believe, i.e. that we are non residents, I will add, to have an address in Australia and to say that I am an Australian resident for tax purposes is to easy, e.g. I can own a house, or sublet a room from a mate...lol, but then I would have to satisfy the Commissioner that the property I own or subrent, is the actual address that I will return to in a definite point in time, a bit hard when you are living in one place for over 183 days of a financial year, that said, if you are travelling around and not staying in one country, that is easily proven with the entry and exit stamps in your passport, but that is not the case for 99.9% of us who live in LOS, as a general rule, I believe after 2 years overseas, your toast, i.e. you are a non resident for tax purposes.

 

For those who want to take their head out of the sand, make a cuppa and read the link below if you haven't already, it sums it all up and goes way beyond the ATO's website.  

 

If Stud858 wishes to agree to disagree, then that is his prerogative as the ATO website is only a starter, a tool and the multiple choice questions are not concrete, it even says it in its disclaimer at the bottom I believe.

 

Once you read the ATO's information on their website, you then have the rest of the puzzle to work out, like I said its not cut and dry, just not wanting people to be misinformed which I believe can be the case, especially without seeking qualified professional advice after reading the below, the outlay is minimal compared to the back payment in taxes/capital gains tax if any, and fines, if any.

 

Each to their own and no disrespect to Stud858 just disagreeing with you totally.

 

 http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?Docid=ITR/IT2650/NAT/ATO/00001

[stud858]

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

I have to agree with you Will27, it's as clear as daylight.

 

I remember prior to coming to Thailand to live, I researched this topic long and hard, I read countless parts of court cases, the legislation, I spoke to my accountant of 32 years who leaves no stone unturned, and also went as far as speaking to one of the ATO's staff who all confirmed that I would be a non resident for tax purposes.

 

Now for someone to come onto this forum and state that from what they have read on the ATO website says this or that in their opinion is dangerous for others to assume the same meaning without doing extensive research and getting confirmation from a qualified accountant or the ATO in writing.

 

One has to read the rest of the puzzle as you also mentioned in an earlier post, it's not cut and dry, but I have provided this link to Stud858 in a private message along with others, and he agreed to disagree, but I don't believe he has read it, reading is boring for some, personally I don't like it as it puts me to sleep, however when I am interested in a topic, I will read it and pick it apart as it suites my interest.

 

I have therefore put this link in below which has all the bits and pieces to the puzzle and tells me what you also believe, i.e. that we are non residents, I will add, to have an address in Australia and to say that I am an Australian resident for tax purposes is to easy, e.g. I can own a house, or sublet a room from a mate...lol, but then I would have to satisfy the Commissioner that the property I own or subrent, is the actual address that I will return to in a definite point in time, a bit hard when you are living in one place for over 183 days of a financial year, that said, if you are travelling around and not staying in one country, that is easily proven with the entry and exit stamps in your passport, but that is not the case for 99.9% of us who live in LOS, as a general rule, I believe after 2 years overseas, your toast, i.e. you are a non resident for tax purposes.

 

For those who want to take their head out of the sand, make a cuppa and read the link below if you haven't already, it sums it all up and goes way beyond the ATO's website.  

 

If Stud858 wishes to agree to disagree, then that is his prerogative as the ATO website is only a starter, a tool and the multiple choice questions are not concrete, it even says it in its disclaimer at the bottom I believe.

 

Once you read the ATO's information on their website, you then have the rest of the puzzle to work out, like I said its not cut and dry, just not wanting people to be misinformed which I believe can be the case, especially without seeking qualified professional advice after reading the below, the outlay is minimal compared to the back payment in taxes/capital gains tax if any, and fines, if any.

 

Each to their own and no disrespect to Stud858 just disagreeing with you totally.

 

 http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?Docid=ITR/IT2650/NAT/ATO/00001

I think you'll find we agree on more than we don't.  Your main premise there, I totally agree with. Check out, the ATO website, understand it and it's wording, call them if unsure,  seek professional advice from registered lawyers,  and make a decision on your circumstance.  I should have written this first,  but on a public forum, it's tiresome to type and read each time I guess. 

 

But to say if you stay outside the country for more than 183 days you are not a resident no matter what your personal circumstance,  that is wrong, not because of my opinion. It's in the wording of the rule There is no opinion about it.  

 

If you are classing yourself as closing your abode up in Australia after two years then that is your circumstance.  There are others who keep their Australian abode after spending overall more time overseas over several years.  They have strong ties to their oz abode. All those types of reasons are on the website too.

 

I'm not debating that you are an Australian resident no matter what.  

 

But some are stating the 183 day rule stops them from being a resident. It doesn't.  It allows someone to be a resident if they satisfy the rule. 

 

if anyone disagrees with my 3rd last paragraph I'm happy to go through the exact wording sentence by sentence as stated by the ATO. 

 

If you agree with the 3rd last then we've come to an overall understanding based on my first paragraph. 

Edited August 11, 2018 by stud858

[ThaiBunny]

I disagree totally. I have been tax agent in Australia. Tax treaties trump tax law. The Australia Thailand Double Tax Treaty Article 4 covers who is a tax resident and whether of Thailand or Australia - you will be a tax resident of one or the other. Thailand has no wish to tax Australians in Thailand who have no Thai income. Therefore paras (2) & (4) someone physically resident in Thailand receiving only Australian-sourced income is a tax resident of Australia. Don’t assume a generalist ATO officer understands double tax treaties, they are a specialist area.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Peterw42]

13 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Times have obviously changed.

 

As for your tax advisor, I believe he has given you a bum steer, i.e. has ill informed you, but I am not going to be the one trying to tell you otherwise, the ATO has enough info on their website, but I will tell you this much, the key words are "your usual place of abode'

What about a scenario like this,

I am filthy rich and decide to live permanently on the QE2 cruise ship, perpetually doing the world cruise. I am permanently outside of Australia but I am still a tax resident, no one could argue otherwise because I am only ever visiting other countries temporarily.

 

I am only ever visiting Thailand temporarily, my visa, my extension, my stamp, all say so.

I still hold in my hand an Australian Passport that says, the holder is an Australian citizen, no matter were they sleep temporarily.

 

As an aside, I have mentioned that my ex wife has a taxation business, a lot of her business is interpreting taxation rulings (thats were I get my limited knowledge from).  As she explains it, there is Tax legislation then there are taxation rulings, the ATOs interpretation of the legislation, ideally to cover most of the population and their circumstances. ATO rulings are not carved in stone, are often very broad in there interpretation, often written with an intent rather than a draconian legal document. Rulings are written with one thing in mind, making sure you are paying the right amount of tax and not avoiding tax. Ex wife even has some ex ATO employees who share the same view.

 

Most accountants interpret the rulings as the rulings dont contain enough information to be definitive. this is why there are lots of "my accountants says otherwise" statements. A ruling may say "if you live elsewhere you are a non-resident" but without a 5 page explanation of the word "live" or the word "elsewhere" its personal interpretation.

 

The ATO also does what are called  private rulings, interpretation of the legislation for your own circumstances, 200,000 private rulings have been issued, the tax office loves them as it removes the interpretation of the broad rulings (what we do on these threads, lol). The ideal situation for the ATO would probably be 25 million private rulings, one for every Australian. Other than a private ruling, any clarification you get over the phone from the ATO is a personal interpretation of the officer, you can call 3 times and get 3 different opinions. A private ruling is not much different to using the online resident/non resident calculator, its a specific ruling on your circumstances.

 

If you sign up with one of the ex-pat financial planners (their adds pop up on Thaivisa, facebook etc) the first thing they do is get a private ruling from the ATO, resident or non, then there is no problems with the interpretation of the word live, abode, stay, visit, resident etc etc. 

 

Ex wife is currently in the process of getting me a private ruling as to tax resident status. (more as an exersise than actually needing it). As its her business she is confident of a private ruling being a straight forward process, I am meeting my Australian Tax obligations, not doing any tax avoidance etc.

I will post back in the thread as to the outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

[stud858]

Just wanted to add that is very important to get it right because for example, 

Getting the tax free threshold can save most less well off people  thousands. So if you are making your decision on the 183 day rule solely it  is best you speak to the ATO first off.

[Will27]

3 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

I am only ever visiting Thailand temporarily, my visa, my extension, my stamp, all say so.

I still hold in my hand an Australian Passport that says, the holder is an Australian citizen, no matter were they sleep temporarily.

 

 

Just because you don't have residency in Thailand, doesn't mean you're a resident in Australia.

I'm talking for taxation purposes.

 

Again, do you think if you stayed in Thailand for 50 weeks a year for 5 years say, the ATO

would class you as a resident?

[Will27]

3 minutes ago, stud858 said:

Just wanted to add that is very important to get it right because for example, 

Getting the tax free threshold can save most less well off people  thousands. So if you are making your decision on the 183 day rule solely it  is best you speak to the ATO first off.

I don't think anyone is saying residency is just based on the 193 rule.

I gave that as an example because you stated that you believe that if you weren't a resident of Thailand,

you're a resident of Australia (for tax purposes).

 

Is that the case?

 

 

[stud858]

13 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I disagree totally. I have been tax agent in Australia. Tax treaties trump tax law. The Australia Thailand Double Tax Treaty Article 4 covers who is a tax resident and whether of Thailand or Australia - you will be a tax resident of one or the other. Thailand has no wish to tax Australians in Thailand who have no Thai income. Therefore paras (2) & (4) someone physically resident in Thailand receiving only Australian-sourced income is a tax resident of Australia. Don’t assume a generalist ATO officer understands double tax treaties, they are a specialist area.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Not sure who you are disagreeing with. But I think your on my side about the 183 day rule and it's meaning 

[Will27]

12 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I disagree totally. I have been tax agent in Australia. Tax treaties trump tax law. The Australia Thailand Double Tax Treaty Article 4 covers who is a tax resident and whether of Thailand or Australia - you will be a tax resident of one or the other. Thailand has no wish to tax Australians in Thailand who have no Thai income. Therefore paras (2) & (4) someone physically resident in Thailand receiving only Australian-sourced income is a tax resident of Australia. Don’t assume a generalist ATO officer understands double tax treaties, they are a specialist area.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

Disagree with what?

 

We're not discussing someone living in Thailand getting taxed there.

The whole discussion is, if someone is living pretty much full time in Thailand,

what their residency for tax purposes will be in Australia.

[ThaiBunny]

What about a scenario like this,
I am filthy rich and decide to live permanently on the QE2 cruise ship, perpetually doing the world cruise. I am permanently outside of Australia but I am still a tax resident, no one could argue otherwise because I am only ever visiting other countries temporarily.
 
I am only ever visiting Thailand temporarily, my visa, my extension, my stamp, all say so.
I still hold in my hand an Australian Passport that says, the holder is an Australian citizen, no matter were they sleep temporarily.
 
As an aside, I have mentioned that my ex wife has a taxation business, a lot of her business is interpreting taxation rulings (thats were I get my limited knowledge from).  As she explains it, there is Tax legislation then there are taxation rulings, the ATOs interpretation of the legislation, ideally to cover most of the population and their circumstances. ATO rulings are not carved in stone, are often very broad in there interpretation, often written with an intent rather than a draconian legal document. Rulings are written with one thing in mind, making sure you are paying the right amount of tax and not avoiding tax. Ex wife even has some ex ATO employees who share the same view.
 
Most accountants interpret the rulings as the rulings dont contain enough information to be definitive. this is why there are lots of "my accountants says otherwise" statements. A ruling may say "if you live elsewhere you are a non-resident" but without a 5 page explanation of the word "live" or the word "elsewhere" its personal interpretation.
 
The ATO also does what are called  private rulings, interpretation of the legislation for your own circumstances, 200,000 private rulings have been issued, the tax office loves them as it removes the interpretation of the broad rulings (what we do on these threads, lol). The ideal situation for the ATO would probably be 25 million private rulings, one for every Australian. Other than a private ruling, any clarification you get over the phone from the ATO is a personal interpretation of the officer, you can call 3 times and get 3 different opinions. A private ruling is not much different to using the online resident/non resident calculator, its a specific ruling on your circumstances.
 
If you sign up with one of the ex-pat financial planners (their adds pop up on Thaivisa, facebook etc) the first thing they do is get a private ruling from the ATO, resident or non, then there is no problems with the interpretation of the word live, abode, stay, visit, resident etc etc. 
 
Ex wife is currently in the process of getting me a private ruling as to tax resident status. (more as an exersise than actually needing it). As its her business she is confident of a private ruling being a straight forward process, I am meeting my Australian Tax obligations, not doing any tax avoidance etc.
I will post back in the thread as to the outcome.

Get your ex-wife to ask specifically about the Double Tax Treaty. I’ve personally seen private tax rulings that ignore it and have to be re-issued when challenged

[Cynical Sailor]

EMBASSY APPOINTMENTS

As indicated earlier in this thread, you now must make an appointment online for passport and notarial services at the Australian Embassy in Bangkok. Walk in service are no longer available.

The link is: https://my.setmore.com/bookingpage/4d0e8f45-23ee-4b04-a10d-ab0149192866

Also, if you drive to the Embassy there is free parking available nearby. Drive past the Embassy and there’s a big construction site on the left. Across the road from this there’s a free car park.

I was there last week and was in and out in 15 minutes (+5 minutes walk to the car each way).


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Peterw42]

4 minutes ago, Will27 said:

Just because you don't have residency in Thailand, doesn't mean you're a resident in Australia.

I'm talking for taxation purposes.

 

Again, do you think if you stayed in Thailand for 50 weeks a year for 5 years say, the ATO

would class you as a resident?

It comes down to interpretation and individual circumstances, I have tried to cover this in my post above, how tax professionals (including ex ATO staff) see the situation. 

[stud858]

6 minutes ago, Will27 said:

I don't think anyone is saying residency is just based on the 193 rule.

I gave that as an example because you stated that you believe that if you weren't a resident of Thailand,

you're a resident of Australia (for tax purposes).

 

Is that the case?

 

 

Like I said,  yes.  We agree on mostly everything else.  If you agree with my take on the 183 rule,  we are together as one.  As was said by another,  each one is very different circumstance. Each can do their best to try and retain their residency status to gain the benefit while trying to follow the law. 

Time overseas as a marker may be used but it is not definitive like some may think. Ie misreading the 183 rule. 

[Will27]

14 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

It comes down to interpretation and individual circumstances, I have tried to cover this in my post above, how tax professionals (including ex ATO staff) see the situation. 

I realise that everyone's circumstances are somewhat different.

 

But IMO, the vast majority of people living full time in Thailand would be classified as non-residents.

Having an Aussie address, or property is fine, but the bottom line is, if you're living in Thailand for 11

months of the year, good luck in trying to prove residency to the ATO. 

[Will27]

23 minutes ago, stud858 said:

Like I said,  yes.  We agree on mostly everything else.  If you agree with my take on the 183 rule,  we are together as one.  As was said by another,  each one is very different circumstance. Each can do their best to try and retain their residency status to gain the benefit while trying to follow the law. 

Time overseas as a marker may be used but it is not definitive like some may think. Ie misreading the 183 rule. 

IMO, that is incorrect.

Edited August 11, 2018 by Will27

[4MyEgo]

20 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

What about a scenario like this,

I am filthy rich and decide to live permanently on the QE2 cruise ship, perpetually doing the world cruise. I am permanently outside of Australia but I am still a tax resident, no one could argue otherwise because I am only ever visiting other countries temporarily.

 

I am only ever visiting Thailand temporarily, my visa, my extension, my stamp, all say so.

I still hold in my hand an Australian Passport that says, the holder is an Australian citizen, no matter were they sleep temporarily.

 

As an aside, I have mentioned that my ex wife has a taxation business, a lot of her business is interpreting taxation rulings (thats were I get my limited knowledge from).  As she explains it, there is Tax legislation then there are taxation rulings, the ATOs interpretation of the legislation, ideally to cover most of the population and their circumstances. ATO rulings are not carved in stone, are often very broad in there interpretation, often written with an intent rather than a draconian legal document. Rulings are written with one thing in mind, making sure you are paying the right amount of tax and not avoiding tax. Ex wife even has some ex ATO employees who share the same view.

 

Most accountants interpret the rulings as the rulings dont contain enough information to be definitive. this is why there are lots of "my accountants says otherwise" statements. A ruling may say "if you live elsewhere you are a non-resident" but without a 5 page explanation of the word "live" or the word "elsewhere" its personal interpretation.

 

The ATO also does what are called  private rulings, interpretation of the legislation for your own circumstances, 200,000 private rulings have been issued, the tax office loves them as it removes the interpretation of the broad rulings (what we do on these threads, lol). The ideal situation for the ATO would probably be 25 million private rulings, one for every Australian. Other than a private ruling, any clarification you get over the phone from the ATO is a personal interpretation of the officer, you can call 3 times and get 3 different opinions. A private ruling is not much different to using the online resident/non resident calculator, its a specific ruling on your circumstances.

 

If you sign up with one of the ex-pat financial planners (their adds pop up on Thaivisa, facebook etc) the first thing they do is get a private ruling from the ATO, resident or non, then there is no problems with the interpretation of the word live, abode, stay, visit, resident etc etc. 

 

Ex wife is currently in the process of getting me a private ruling as to tax resident status. (more as an exersise than actually needing it). As its her business she is confident of a private ruling being a straight forward process, I am meeting my Australian Tax obligations, not doing any tax avoidance etc.

I will post back in the thread as to the outcome.

 

 

 

 

 

Very informative, thanks for that Peterw42, be interested to know the ruling when you get it.

 

 

 

[stud858]

2 minutes ago, Will27 said:

I realise that everyone's circumstances are somewhat different.

 

But IMO, the vast majority of people living full time in Thailand would be classified as non-residents.

Having an Aussie address, or property is fine, but the bottom line is, if you're living in Thailand for 11

months of the year, good luck in trying to prove residency to the ATO. 

There is nothing on the ATO website to clearly suggest or backup that. but I agree with you,  I could face problems as the ATO is the judge jury and executioner. My defence would be.  Ok you say i broke the law but I'm pleading to no intention, as the ATO website had no information on time violations.

[Will27]

3 minutes ago, stud858 said:

There is nothing on the ATO website to clearly suggest or backup that. but I agree with you,  I could face problems as the ATO is the judge jury and executioner. My defence would be.  Ok you say i broke the law but I'm pleading to no intention, as the ATO website had no information on time violations.

There is heaps of information about time spent away from Australia.

Like the majority here, just hope you don't get picked up in an audit.

 

The best defence would be to plead ignorance IMO and cough up

the back taxes.

 

Some people have admitted on this forum they haven't been back to Australia

for 5/10 years. Good luck in trying to plead your case in that one.

[stud858]

2 minutes ago, Will27 said:

There is heaps of information about time spent away from Australia.

Like the majority here, just hope you don't get picked up in an audit.

 

The best defence would be to plead ignorance IMO and cough up

the back taxes.

 

Some people have admitted on this forum they haven't been back to Australia

for 5/10 years. Good luck in trying to plead your case in that one.

Heaps? Throw em at me and we'll analyse their wording,  meaning and intent. Not to make it diffinitive but give some peace of mind to those who stay away for long periods of time. 

[Will27]

1 minute ago, stud858 said:

Heaps? Throw em at me and we'll analyse their wording,  meaning and intent. Not to make it diffinitive but give some peace of mind to those who stay away for long periods of time. 

You can do that yourself.

 

Although 4MyEgo in post 153 posted an excellent link which pretty much

says it all.

[Peterw42]

3 minutes ago, Will27 said:

I realise that everyone's circumstances are somewhat different.

 

But IMO, the vast majority of people living full time in Thailand would be classified as non-residents.

Having an Aussie address, or property is fine, but the bottom line is, if you're living in Thailand for 11

months of the year, good luck in trying to prove residency to the ATO. 

Here is the broad ruling, there is no definitive definition, its as clear as mud, the one things that it does say is it comes down to individual circumstances and interpretation. There is no one definitive test or circumstance.

 

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?DocID=ITR/IT2650/NAT/ATO/00001&PiT=99991231235958

 

 

[stud858]

Just now, Will27 said:

You can do that yourself.

 

Although 4MyEgo in post 153 posted an excellent link which pretty much

says it all.

 

1 minute ago, Will27 said:

You can do that yourself.

 

Although 4MyEgo in post 153 posted an excellent link which pretty much

says it all.

I've looked.  I cannot disprove something that isn't there.  If you come across anything about the time limitations.  Let me know and likewise if I do find something I'll be sure to inform everyone.  I'm not pro either side.  I just follow the rules. 

[Mister T]

I have been living and working here for 12 years and went back to Aus every year to visit the oldies and do my tax return. I was on a fixed income that was just above the tax threshold in Aus and with deductions I paid about $100 per year. About 10 years ago my accountant said I had to declare my Thai income in my tax return. With my family deductions here, I only paid about 3k baht in tax so it made no difference to my tax return. About 5 years ago when leaving Aus, an immi officer asked me why I only spent short periods back in Aus, told her why and she said she would mark me as a non resident. Up until then the government obviously did not realise I was non resident.

[Peterw42]

8 minutes ago, Will27 said:

There is heaps of information about time spent away from Australia.

Like the majority here, just hope you don't get picked up in an audit.

 

The best defence would be to plead ignorance IMO and cough up

the back taxes.

 

Some people have admitted on this forum they haven't been back to Australia

for 5/10 years. Good luck in trying to plead your case in that one.

What back taxes ??? Most of us still do returns and pay tax in Australia. There is no elaborate tax avoidance going on. In my circumstances the ATO gets more tax off me as a tax resident then they ever would as a non resident. 

 

 

 

[totally thaied up]

On 8/3/2018 at 2:37 PM, Mister T said:

Had my 3 in ones confiscated last trip. They told me there was no way of ensuring the whitener was not a dairy product.

I had all mine taken as well for the same reason. Was told not to do it again. This was at Gold Coast Airport. I had declared as food stuff.

[stud858]

8 minutes ago, Mister T said:

I have been living and working here for 12 years and went back to Aus every year to visit the oldies and do my tax return. I was on a fixed income that was just above the tax threshold in Aus and with deductions I paid about $100 per year. About 10 years ago my accountant said I had to declare my Thai income in my tax return. With my family deductions here, I only paid about 3k baht in tax so it made no difference to my tax return. About 5 years ago when leaving Aus, an immi officer asked me why I only spent short periods back in Aus, told her why and she said she would mark me as a non resident. Up until then the government obviously did not realise I was non resident.

What was your circumstance, plea?

Were you marked a non resident for immigration purposes or taxation purposes?

 You could  still be considered a resident for tax by following the rules of the ATO.  Don't go on the advice of an immigration official. Check with the ATO. 

 

Unless, of course, you wanted to be as such. 

Edited August 11, 2018 by stud858

[Peterw42]

5 minutes ago, Mister T said:

I have been living and working here for 12 years and went back to Aus every year to visit the oldies and do my tax return. I was on a fixed income that was just above the tax threshold in Aus and with deductions I paid about $100 per year. About 10 years ago my accountant said I had to declare my Thai income in my tax return. With my family deductions here, I only paid about 3k baht in tax so it made no difference to my tax return. About 5 years ago when leaving Aus, an immi officer asked me why I only spent short periods back in Aus, told her why and she said she would mark me as a non resident. Up until then the government obviously did not realise I was non resident.

Immigration cannot and do not make the decision as to weather you are a tax resident, how can they without knowing all of your circumstances. Immigration would report your coming and going to the ATO etc but they do not make resident/non resident decisions

[ThaiBunny]

Like I said,  yes.  We agree on mostly everything else.  If you agree with my take on the 183 rule,  we are together as one.  As was said by another,  each one is very different circumstance. Each can do their best to try and retain their residency status to gain the benefit while trying to follow the law. 
Time overseas as a marker may be used but it is not definitive like some may think. Ie misreading the 183 rule. 

The double tax treaty makes the 183-day rule irrelevant