I don't understand the logic of Thai Immigration

[Lacessit]

IMHO it's really about weeding out the retirees that don't meet the Thai Immigration income or bank deposit requirements without fudging. As Chiang Mai has probably more retirees than anywhere else except Bangkok, It's a logical place to start. Holy crap, I've used Thai Immigration and logic in the same paragraph.

[Spidey]

28 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I would be very very surprised if any reputable agent didn't do this. I use an agent in Chiang Mai for the same thing and I pay circa 7k baht per year, which includes 4 x 90 day reports and TM30 reporting - I've been using them without problems for at least five years.

Do they seed a bank account for you or do you provide proof of 800k in the bank yourself?

[simoh1490]

Just now, Spidey said:

Do they seed a bank account for you or do you provide proof of 800k in the bank yourself?

They do not provide anything financial in nature, I provide my bank passbooks containing my fixed deposits etc.

[Lacessit]

14 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Do they seed a bank account for you or do you provide proof of 800k in the bank yourself?

The reputable agents won't do seeding.

[Skeptic7]

The OP's question is not really valid. I understand the frustration, but based on the income method AND especially the income verification affidavit that is affirmed and signed under penalty of perjury...the income has to come from one's "home country" and always has...for US citizens anyway. Refer to post #80. In the first doc, scroll down about 1/3 to where it says OR (b)...and read that. 

 

The 2nd clip is self explanatory, but to be clear...explicitly states that the signer is affirming that the income is coming from The USA. Don't know what else needs to be discussed here. This rule has not changed, unless not an American and other countries have different income verification rules. The income the OP is relying on is being earned in Thailand, which is not permitted. 

[Spidey]

22 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The reputable agents won't do seeding.

I know that which is why I asked the question to Simoh1490. The gist of this thread is to circumvent the requirements by using a visa agent, not using a visa agent to do what you are perfectly capable of doing yourself.

[Trujillo]

I think the thing is, if I recall correctly, that the US consulate here has stopped vouchsafing for swearing by its citizens that they actually are getting money (pension, etc) sent to them here in Thailand to meet the immigration requirement. 

I know that because of someone who had been doing that for many years, even though it was not true. He has lots of money from prior businesses (he's stopped working long ago), but was retaining the retirement visa on the strength of his swearing at the consulate that he was in fact receiving whatever it was that immigration required. He will now have to salt 800K away in a bank. 

 

But this still doesn't really address head on the question of the definition of work as it relates to being a landlord of condos you own. 

 

I am starting to lean now toward this being illegal, in the strict sense. 

 

By the way, some posted that they are moving to a province where the immigration staff actually like us. Would you care to share where that might be? I can tell you a place or two where that's not true....

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

I know that which is why I asked the question to Simoh1490. The gist of this thread is to circumvent the requirements by using a visa agent, not using a visa agent to do what you are perfectly capable of doing yourself.

I'm probably perfectly capable of doing it myself, except I'm lazy and don't see why I should waste hours of my time in an immigration queue if I can afford an agent instead.

[Spidey]

Just now, Lacessit said:

I'm probably perfectly capable of doing it myself, except I'm lazy and don't see why I should waste hours of my time in an immigration queue if I can afford an agent instead.

No problem, I don't blame you, but completely irrelevant to this topic.

[onera1961]

52 minutes ago, Trujillo said:

I think the thing is, if I recall correctly, that the US consulate here has stopped vouchsafing for swearing by its citizens that they actually are getting money (pension, etc) sent to them here in Thailand to meet the immigration requirement. 

US consult never vouch for anything. Their affidavit is simply a statement of your US income (no matter where it comes from, pension, stocks/bonds/remote work/stealing/scamming/anything else) that you have stated in the affidavit and sworn to be true under oath. Any lies to your income will be punishable to the full extent of the US law. 

[khaowong1]

I'm not sure what the new rules are, but the old rules said, income must come from outside Thailand. 

[khaowong1]

33 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

US consult never vouch for anything. Their affidavit is simply a statement of your US income (no matter where it comes from, pension, stocks/bonds/remote work/stealing/scamming/anything else) that you have stated in the affidavit and sworn to be true under oath. Any lies to your income will be punishable to the full extent of the US law. 

Exactly. 

[LomSak27]

3 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

Any lies to your income will be punishable to the full extent of the US law. 

For people who have signed the affidavit .... 

 

If the Thai government claims a person is indigent and then pull his Visa. The US government would be responsible for deportation fees, back to the US, (if he could not). Or is that repatriation? Anyway the US would then bill/garnish for these costs plus penalty fees to be determined for false representation in swearing the affidavit. I think he gets his passport pulled until he pays back the money. Rarely happens but its the "GTFO" eject expat button.

 

It is used because you would need a team of accountants and financial analysts to vet expats financial investments. An Embassy just cannot do that.

Now really it is what the Thai government wants to do 800K in account for everyone?! Who knows. That however is all in the future. All these nervous nellies and gleeful trolling Nigels need to chill and have a beer. This is just another tea cup tempest for the weekend.  

[HampiK]

4 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

BOI investment visa is 20 million or so. https://www.boi.go.th/upload/Checklist I_23 Apr 2018_5ae010b50464a.pdf

I am not sure, but was thinking for an extension based on Investment you have to invest 10 million baht, which I assume he had done to receive more than 65'000 baht in interest. In my opinion this would make sense.

But not sure if you can go for investment visa for condos you bought a few years back? I think there are not many who goes this way. because most have a Thai wife or are already older than 50 and then this is the more common way.

[cyberfarang]

On 10/11/2018 at 2:47 PM, FigaroLucowski said:

no im not working in thailand i make my income from property rentals in the city

 

In that case you are running a property rental business and that means you are working, which requires a work permit and registration with the tax office.

 

Who bought the properties and who`s name are they registered in?

 

Very soon these practices are going to end, clamp down on the corrupt agencies, clamp down on those using Thais to front their businesses and properties and all loop holes to get around the immigration regulations will be sealed.

[cbc]

check the rules for the type of visa you have on the thai immigration site.I think it states you must show monthly income from outside the country to enable you to retire in Thailand in the first place.

[Lacessit]

5 hours ago, cyberfarang said:

In that case you are running a property rental business and that means you are working, which requires a work permit and registration with the tax office.

 

Who bought the properties and who`s name are they registered in?

 

Very soon these practices are going to end, clamp down on the corrupt agencies, clamp down on those using Thais to front their businesses and properties and all loop holes to get around the immigration regulations will be sealed.

If the OP is using an agent to rent out the properties he owns, and is simply the landlord of those properties, I doubt that is classed as running a business. He's an investor deriving income from property.

As for your clampdown predictions, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. Too many Thais benefiting from the status quo.

[Thailand]

13 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

I would be very very surprised if any reputable agent didn't do this. I use an agent in Chiang Mai for the same thing and I pay circa 7k baht per year, which includes 4 x 90 day reports and TM30 reporting - I've been using them without problems for at least five years.

I don't think the reference was to agents that do the standard applications on your behalf more those that have an alternative method which is more than 7K.

[Trujillo]

"US consult never vouch for anything."

 

Perhaps I used a word not quite on the mark. You go to the US consulate and swear that you are telling the truth. They have you raise your hand and swear it in front of an officer of the consulate. 

I guess what I mean is that you can't do that at 7-Eleven or Immigration or anywhere else. The idea is that you are stating what you feel is the truth and the US consulate is sort of the Bible you are putting your hand on. Yes, the Bible doesn't vouch for you, but the consulate is the touchstone that should indicate that you are truthful. 

 

Being a landlord of your own condo properties is clearly not "investing in a Thai business." And more to the point, isn't being a landlord an occupation? 

[Lacessit]

24 minutes ago, Trujillo said:

 

Being a landlord of your own condo properties is clearly not "investing in a Thai business." And more to the point, isn't being a landlord an occupation? 

Perhaps it's time for both sides of this debate to find an authoritative Thai source which defines whether a landlord is deemed to be working.

[CMBob]

17 minutes ago, Trujillo said:

The idea is that you are stating what you feel is the truth and the US consulate is sort of the Bible you are putting your hand on. Yes, the Bible doesn't vouch for you, but the consulate is the touchstone that should indicate that you are truthful. 

The US Consulate (or Embassy in Bkk) is only verifying that the person named in the affidavit is the person who signed the affidavit and said under oath the income information was accurate.  Nothing in the form states or infers that the consulate/embassy is attesting to the accuracy of any of the income information.  Some US citizens understate their income and some surely overstate their income but the US position (at least so far) is that it's not their job to investigate or even question whether the income information is correct (and the form doesn't call for that although the recent British statement would indicate that Thai Immigration is expecting/asking/demanding that they do so).

 

  

[Thaidream]

50 minutes ago, CMBob said:

The US Consulate (or Embassy in Bkk) is only verifying that the person named in the affidavit is the person who signed the affidavit and said under oath the income information was accurate.  Nothing in the form states or infers that the consulate/embassy is attesting to the accuracy of any of the income information.  Some US citizens understate their income and some surely overstate their income but the US position (at least so far) is that it's not their job to investigate or even question whether the income information is correct (and the form doesn't call for that although the recent British statement would indicate that Thai Immigration is expecting/asking/demanding that they do so).

 

59 minutes ago, CMBob said:

The US Consulate (or Embassy in Bkk) is only verifying that the person named in the affidavit is the person who signed the affidavit and said under oath the income information was accurate.  Nothing in the form states or infers that the consulate/embassy is attesting to the accuracy of any of the income information.  Some US citizens understate their income and some surely overstate their income but the US position (at least so far) is that it's not their job to investigate or even question whether the income information is correct (and the form doesn't call for that although the recent British statement would indicate that Thai Immigration is expecting/asking/demanding that they do so).

Yes - the Embassy issues the Oath- the applicant swears under penalty of perjury.

In my opinion- making sure Thai Imm knows  the penalty is a felony would go a long way  to ensuring more credibility.  In addition- making sure the applicant understands completely they are taking an Oath and what the penalty is for a lie. Also- being made aware that Thai Imm may ask for added support.

 

If I was the Embassy- I would inform Thai Imm what  Us law states and inform them that if they find someone has lied about their income to notify the US FBI office at the Embassy for further investigation.

 

I would add that this is the same concept that is used in making statements to the police; a court; or anyone else that issues an Oath.

 

 

[NancyL]

If you look at the U.S. Consulate's "Income Letter" it clearly states that the applicant is listing income from sources in the United States.  https://th.usembassy.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/income-affidavit-chiangmai-2017.pdf

 

That would mean that rental income from property in Thailand couldn't be included in the amount reported on that form.

[Thaidream]

39 minutes ago, NancyL said:

f you look at the U.S. Consulate's "Income Letter" it clearly states that the applicant is listing income from sources in the United States.  https://th.usembassy.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/income-affidavit-chiangmai-2017.pdf

 

That would mean that rental income from property in Thailand couldn't be included in the amount reported on that form.

Quite Correct- however there is also a blank affidavit form from the Embassy/Consul that allows a person to make a sworn statement- indicating that they have xxx amount of monthly/yearly income; stating source and any other information.  I have used this form for stating income for the purpose of the IRS; Child Support; and  I believe many decades ago for Thai Imm before any such form was developed specifically for Thai Imm.  It was accepted by Thai Imm but I believe I had to show other proof.

 

Whether Thai Imm would currently accept the General Affidavit hand written by  an applicant and  sworn to in front of the Embassy Official is unknown.  There is a pic of this Affidavit on the US Embassy Website.

[cyberfarang]

15 hours ago, Lacessit said:

If the OP is using an agent to rent out the properties he owns, and is simply the landlord of those properties, I doubt that is classed as running a business. He's an investor deriving income from property.

As for your clampdown predictions, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting. Too many Thais benefiting from the status quo.

Absolute rubbish.

 

If the OP rents out properties that he owns, that`s provided he owns them legally and not hiding behind his Thai wife`s name, and if he is receiving income and profit from those properties regardless of how he does it or whether he claims he`s not the owner on paper just a landlord, then he`s still running a property rental business that requires a work permit and tax registration for his Thai income. 

 

In such cases many in similar situations living off earnings working behind the scenes under Thai proprietorships prefer not to divulge the sources of their incomes for obvious reasons. Now that immigration are insisting on seeing proof of incomes in real terms these people will try to use the money in a Thai bank method, again for obvious reasons. But sooner rather than later Thai immigration will be getting tough on those who are not declaring incomes in the country facing stiff penalties for those tumbled, including the Thais that  collaborate with them. Soon all these loopholes will be closed. 

[Lacessit]

7 hours ago, cyberfarang said:

Absolute rubbish.

 

If the OP rents out properties that he owns, that`s provided he owns them legally and not hiding behind his Thai wife`s name, and if he is receiving income and profit from those properties regardless of how he does it or whether he claims he`s not the owner on paper just a landlord, then he`s still running a property rental business that requires a work permit and tax registration for his Thai income. 

 

In such cases many in similar situations living off earnings working behind the scenes under Thai proprietorships prefer not to divulge the sources of their incomes for obvious reasons. Now that immigration are insisting on seeing proof of incomes in real terms these people will try to use the money in a Thai bank method, again for obvious reasons. But sooner rather than later Thai immigration will be getting tough on those who are not declaring incomes in the country facing stiff penalties for those tumbled, including the Thais that  collaborate with them. Soon all these loopholes will be closed. 

Quote an authoritative official Thai government source for your propositions. If you can't, it's time to stop posting absolute rubbish.

[Lacessit]

19 hours ago, NancyL said:

If you look at the U.S. Consulate's "Income Letter" it clearly states that the applicant is listing income from sources in the United States.  https://th.usembassy.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/income-affidavit-chiangmai-2017.pdf

 

That would mean that rental income from property in Thailand couldn't be included in the amount reported on that form.

The Australian statutory declaration simply states the monthly income in Australian dollars. There is no indication asked for or required as to the source of that income - it could be from Kazakhstan. That statutory declaration is accepted as proof of income by Thai Immigration.

Having said that, there are severe penalties for making a false statutory declaration under Australian law, including jail time.

[Thailand]

33 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The Australian statutory declaration simply states the monthly income in Australian dollars. There is no indication asked for or required as to the source of that income - it could be from Kazakhstan. That statutory declaration is accepted as proof of income by Thai Immigration.

Having said that, there are severe penalties for making a false statutory declaration under Australian law, including jail time.

So would it be safe to say that many abuse the system as some of the Americans do and make false declarations irrespective of the potential penalties?

[Spidey]

8 minutes ago, Thailand said:

So would it be safe to say that many abuse the system as some of the Americans do and make false declarations irrespective of the potential penalties?

I think it's safe to say that as it's far easier for an American to falsify their income, than a Brit, it's logical to assume that far more Americans than Brits are gaming the system.

 

Probably why so many Americans are so vocal on a topic that doesn't, on the face of it, concern them.

[Bill97]

I think it's safe to say that as it's far easier for an American to falsify their income, than a Brit, it's logical to assume that far more Americans than Brits are gaming the system.
 
Probably why so many Americans are so vocal on a topic that doesn't, on the face of it, concern them.

Pure speculation. Fact is that a much higher % of Brits are scamming. After all they are entitled.


Sent from my iPod touch using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app