Jump to content

Just Received Some Bad News For US Citizens. No More Income Affidavits.


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Notagain said:
7 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

That almost fits into being being considered a conspiracy theory to me. Utter nonsense IMO.

Then tell me what is the reason for this sudden change in requirements ? The system was working just fine for many many years, Now they want 400/800K baht in their banking system for what reason ??? What is your theory for the sudden change with little notice.

Immigration haven't changed the requirements. They will still accept income with an embassy letter/affidavit.

 

The problem is that the British/American embassies will not issue income letters because immigration want them to verify the income.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Immigration haven't changed the requirements. They will still accept income with an embassy letter/affidavit.

 

 

No they won't. Not in Phuket. Affidavit denied, even with accompanying bankbook showing regular deposits. Only "guaranteed income" through 2019 such as a pension will satisfy them, as of right now. Got it from long-time immigration volunteer who reported ongoing rejections. They want to see a pension or government income ("guaranteed"). This is going down right now. 

Edited by Ebumbu
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jingthing said; Avoiding the need to file FBAR is not a good reason to avoid the Thai immigration bank account method.

 

Unless you're a criminal or not paying income taxes owed to the US.  The US taxes citizens on income earned overseas and the Financial Crimes amnesty to bring it back to the US recently expired..

Edited by esqy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Maestro said:
On 10/30/2018 at 11:19 AM, elviajero said:

Retirement extensions are meant for people that don't work (retired). There's a clue in the name...

 

 

Gainful employment outside Thailand does not disqualify a foreigner from applying for and being granted a one-year extension of stay of stay under clause 2.22 of Police Order 327/2557

It is an extension of stay for people that do not work (retired) and want to live in Thailand. Why would it mention anything about applicants that are working abroad?

 

Currently, immigration do not insist on knowing the type or source of income, but it is meant to be pension/investment (passive) income. If they were to start insisting on knowing the source I am certain they would not allow income from employment.

 

If it were meant for people not retired they could just call it an 'over 50's extension' or similar.

 

As I wrote before, some embassies will insist on proof of retirement before issuing a non 'O' based on "retirement", fortunately immigration don't.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, JackThompson said:

I'm open to other theories which reflect how immigration really functions.

Our theories/beliefs tend to be biased by our personal circumstances/needs so whilst Occam's to you seems to be everything is about Immigration being corrupt, Occam's to me says it's about stamping out people living/working here illegally (You can argue that my view is Naive if I can argue your's is anachronistic ????).

 

Whether you agree with it or not (& I don't) Thailand believes that Expats need 65,000 pm to live on, so if you can't prove this (I believe that) they believe you're working illegally to make up the difference.

 

Whether people can live on less than 65K (& I know I could if I had to) is irrelevant, that's the limit which they've decided on & at the end of the day their "Opinion" is the only one that counts. 

 

I can see the argument that it doesn't make sense to not take into consideration things like:-

  • Own your own home -  (should reduce the requirement by 30%)
  • Have health care (should reduce the requirement by 15%)
  • Lifestyle (Don't drink, smoke, chase women - reduce requirement by another 50%)

... But I can also see how they don't have the skills/knowledge/time to review the myriad of different documentation that would go along with these (and how would you prove the last one!)

 

Edited by Mike Teavee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

Last time I looked a year or so ago Norway was paying 1/2 a percent  to 1 % on normal savings accounts.  Why am I out of date? 

 

My local deposit account is now 2.50%  , it used to be more than 3.50% . Add to that the 2 million KR security fond that will cover anything that might happen with banks in the future.   https://www.bankenessikringsfond.no/?lang=en_GB 

 

I will not transfer a big amount of money to Thailand so I will always look for other options. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could someone clarify the distinction between the 400,000 and 800,000 baht accounts?  I understand that the 800,000 is required for one individual.  But if there is married couple, both Americans, is it 400,000 each or 800,000 each?  Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

 

 

Yes= it appears the UK and US Embassies have washed their hands of us but I plan on sending an email to them when each report of a citizen having a problem is reported. They  made the decision to stop the letters- for whatever reason- and now they own it.  So much for  'easing the transition'.

Think what you want.

They washed their hands of nothing but a letter that unfortunately had possibly been used by some for fraud.  I bet they are happy it will be gone.

And, now they "own it".

Own what? The ball is is TI court and truly always has been you live in Thailand your embassy is out of that the business.

 

Also, let us know about all the responses you get from them from your emails. Zero would be my guess....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Cruzn said:

Could someone clarify the distinction between the 400,000 and 800,000 baht accounts?  I understand that the 800,000 is required for one individual.  But if there is married couple, both Americans, is it 400,000 each or 800,000 each?  Thanks!

The 400k is for a Foreign Man married to a Thai Woman, it would be 800K each for 2 foreigners (married or not)

 

Edited by Mike Teavee
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ebumbu said:

 

No they won't. Not in Phuket. Affidavit denied, even with accompanying bankbook showing regular deposits. Only "guaranteed income" through 2019 such as a pension will satisfy them, as of right now. Got it from long-time immigration volunteer who reported ongoing rejections. They want to see a pension or government income ("guaranteed"). This is going down right now. 

For now it's just one more rumour among the many on this forum.

I will not believe anything before I *read* it on a Immigration note and/or on their website.

 

"This is going down right now"?

I think if was the case we would have many report of that on this forum, and - AFAIK - we don't...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cruzn said:

Could someone clarify the distinction between the 400,000 and 800,000 baht accounts?  I understand that the 800,000 is required for one individual.  But if there is married couple, both Americans, is it 400,000 each or 800,000 each?  Thanks!

The required funds are 800K for a retirement-based extension.  But the solution is to have the 800K in one-spouse's acct, get the retirement-extension for them, then have the other "piggy-back" with a Non-O extension as the spouse / family-member of the other.  No financials are required for the 2nd applicant.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JackThompson said:

The required funds are 800K for a retirement-based extension.  But the solution is to have the 800K in one-spouse's acct, get the retirement-extension for them, then have the other "piggy-back" with a Non-O extension as the spouse / family-member of the other.  No financials are required for the 2nd applicant.

correct, and I have read reports of joint accounts requiring 1.6, which many have...but the way things have been going, a joint account still might not work.  Always keep it simple....especially here, yet many just cant get a hold of that concept.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

The required funds are 800K for a retirement-based extension.  But the solution is to have the 800K in one-spouse's acct, get the retirement-extension for them, then have the other "piggy-back" with a Non-O extension as the spouse / family-member of the other.  No financials are required for the 2nd applicant.

Interesting option, any restrictions / differences on the 2nd extension (e.g. is it like the 60 days you get for visiting a dependent or do you also get 1 year) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Thaidream said:

Jomtien has one oddity when an applicant comes in with  an exempt  entry/Tourist Visa and wants to change to a Non O and then pursue a Marriage/Retirement Extension. That desk asks for extra paperwork plus . before they will issue the Non O. Once issued the  rest flows normally.

Not if you are applying for an extension based on marriage and don't own your own condo -  then it can be a nightmare / often impossible.

 

And the Non-O stamp problem has been reported at other offices, also - some saying  no such thing is possible anywhere in the country - even when the official forms and instructions are shown to them - insisting one must go to a consulate overseas for a Non-O Visa to start the process.

 

It is the general inconsistency of the rules by office which makes this letter-change all the more problematic.  Bangkok could draft a nice, clean set of standards (we can only hope), but every office may still make up their own "local-rules" and use those, instead.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

Interesting option, any restrictions / differences on the 2nd extension (e.g. is it like the 60 days you get for visiting a dependent or do you also get 1 year) 

The 60 day extension is only to visit a Thai family member.

It is a one year extension based upon the others extension for being a family member of them. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

No.  Many of us could get an embassy letter based on our (not fake) gross worldwide income.  This is 100% in accordance with the law, and long-standing practice.  //

Hum... Very unsure about the Gross Income. Thai Immigration never wrote that.

I am pretty sure that what Thai Immigration wants to know is

the amount of money you are able to spend in Thailand, e.g. your Net Income...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hum... Very unsure about the Gross Income. Thai Immigration never wrote that.
I am pretty sure that what Thai Immigration wants to know is
the amount of money you are able to spend in Thailand, e.g. your Net Income...


What you could spend would be your gross income plus whatever savings you have, yes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

It is gross income. That has been discussed before in other topics .

If so, Ok.

But if you declare 70'000 (gross) - that allows you Retirement Extension - when in reality you only have 50'000 available  (net), it seems to me like another way to cheat on TI rules... :glare:

 

People of many countries don't even have this possibility. They have to declare their Net Income for their embassy letter. (about -30% for France)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.








×
×
  • Create New...