Australia joins the UK and USA with withdrawal of income verification

[soalbundy]

5 minutes ago, sambum said:

The reason you have no problem re verification is because the 800k is in a Thai bank and not a foreign bank? And I presume that you also have to have a covering letter from the bank to verify this  or does Thai Immigration (TI) just check the details in your account book?

 

Re your Certificate of Residence (COR - thanks!) the last time I did an annual extension, I was given a new form by Immigration in addition to the TM7. It is numbered Imm.2, and I am told that they use this to verify the address that they have on file for you on their computer (Sounds like duplicated unnecessary paperwork to me, as I already have to provide them with a copy of the Rental Contract, and Landlord Details, but you know how the Thais love paperwork!) So nothing needed from your Embassy.

 

And the letter that the British Embassy is stopping providing is very similar to your suggestion - just substitute "has informed the Embassy that he has income and savings  totalling  xxxxx British Pounds" for  "resides at the following address" But TI are NOT happy with that and they want the Embassy to verify the income - therein lies the problem!

make a compromise then like the other European embassies and say 'certify', they seem happy with that, play within their rules or at least tip toe around the edges, no need to make a song and dance about it.

[mfd101]

I'm currently gearing up for either of the 2 new methods for income 'verification'. I'm not due for renewal till October next year so that reduces the pressure a bit but, if my preferred new method (65K+ a month) turns out to be IT, then the sooner I start on that the better. SO:

 

I want to open a new account at BKK Bank here in Surin. I have one already in BKK but a local one here will make things easier to manage. The local branch here in Prasat wants a 'certificate of address' from Oz Embassy(!). I have no experience of this so the question is: Is this a normal function of the Embassy? Is it just another stat dec for them to witness (more irony)? or do they do a letter themselves based on the info I give them?

[ubonjoe]

A inflammatory off topic post and replies to it have been removed.

[cleverman]

3 hours ago, nrasmussen said:

Exactly! - Bringing money into Thailand doesn't. And to make matters worse, it's even gross income (i.e., before taxes) that must be proven - isn't it?

 

I've always used gross, but, didn't call it that,just income.

[elviajero]

21 minutes ago, cleverman said:

4 hours ago, nrasmussen said:

Exactly! - Bringing money into Thailand doesn't. And to make matters worse, it's even gross income (i.e., before taxes) that must be proven - isn't it?

 

I've always used gross, but, didn't call it that,just income.

Immigration do not specify gross of net which has allowed this loophole. But, as I’ve argued for several years, the income they want proof of is net (actual) income. A fact that will become clear to should they start to allow proof of income via transfers to a Thai account.

[melvinmelvin]

4 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Immigration do not specify gross of net which has allowed this loophole. But, as I’ve argued for several years, the income they want proof of is net (actual) income. A fact that will become clear to should they start to allow proof of income via transfers to a Thai account.

well, maybe so,

in my case net actual income for 2018 can be established about October 2019.

 

cannot be done this year.

 

[cleverman]

5 hours ago, elviajero said:

Immigration do not specify gross of net which has allowed this loophole. But, as I’ve argued for several years, the income they want proof of is net (actual) income. A fact that will become clear to should they start to allow proof of income via transfers to a Thai account.

They never wanted proof of net.not for the last 15 years at least. Please check your facts before posting. 

[bigginhill]

On 11/3/2018 at 3:01 PM, Peterw42 said:

Yes, I agree and share your thoughts. I am surprised only a couple of others appear to have picked up on this. If the embassy witnesses statutory declarations they cannot refuse to witness a statutory declaration based on its content. A stat dec can say you are in fact an alien from the planet Zarcron, the embassy just witnesses the signature.

The cleaning lady in a legal practice could challenge this and win.

The original embassy statement doesn't say they will not be doing stat decs, only stat decs that mention income.

 

Forget Thai immigration, this is an issue between Australian citizens and the embassy, 

 

The Australian embassy absolutely cannot refuse to do a stat dec based on what the stat dec contains.

 

Maybe the Australian media would like to hear about the breech of the statutory declaration act ?

 

 

 

I agree with you.

I wonder what the Embassy would say if you said you needed it for a court case (or other reason). 

[gk10002000]

21 hours ago, blackhorse said:

What are you on about? TI Have announced nothing.

Better go hassle your embassy, they are the ones that made an announcement and NOT TI. !!

Yep. Very few official announcements other than not accepting income letters.

[elviajero]

37 minutes ago, cleverman said:

6 hours ago, elviajero said:

Immigration do not specify gross of net which has allowed this loophole. But, as I’ve argued for several years, the income they want proof of is net (actual) income. A fact that will become clear to should they start to allow proof of income via transfers to a Thai account.

They never wanted proof of net.not for the last 15 years at least. Please check your facts before posting. 

Here are the facts for you. They have always wanted proof of actual income, but because they didn't insist on the embassy letter stating it was net income it created a loophole for few applicants to take advantage of.

 

If immigration start accepting transfers to Thai banks the applicants that previously claimed a gross income of 65K, that was actually a net income of 60K, will have a problem if they can only transfer 60K. And the fact the embassies are now expected to validate income could also cause a problem for some.

[bigginhill]

On 11/4/2018 at 2:31 PM, cyberfarang said:

You people absolutely amaze me. You really just don`t get it.

 

You as a westerner are not allowed to purchase such land in Thailand unless falling under the policies and with strict approval of the BOI (Thailand Board of Investment). If as I assume you have bought this land in your Thai wife`s name, then under Thai law it has to be with her money. This is one of the many tricks the Thai authorities are trying to clamp down on. 

 

Legally under Thai law you own nothing and therefore you have to fall under the same requirements as applicants married to Thai spouses or retirees.

 

It really gets to me that you and others like you place investments into Thailand that are not wanted, then expect immigration to take what you have invested into consideration and give you some kind of flexibility regarding the rules. 

 

Back in our countries no one who is sane would ever invest thousand and thousand of dollars into something in someone else`s name purely based on trust.

 

So what exactly do you expect and how exactly do you believe you`re being treated unfairly?

ok. I,m still on page 63, and no idea how long it's going to take me to catch up. 

Sure that this post has been dealt with by others, but I can't resist on pointing out that it's totaly untrue. I was just absorbing the previous post by gaviny that came straight from the heart.

When I bought my condo in 2006 it was possible to have an investment visa and the 4 million I paid was sufficient at that time. However I was sufficiently savvy and did not apply. 

When I had savvied up abit the limit had become 10 million. 

SO... now I am in the situation of proving 800,000 ( same as the next person who has to pay their rent, and has the same 800,000 in the bank) only that I have 4 million in a condo, AND I don't have to pay rent.

Gaviny I agree with your views, I have lived 38 years in a foreign country, I have citizenship but I feel a foreigner, I sympathise  that you feel rules have been changed unilateraly, but unlike me you are blessed with a family and I think you are going to have to just let this go and comply. 

[cyberfarang]

1 hour ago, bigginhill said:

ok. I,m still on page 63, and no idea how long it's going to take me to catch up. 

Sure that this post has been dealt with by others, but I can't resist on pointing out that it's totaly untrue. I was just absorbing the previous post by gaviny that came straight from the heart.

When I bought my condo in 2006 it was possible to have an investment visa and the 4 million I paid was sufficient at that time. However I was sufficiently savvy and did not apply. 

When I had savvied up abit the limit had become 10 million. 

SO... now I am in the situation of proving 800,000 ( same as the next person who has to pay their rent, and has the same 800,000 in the bank) only that I have 4 million in a condo, AND I don't have to pay rent.

Gaviny I agree with your views, I have lived 38 years in a foreign country, I have citizenship but I feel a foreigner, I sympathise  that you feel rules have been changed unilateraly, but unlike me you are blessed with a family and I think you are going to have to just let this go and comply. 

Sorry, but the circumstances referring to the post I was commenting on is fact.

 

In your case you did not apply for an investment visa at the time you mentioned and now it`s increased to 10 million bahts that still has certain conditions attached to it. So therefore, if you are here as a retiree, you are required to apply for an annual extension based on retirement according to the Thai immigration procedures. So do you consider this unfair?

 

 

[bigginhill]

11 minutes ago, cyberfarang said:

Sorry, but the circumstances referring to the post I was commenting on is fact.

 

In your case you did not apply for an investment visa at the time you mentioned and now it`s increased to 10 million bahts that still has certain conditions attached to it. So therefore, if you are here as a retiree, you are required to apply for an annual extension based on retirement according to the Thai immigration procedures. So do you consider this unfair?

 

 

Yes. 

[tropo]

On 11/6/2018 at 4:59 PM, Tanoshi said:

On 11/6/2018 at 12:41 PM, cleverman said:

As mentioned a thousand times already, you can't renew without the letter,after Jan or any other time. 

Where did you read that?

 

According to my IO they have a directive that allows income letters, affidavits, stat decs etc, to be accepted for up to 6 months after issue, unless they receive a directive to the contrary.

Cleverman must know something the rest of us don't know, because even if it was mentioned a million times already, that still doesn't make it a fact. When TI officers start mentioning it at Immigration Offices around the country, we'll start to pay attention. Until then, no one knows anything.

[tropo]

1 hour ago, bigginhill said:

ok. I,m still on page 63, and no idea how long it's going to take me to catch up. 

Sure that this post has been dealt with by others, but I can't resist on pointing out that it's totaly untrue. I was just absorbing the previous post by gaviny that came straight from the heart.

When I bought my condo in 2006 it was possible to have an investment visa and the 4 million I paid was sufficient at that time. However I was sufficiently savvy and did not apply. 

When I had savvied up abit the limit had become 10 million. 

SO... now I am in the situation of proving 800,000 ( same as the next person who has to pay their rent, and has the same 800,000 in the bank) only that I have 4 million in a condo, AND I don't have to pay rent.

Gaviny I agree with your views, I have lived 38 years in a foreign country, I have citizenship but I feel a foreigner, I sympathise  that you feel rules have been changed unilateraly, but unlike me you are blessed with a family and I think you are going to have to just let this go and comply. 

Don't waste your time catching up. You'll learn nothing new. It's just a bunch of people without a clue (myself included) having a long chat about it and trying to predict what might happen. If any news breaks about this, it will be introduced in a new thread.

[Joe Mcseismic]

Yes, but, it is fun to watch certain posters metaphorically try to stuff a gorilla into a suit. 

[Kadilo]

2 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

Yes, but, it is fun to watch certain posters metaphorically try to stuff a gorilla into a suit. 

........and you continuously telling them. 

[soalbundy]

4 hours ago, gk10002000 said:

Yep. Very few official announcements other than not accepting income letters.

where do they say they are not accepting income letters ? My IO insists on them, no letter, no extension.

[Joe Mcseismic]

1 hour ago, Kadilo said:

........and you continuously telling them. 

Yes, that's fun, too.

[cleverman]

3 hours ago, tropo said:

Cleverman must know something the rest of us don't know, because even if it was mentioned a million times already, that still doesn't make it a fact. When TI officers start mentioning it at Immigration Offices around the country, we'll start to pay attention. Until then, no one knows anything.

Some IO are already refusing to accept embassy letters. TV should not Be used as your only source of information. I am well read, clever of me. 

[soalbundy]

24 minutes ago, cleverman said:

Some IO are already refusing to accept embassy letters. TV should not Be used as your only source of information. I am well read, clever of me. 

Embassy letters or affidavits ? my IO insists on the embassy letter (don't know about affidavits)

[cleverman]

9 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Embassy letters or affidavits ? my IO insists on the embassy letter (don't know about affidavits)

Dunno. Best to treat all we hear with suspicion. 

[Peterw42]

47 minutes ago, cleverman said:

Some IO are already refusing to accept embassy letters. TV should not Be used as your only source of information. I am well read, clever of me. 

I am yet to see a first hand account of a letter being refused. There have been some accounts of incorrect back up documentation etc and people quoting , out of context, other extension problems and relating it to income letters.

There are 100s of people getting and presenting income letters everyday.

 

I was having a beer yesterday with a few friends and an acquaintance turned up telling everyone his income letter was just refused. Long story short, it turned out to be his 800k bank letter was refused because it was 3 weeks old, nothing to do with an embassy income letter. Chances are that same guy will be on a forum today telling everyone his letter was refused etc, and 6-8 guys having a beer also think that his embassy letter was refused.

 

Its very easy to ask an out of context question and get and out of context answer from an IO etc, if the question was even understood.

 

I usually follow up any enquiry at immigration, bank, DLT etc with a qualifying question. I recall asking an important question at the DLT and getting a yes answer, just to check, I also asked if I can drive a space shuttle on a Thai license, and got the same enthusiastic yes answer. 

 

Unless its a formal announcement from immigration, I tend to take these 2nd hand, one off, accounts with a grain of salt.

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2018 by Peterw42

[cleverman]

On 6 November 2018 at 6:01 PM, cleverman said:

 

Quote just one stupid question 

It's taking a long time for you to fine a stupid question of mine. 

[Mike Teavee]

7 hours ago, bigginhill said:

ok. I,m still on page 63, and no idea how long it's going to take me to catch up. 

Sure that this post has been dealt with by others, but I can't resist on pointing out that it's totaly untrue. I was just absorbing the previous post by gaviny that came straight from the heart.

When I bought my condo in 2006 it was possible to have an investment visa and the 4 million I paid was sufficient at that time. However I was sufficiently savvy and did not apply. 

When I had savvied up abit the limit had become 10 million. 

SO... now I am in the situation of proving 800,000 ( same as the next person who has to pay their rent, and has the same 800,000 in the bank) only that I have 4 million in a condo, AND I don't have to pay rent.

Gaviny I agree with your views, I have lived 38 years in a foreign country, I have citizenship but I feel a foreigner, I sympathise  that you feel rules have been changed unilateraly, but unlike me you are blessed with a family and I think you are going to have to just let this go and comply. 

Whilst in 1 way I agree that people who own their own place have lower living costs because they don't have to pay rent, in another way I don't... 

 

Let's say you save 20,000 pm in not having to pay rent but...

• Spend 30,000 pm going out partying and I don't, can I evidence 10,000 pm less than you?
• Spend 100,000 pm sending your kids to school but I don't, can I evidence 80,000 pm less than you?

Point being that immigration cannot be expected to take everybody individual circumstances into consideration, yes it's easy with house ownership but where do you draw the line?

 

I like to drink wine, eat beef & cheese so wouldn't complain if they said I needed to show 100-120K per month, if (when) I buy my own place I'm not going to lobby that this should be reduced to 80-100... 

 

 

 

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, Mike Teavee said:

Whilst in 1 way I agree that people who own their own place have lower living costs because they don't have to pay rent, in another way I don't... 

 

Let's say you save 20,000 pm in not having to pay rent but...

• Spend 30,000 pm going out partying and I don't, can I evidence 10,000 pm less than you?
• Spend 100,000 pm sending your kids to school but I don't, can I evidence 80,000 pm less than you?

Point being that immigration cannot be expected to take everybody individual circumstances into consideration, yes it's easy with house ownership but where do you draw the line?

 

I like to drink wine, eat beef & cheese so wouldn't complain if they said I needed to show 100-120K per month, if (when) I buy my own place I'm not going to lobby that this should be reduced to 80-100... 

How much a person "spends" was never part of the equation.  It was "money in the bank" or "gross income".  No one was expected to be spending all of the declared income - or even bringing all of it into Thailand. 

 

In the case of wholly-owned assets in Thailand for which a minimum "quick-sale" value can be easily ascertained - such as a condo - this should be used to offset the "money in the bank."  Just need an official assessment, updated recently.  Too bad they don't allow it.

Edited November 8, 2018 by JackThompson

[Mike Teavee]

1 hour ago, JackThompson said:

How much a person "spends" was never part of the equation.  It was "money in the bank" or "gross income".  No one was expected to be spending all of the declared income - or even bringing all of it into Thailand. 

 

In the case of wholly-owned assets in Thailand for which a minimum "quick-sale" value can be easily ascertained - such as a condo - this should be used to offset the "money in the bank."  Just need an official assessment, updated recently.  Too bad they don't allow it.

So can I knock 200k off because I have a Rolex? Pretty sure I could sell it a lot quicker than you could your Condo.

 

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, Mike Teavee said:

So can I knock 200k off because I have a Rolex? Pretty sure I could sell it a lot quicker than you could your Condo.

I never bought a condo - thank goodness, since Immigration's increasingly anti-farang policies made my rent cheaper for a nicer place every year - ongoing for years since I first arrived.  I live up-country now - so if I was renting out a condo in Jomtien, bought at the prices when I first arrived, I'd be getting very little if any ROI.  Even a couple percent interest on money in a Thai bank-account would do better.

If there was a way for a hospital to put a lean on your Rolex if you got sick, maybe then.  As-is, you'd need to pawn it and put the money in the bank for that to work with immigration.

[bigginhill]

4 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

Whilst in 1 way I agree that people who own their own place have lower living costs because they don't have to pay rent, in another way I don't... 

 

Let's say you save 20,000 pm in not having to pay rent but...

• Spend 30,000 pm going out partying and I don't, can I evidence 10,000 pm less than you?
• Spend 100,000 pm sending your kids to school but I don't, can I evidence 80,000 pm less than you?

Point being that immigration cannot be expected to take everybody individual circumstances into consideration, yes it's easy with house ownership but where do you draw the line?

 

I like to drink wine, eat beef & cheese so wouldn't complain if they said I needed to show 100-120K per month, if (when) I buy my own place I'm not going to lobby that this should be reduced to 80-100... 

 

 

 

I see what your saying however the partying can be stopped at any moment if there are not enough funds, but you have to have a house over your head so rent becomes a necessity.

So what would the breakdown of essential expenditure here be? I have read all the thread on how much you need to get by and apparently it's not under 40,000 reading the posts.

As you said how do you calculate? But reasonably food costs and accomodation must figure as essentials. After that everyone is free to spend their money as they deem fit. 

[onera1961]

14 minutes ago, bigginhill said:

I have read all the thread on how much you need to get by and apparently it's not under 40,000 reading the posts.

For a single person, I think it 40K and you can add another 5K for insurance. 10K for a condo (may be 15K if you're living in Bangkok). and 1K per/day. That's how I operate.