Income Method - are immigration moving the goal posts again

[CharlieH]

Reported derogatory remark removed.

[scubascuba3]

I been here 30 years and I now find the Military who pretends to be some sort of mafia/government. I want to pull the pin. Never felt less wanted.
 

Yes its sad, maybe it will change

[JimGant]

3 hours ago, sumrit said:

Maybe they will ask you to prove where the 65k baht you're sending to Thailand each month actually originates from. Is it earned from a foreign source or is sent back from Thailand and then returned again from the UK, Via Dee Money for example'

Yes, that's the main problem -- is the monthly income stream being regurgitated...? I don't know how they'll deal with that, or maybe they'll just say the problem's just not big enough to address. But, the inefficiencies for them to weed through income verification documentation, in a myriad of foreign languages, just is not realistic. That I send 65K/mo from my checking account, which receives my Social Security payment, my Air Force pension, my tax refund, my credit card cash back, my repayment of a loan to my nephew, etc etc. These are all fungible dollars, and in addition, there's no question about are these "this year's income" for the purposes of Thai taxation. It's all one big mixing bowl, from an account opened for many previous years.

 

Anyway, back to my main point -- Thai Immigration will  only be interested in seeing a cash flow over 12 months. There's no reason why they should care about the source of these funds (except for regurgitation) -- they just want to see your money coming to Thailand to support your expat existence -- whether in 12 increments, or one big lump sum. That you can prove a substantial income back in farang land means nothing -- if it's not available for Thailand.

 

Ponder the Venezuelan expat: His income letter, especially if over a month old, is only worth a couple of satang. Kinda makes you believe the wave of the future is for all countries to follow what's now happening with just four countries: Just show the required amounts in-country, and we won't worry about where it came from. Pretty simple -- just show your passbook. Certainly less headache -- and more efficiency -- for Immigration.

 

 

Edited March 16, 2019 by JimGant

[sumrit]

4 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Those "rotating money" with Dee Money or similar would probably go the extra-step of manufacturing a fake pension-letter.  It isn't as though some pension-company will (or legally could) answer inquiries from an immigration office in a foreign country.

But they could restrict the type of 'proof' they ask for, such as a verified P60 for example.

While that wouldn't totally cure the problem it would restrict a lot of people's ability to provide that proof.

[JackThompson]

2 hours ago, sumrit said:

But they could restrict the type of 'proof' they ask for, such as a verified P60 for example.

While that wouldn't totally cure the problem it would restrict a lot of people's ability to provide that proof.

The P60 is a UK tax form, correct?  Who would "verify" this P60, since the BE (and AU, and USA) isn't playing this game with immigration any more?   What would stop someone from manufacturing a "fake verified" one?

 

That was the huge mistake with ticking-off the embassies.  There were criminal penalties in one's passport-country for lying at stake, when they were part of the equation.  That's gone now.  Get in trouble in Thailand, and you still have the rest of the world.  Get in trouble in your passport-country, and you aren't going anywhere.  It's harder to get jobs, too, with a Felony conviction for lying to the Feds on your record.

[CharlieH]

Flame & response removed

[OJAS]

On 3/16/2019 at 10:44 PM, JackThompson said:

The P60 is a UK tax form, correct?  Who would "verify" this P60, since the BE (and AU, and USA) isn't playing this game with immigration any more?   What would stop someone from manufacturing a "fake verified" one?

 

That was the huge mistake with ticking-off the embassies.  There were criminal penalties in one's passport-country for lying at stake, when they were part of the equation.  That's gone now.  Get in trouble in Thailand, and you still have the rest of the world.  Get in trouble in your passport-country, and you aren't going anywhere.  It's harder to get jobs, too, with a Felony conviction for lying to the Feds on your record.

The P60 is an end-of-tax-year certificate of pension payments and tax deductions provided by UK pension providers, who, in turn, have obtained the relevant info from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) – the UK equivalent of the US IRS. In theory, therefore, it should be a routine matter for the Embassy to verify its authenticity merely by tapping out a few numbers on a secure computer link with their HMRC colleagues back in the UK. But, oh no, the Embassy claim that, because of the requirements of the Europe-wide General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which came into force last May, they are prevented from sharing what they consider in this instance to be personal information even with others in Her Majesty’s Government like HMRC!

 

In this connection, it might be interesting to note that, out of all the European embassies in Bangkok, only the Brits and Danes appear to have felt sufficiently constrained by the requirements of the GDPR as to justify, in their eyes, the withdrawal of their income confirmation services. And I gather that the Danes have now reinstated their service.

 

In any case, I seriously wonder whether any of the European embassies who have retained (or, in the Danes’ case, reinstated) their income confirmation services have, in fact, made any changes at all to their procedures and practices. On the basis that the Immigration Bureau were aware of the risk of this possibility arising, why didn’t they completely scrap the Embassy option for everybody in January?
 

[JackThompson]

22 minutes ago, OJAS said:

In this connection, it might be interesting to note that, out of all the European embassies in Bangkok, only the Brits and Danes appear to have felt sufficiently constrained by the requirements of the GDPR as to justify, in their eyes, the withdrawal of their income confirmation services. And I gather that the Danes have now reinstated their service.

 

In any case, I seriously wonder whether any of the European embassies who have retained (or, in the Danes’ case, reinstated) their income confirmation services have, in fact, made any changes at all to their procedures and practices. On the basis that the Immigration Bureau were aware of the risk of this possibility arising, why didn’t they completely scrap the Embassy option for everybody in January?

Immigration reversed-course and went back to "certification" language vs the "verification" demand, but only after it resulted in the letters being stopped by the 4. 

All 4 should re-start their service - at most adding a step of certifying documents (via sworn statement - not "verification" - as the US Embassy does in other countries now), vs an "affidavit" absent any documents.  But, even now, I think the French (maybe others) still just use the affidavit method?  If it works for them, it should work for all.