Statement by UbonJoe caught my eye

[oobar]

A recent statement by UbonJoe caught my eye.  If I remember correctly, he said to the effect that for those already on retirement extension from previous years, the 400/800k baht banked does not have to come from outside Thailand.  Carrying that a step further, would the same apply for retirees using the 65k monthly method?  For instance, would receiving 65k monthly from a Thai (such as Tisco) provident fund be likewise acceptable?

[glegolo]

Hoping that is not for work, because that is forbidden when on retirement extension

 

glegolo

[richiejom]

I can't answer that but at a guess probably I would say 'no' ...you know what its like they want to see we're bringing in money 

 

sorry if this is a dumb question but does the original 400K based on marriage have to show FFT code?  If I do it I will use Transferwise but I don't like to rush so biding my time. Its probably in the TW threads but I'm looking at other options

Edited July 4, 2019 by richiejom

[oobar]

UbonJoe?

[ubonjoe]

It would be accepted with proof it was earned legally and taxes were paid on the income.

[oobar]

7 minutes ago, glegolo said:

Hoping that is not for work, because that is forbidden when on retirement extension

 

glegolo

It's a Provident Fund -- the same as a retirement fund for work in years past. 

[ubonjoe]

1 hour ago, richiejom said:

sorry if this is a dumb question but does the 400K based on marriage have to show FFT code?

You do not have to prove the 400k baht in the bank came from outside the country.

Only needed if using the 40k baht income option.

[oobar]

5 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

It would be accepted with proof it was earned legally and taxes were paid on the income.

What would proof entail? 

[allane]

My situation was not exactly the same as the OP's, but perhaps close enough. In 2010, having already worked here for 15 years, I decided to retire here. I walked into Immigration with all the necessary documents including a bank book showing B 800,000 on deposit for more than two months. They looked at me as if I was some kind of criminal. I had to return the next day. I provided them with copies of my income tax returns for the previous 5 yrs. This was enough to satisfy them that I could have saved the B 800,000 from my Thai employment, and I got my "retirement visa".

[ubonjoe]

46 minutes ago, oobar said:

What would proof entail? 

For the funds that went into fund it would be proof you were working with a work permit.

The something from the fund confirming the source of it was is form them.

Tax returns to prove taxes were being paid.

[sandrabbit]

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

You do not have to prove the 400k baht in the bank came from outside the country.

Only needed if using the 40k baht income option.

That might be the official status but we had a home visit from immigration when I renewed my marriage extension in February, my wife explained in Thai that we had a small resort which I had paid to be built but when he switched back to English to ask where my money came from he told me that the whole point of the marriage visa was that I was supposed to support my wife. 

[ubonjoe]

10 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

That might be the official status but we had a home visit from immigration when I renewed my marriage extension in February, my wife explained in Thai that we had a small resort which I had paid to be built but when he switched back to English to ask where my money came from he told me that the whole point of the marriage visa was that I was supposed to support my wife. 

Actually the 400k baht is to support yourself as well.

It is assumed the wife can contribute to what the family needs to a live on.

Best to tell your wife to never to mention anything about another source of money.

[oobar]

My wife and I, both Americans, have been in Thailand for more than three decades -- on retirement extensions for the last six years.  Until now, we have used embassy affidavits for income verification and simply brought in lump sums from the States as needed to our joint bank account.  We are fortunate that we have productive assets in our home country so it is not a problem for us to meet the 800k or a combination of, say, 400k plus monthly social security.  As I understand it, we just now have to limit those transactions to an individual account (non-joint) of the one of us designated the primary retiree.  In the meantime, my wife has a very healthy Tisco retirement fund, accumulated from 25 years teaching at one of Thailand's premiere international schools.  Although we have already transferred 800k baht from the US well in advance of our next extension in February 2020, we don't much care for the requirement that a net sum must be maintained.  We would rather continue to bring money in and use it as we see fit (a yearly average always in excess of 100k baht per month -- more when we make a major purchase, such as a new car).  In the meantime, that retirement fund sits there essentially unused.  All taxes due have been paid to Thailand (and continue to be paid to the US IRS).

 

So now we are thinking we may like to do this:  Combine a monthly US social security deposit with a monthly Tisco deposit to my wife's bank account, sufficient to equal 65k or more, which I assume means we could then move any or all of that total amount monthly into our joint account to use as we see fit.  (Our individual accounts are not permitted atm cards.)

 

If this is doable, would it be necessary to establish a record of 12 months of these two combined deposits (which we can easily wait and do) before switching to this combined method for a future extension of stay?

 

Thanks for your entire history of generous help, UbonJoe.

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, oobar said:

For instance, would receiving 65k monthly from a Thai (such as Tisco) provident fund be likewise acceptable?

 

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

It would be accepted with proof it was earned legally and taxes were paid on the income.

In general, you should always accept @ubonjoe's advice over mine but, for what it is worth, I would not rely on immigration accepting anything other than proof of 65K every month transferred from abroad. Some offices might accept income from Thai investments, but I do not think the police order implies that the offices must accept Thai earned income (unless you are using an embassy income letter).

[oobar]

4 minutes ago, BritTim said:

In general, you should always accept @ubonjoe's advice over mine but, for what it is worth, I would not rely on immigration accepting anything other than proof of 65K every month transferred from abroad. Some offices might accept income from Thai investments, but I do not think the police order implies that the offices must accept Thai earned income (unless you are using an embassy income letter).

Yeah, this is what I need clarification on.  It's the thought that bothers me.

[ubonjoe]

15 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I would not rely on immigration accepting anything other than proof of 65K every month transferred from abroad. Some offices might accept income from Thai investments, but I do not think the police order implies that the offices must accept Thai earned income (unless you are using an embassy income letter).

The amended police order still states this.

But I do agree he needs to talk to his local immigration office about it.

[oobar]

29 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

The amended police order still states this.

But I do agree he needs to talk to his local immigration office about it.

Thanks again, Ubonjoe.  I'll take this bit of knowledge and go talk to them later this month -- and will report back.

[elviajero]

7 hours ago, oobar said:

A recent statement by UbonJoe caught my eye.  If I remember correctly, he said to the effect that for those already on retirement extension from previous years, the 400/800k baht banked does not have to come from outside Thailand.  Carrying that a step further, would the same apply for retirees using the 65k monthly method?  For instance, would receiving 65k monthly from a Thai (such as Tisco) provident fund be likewise acceptable?

No it wouldn’t be accepted for a retiree. Whether using 800K in the bank, or income, it should originate from outside of Thailand.

 

The only time they will allow any form of Thai income is if you’re the spouse or parent of a Thai on a relationship based extension, formally employed, and receiving a monthly income.

 

A few years ago I enquired about using income I receive as a shareholder of my Thai company’s and they said a definite no.

Edited July 4, 2019 by elviajero

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, elviajero said:

No it wouldn’t be accepted for a retiree. Whether using 800K in the bank, or income, it should originate from outside of Thailand.

 

The only time they will allow any form of Thai income is if you’re the spouse or parent of a Thai on a relationship based extension, formally employed, and receiving a monthly income.

 

A few years ago I enquired about using income I receive as a shareholder of my Thai company’s and they said a definite no.

I do not dispute your experience, but I would not assume they would take the same position at every immigration office. Indeed, I am surprised you had an issue at all as presumably you could have used a UK Embassy income letter at that time. As a general rule, when embassy income letters are available and are used, income from any source is acceptable, and can also be pretax income. For those who can no longer use the embassy letters, there does seem to be a trend towards insisting on monthly transfers from overseas, but that may well not be universal.

[elviajero]

31 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I do not dispute your experience, but I would not assume they would take the same position at every immigration office.

The only way such income could be accepted is with a waiver. Waivers are possible in practically every case but rarely used.

 

31 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Indeed, I am surprised you had an issue at all as presumably you could have used a UK Embassy income letter at that time.

I didn’t have an issue. I was asking a hypothetical question.

 

31 minutes ago, BritTim said:

As a general rule, when embassy income letters are available and are used, income from any source is acceptable, and can also be pretax income.

No it’s not. The embassy is supposed to be verifying income from the applicants home country. Immigration definitely wouldn’t accept an embassy letter specifying Thai based income.

 

It can’t be pretax income. People get away with using pretax income because the embassy letters simply don’t specify net or gross. The fact that immigration now want to see the full 65K reaching Thailand proves the fact.

 

31 minutes ago, BritTim said:

For those who can no longer use the embassy letters, there does seem to be a trend towards insisting on monthly transfers from overseas, but that may well not be universal.

It’s not a trend. It’s just the enforcement of the rules.

[oobar]

Of course, you may be absolutely correct, Elviajero, but can you show us where the rules state the pension must come from abroad?  All I find is what Ubonjoe provided, no such regulation defined.

[lamyai3]

7 hours ago, elviajero said:

Quote

For those who can no longer use the embassy letters, there does seem to be a trend towards insisting on monthly transfers from overseas, but that may well not be universal.

It’s not a trend. It’s just the enforcement of the rules.

It's a pretty selective enforcement of the "rules", since they stopped enforcing them once the purge got beyond the initial four embassies. Any comments as to why other nationalities have been given carte blanche to continue as in previous years? 

[overherebc]

18 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

You do not have to prove the 400k baht in the bank came from outside the country.

Only needed if using the 40k baht income option.

Tbe 40K income can be from working in Thailand.

[essox essox]

18 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

For the funds that went into fund it would be proof you were working with a work permit.

The something from the fund confirming the source of it was is form them.

Tax returns to prove taxes were being paid.

what has Tax return from ones country of originality got to do with Thailand.....generally all monies which one has here TAX will have been paid on it....

[ubonjoe]

29 minutes ago, essox essox said:

what has Tax return from ones country of originality got to do with Thailand.....generally all monies which one has here TAX will have been paid on it....

I did not write it was from his home country.

It would be proof of taxes being paid here on his income from the fund and from when he was working.

[essox essox]

1 minute ago, ubonjoe said:

I did not write it was from his home country.

It would be proof of taxes being paid here on his income from the fund and from when he was working.

ok it is too complicated for me.....

[Chazar]

19 hours ago, sandrabbit said:

he told me that the whole point of the marriage visa was that I was supposed to support my wife.

Its yet another crazy rule,i set  my  Wife up with a  business  years ago and she does  well at it I have no involvement and don't want any in it, I havent brought any money in for years  yet if they really questioned me about where my  money came from it  might be a  problem. I keep all my  money in the UK . just keep 400k in a  bank here although occasional;y bring some over.

[Mattd]

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

I did not write it was from his home country.

It would be proof of taxes being paid here on his income from the fund and from when he was working.

I would say this is exactly what they would want to see, if a person has been working in Thailand for a number of years and has amassed a sizable provident fund, then there must be the option for them to retire in Thailand.

They would even have a small Thai government pension due as well, if they have paid in to the SS fund for more than 15 years.

[elviajero]

21 hours ago, sandrabbit said:

That might be the official status but we had a home visit from immigration when I renewed my marriage extension in February, my wife explained in Thai that we had a small resort which I had paid to be built but when he switched back to English to ask where my money came from he told me that the whole point of the marriage visa was that I was supposed to support my wife. 

It has nothing to do with supporting your wife. You are given permission to stay to stay with your wife for 1 year, and you have to provide proof that you have enough cash in the bank or income to support yourself for that year. 

 

Permission to stay is granted based on relationship, not dependancy. You don’t need to be in the same country to financially support your family.

[elviajero]

5 hours ago, oobar said:

Of course, you may be absolutely correct, Elviajero, but can you show us where the rules state the pension must come from abroad?  All I find is what Ubonjoe provided, no such regulation defined.

If providing proof of income they want to see a bank statement showing transfers from abroad, or an embassy letter confirming the foreign income. You wouldn’t need either if they allowed Thai income, which they only do for family based permits.

 

If you apply for a non-immigrant visa in Thailand — as a prerequisite to an extension of stay — they want proof that the cash in the bank came from abroad. If you enter the country with a visa obtained abroad that don’t insist on proof as they expect the embassy/consulate to have seen proof of your foreign income/cash in the bank before issuing the visa.

 

The very nature of the stay permit is to provide temporary permission to stay for a foreign retiree. Things may well change as more and more expats, like myself, retire having lived for decades in the country, but for now only foreign income is accepted. It might be possible to get a regular Thai income accepted, but it would have to be signed of my an authorised senior office and the chances are slim. It would be an exception, not the rule.