180 day in country rules

[kurtcap]

Hi pleases can anyone advise more on the 180 day stay in country rules on tourist visa/visa exempt etc? Is it calendar year or just every 12 months generally? TIA

[ubonjoe]

There is no written 180 day rule.

It is just a made up rule used by some immigration officers that say it when denying entry under section 12 of the immigration act.

[FritsSikkink]

There is no rule but after 180 days (calendar year) in a country you become a tax resident.

[ubonjoe]

35 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

There is no rule but after 180 days (calendar year) in a country you become a tax resident.

I am sure you are aware as well as I do that is relevant for a entry to the country or anything else you do at immigration.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

I am sure you are aware as well as I do that is relevant for a entry to the country or anything else you do at immigration.

It is absolutely relevant to the current unofficial, and previously official, 180 day rules.

[elviajero]

2 hours ago, kurtcap said:

Hi pleases can anyone advise more on the 180 day stay in country rules on tourist visa/visa exempt etc? Is it calendar year or just every 12 months generally? TIA

It’s an unofficial line in the sand, and any action by the IO is at their discretion should you cross it.

 

It doesn’t reset in Jan. They will look at your past history over the last 12 months and beyond.

[ubonjoe]

2 minutes ago, elviajero said:

It is absolutely relevant to the current unofficial, and previously official, 180 day rules.

How?

There has never been a 180 day rule as far as I know. There was at one time a limit of 90 days in 6 months rule for visa exempt entries but it was rescinded in 2008.

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

How?

There has never been a 180 day rule as far as I know. There was at one time a limit of 90 days in 6 months rule for visa exempt entries but it was rescinded in 2008.

The rescinded rule limited someone to a total of 180 days in a year. 2 x 90 days.

 

The current flag for VE entries is set at 6. 30 days x 6 = 180.

[steve187]

15 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The rescinded rule limited someone to a total of 180 days in a year. 2 x 90 days.

 

The current flag for VE entries is set at 6. 30 days x 6 = 180.

can i see the flag

[elviajero]

9 minutes ago, steve187 said:

can i see the flag

It’s been discussed and reported in many times over the last 4-5 years since it’s implementation.

 

 

[ubonjoe]

50 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The rescinded rule limited someone to a total of 180 days in a year. 2 x 90 days.

The current flag for VE entries is set at 6. 30 days x 6 = 180.

That is real stretch to justify what you wrote.

Nothing in the police order limiting them to 90 days in 6 months mentioned anything about a year.

The 6 entry flag could be for years not just a year.

 

[elviajero]

6 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

That is real stretch to justify what you wrote.

Nothing in the police order limiting them to 90 days in 6 months mentioned anything about a year.

The 6 entry flag could be for years not just a year.

 

It wasn’t a “police order”, and it didn’t need to specify the fact, because — under the regulation — the maximum you could stay in any 360 day period was 180 days. That is an indisputable fact.

 

Yes the VE flag counts entries over all time. It’s then up to the IO to check the records to see how much time was spent in the country over the last year or so. It’s just a flag (guide) to alert the possibility the visitor is mis-using VE to live/work in the country.

[ubonjoe]

9 minutes ago, elviajero said:

It wasn’t a “police order”, and it didn’t need to specify the fact, because — under the regulation — the maximum you could stay in any 360 day period was 180 days. That is an indisputable fact.

It was Police Order 608/249 dated September 8, 2006.

A person could of stayed a lot more than 180 days in a year by reaching the 90 days and then getting a tourist visa and staying for 90 days and some people did exactly that.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

It was Police Order 608/249 dated September 8, 2006.

A person could of stayed a lot more than 180 days in a year by reaching the 90 days and then getting a tourist visa and staying for 90 days and some people did exactly that.

The Ministerial Regulation was announced via a police order.
 

We are/were discussing VE entry limits. You are now deflecting. You could not stay more than 180 days in 360 entering under VE. Fact. And the current flag system reflects that same limit.

 

And if they ever set limits for VE/TR entry in the future it will be, IMO, 180 days. The fact that immigration use 180 days is not random, it’s because you are considered resident after 180 days.

[BritTim]

12 minutes ago, elviajero said:

The Ministerial Regulation was announced via a police order.
 

We are/were discussing VE entry limits. You are now deflecting. You could not stay more than 180 days in 360 entering under VE. Fact. And the current flag system reflects that same limit.

 

And if they ever set limits for VE/TR entry in the future it will be, IMO, 180 days. The fact that immigration use 180 days is not random, it’s because you are considered resident after 180 days.

Although discussing rules rescinded 13 years ago makes little sense, what @ubonjoe has posted is 100% correct, and you are trying to justify misleading statements.

 

While the limitations on visa exempt entry were in effect in 2006, you could not just stay longer than 90 days in any six month period, whether or not it was less than 180 days for the year. Further the OP was asking about the current limitation on all tourist entries (whether with a visa or without). You may believe you changed the subject when you stated that there was once a 180-day rule. There never was, and there certainly was never an official limit on duration for those with visas.

[Matzzon]

@elviajero and @ubonjoe

I do not see the need for any continued dispute. All of this is so simple. It started with the talk of that @FritsSikkink posted that: 

9 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

There is no rule but after 180 days (calendar year) in a country you become a tax resident.

 

The simple fact is that there is a powerful connection between the use of the "unofficial rule" that they do not like people on tourist visas and visa expempt entry to stay more than 180 days per year. That is the fact of that you will be considered as a tax resident for the calendar year it regards.

With that said they will not like to combine a visitor that goes under the name tourist with the same person that is considered to be a tax resident in the country.

No country will look at a scenario like that and agree with it. For me that should be filed under the section common sense.

[BritTim]

8 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

The simple fact is that there is a powerful connection between the use of the "unofficial rule" that they do not like people on tourist visas and visa expempt entry to stay more than 180 days per year. That is the fact of that you will be considered as a tax resident for the calendar year it regards.

I do not believe that Immigration takes any notice of tax rules when deciding whether to deny entry to someone trying to enter as a tourist. Some senior immigration officials seem to have decided that staying more than half the year in Thailand means that Thailand is your main residence, not somewhere you are coming to visit. So far, quite a reasonable opinion. They then go further in deciding that they will impose a limitation (not enshrined in Thai immigration law) to stop people staying long periods in Thailand using tourist visas. That is an abuse of their authority.

[elviajero]

25 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Although discussing rules rescinded 13 years ago makes little sense, what @ubonjoe has posted is 100% correct, and you are trying to justify misleading statements.

 

While the limitations on visa exempt entry were in effect in 2006, you could not just stay longer than 90 days in any six month period, whether or not it was less than 180 days for the year. Further the OP was asking about the current limitation on all tourist entries (whether with a visa or without). You may believe you changed the subject when you stated that there was once a 180-day rule. There never was, and there certainly was never an official limit on duration for those with visas.

Give me a break!!!! If the “police order“ limits a stay of 90/180 it follows that you can only stay 180/360.

 

There are two 6 month periods in 1 year. You could stay any 90 days in each 6 month period. That equates to a maximum stay of 180 days in 360.

 

[fishtank]

7 hours ago, elviajero said:

It is absolutely relevant to the current unofficial, and previously official, 180 day rules.

It is not relevant.

[DrJack54]

33 minutes ago, BritTim said:

Although discussing rules rescinded 13 years ago makes little sense, what @ubonjoe has posted is 100% correct, and you are trying to justify misleading statements.

 

While the limitations on visa exempt entry were in effect in 2006, you could not just stay longer than 90 days in any six month period, whether or not it was less than 180 days for the year. Further the OP was asking about the current limitation on all tourist entries (whether with a visa or without). You may believe you changed the subject when you stated that there was once a 180-day rule. There never was, and there certainly was never an official limit on duration for those with visas.

As usual BritTim, very positive post. Think most members bit tired of point scoring distracting threads.

Ubonjoe is our main go to man and snipes from folk trying to score points, frankly embarrassing. Just to tack on end I have thanked ubon and others including yourself for such positive advice throughout 2019. Enjoy our eggnogs tomorrow. 

 

[EricTh]

8 hours ago, elviajero said:

It’s an unofficial line in the sand, and any action by the IO is at their discretion should you cross it.

 

It doesn’t reset in Jan. They will look at your past history over the last 12 months and beyond.

I think you are right. There are official and unofficial rules.

 

The immigration officer has the discretion to forbid someone to enter a country if the purpose of entering Thailand is not the same as the type of visa you are using.

 

To stay long-term in Thailand on a tourist visa or visa-free (based on reason of being a tourist) is a no-no.

 

If one can stay long-term on tourist visa, it is pointless applying for retirement or marriage visas for most people with all the strict financial requirements.

Edited December 24, 2019 by EricTh

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, BritTim said:

I do not believe that Immigration takes any notice of tax rules when deciding whether to deny entry to someone trying to enter as a tourist.

Okay, so it’s just a coincidence that 180 days has been used by immigration in the past and been repeatedly quoted for years.

[Tounge Thaied]

It's been expressed, and is my understanding, 3 VISA exempt entries per 6 months for a total of 6 per year. Any immigration officer is going to begin to scrutinize your entries when you approach these two thresholds correct?

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, Tounge Thaied said:

It's been expressed, and is my understanding, 3 VISA exempt entries per 6 months for a total of 6 per year. Any immigration officer is going to begin to scrutinize your entries when you approach these two thresholds correct?

First, it very much depends on where you are entering Thailand. If you have little previous history of tourist visits to Thailand, you will almost certainly be able to get two back-to-back visa exempt entries by air (both extended) followed immediately by two back-to-back visa exempt entries by land (both extended) for a total of about eight months unbroken. On the other hand, if you have already spent six months unbroken in Thailand using tourist visas, you might be denied entry on a first visa exempt entry by air, and (if the first is extended) almost certainly face denial at most airports on a further back-to-back visa exempt entry by air.

 

If maxing your time on visa exempt entries, it is highly unlikely that you would be able to get six visa exempt entries by air in a 12 month period. If using frequent visa exempt entries, immigration on entry will look at your total time in country, together with other factors. The decision on whether to treat you as a tourist will vary greatly depending on the airport used, and to some extent on the individual official. There are no hard and fast rules, only relative risks.

[Matzzon]

7 hours ago, BritTim said:

staying more than half the year in Thailand means that Thailand is your main residence, not somewhere you are coming to visit.

Yes, and that is right! Also something that is more cemented by the fact the you are seen as a tax resident if residng more than 180 days per year in the country. I still beg you to use common sense, that would clearly state that a person that is tax resident can never be seen as a tourist in a country. Therefore that person shall not be able to live in that country on a visa hat states the person is a tourist. Everything diviating from that reasonable fact must be seen as a lack of understanding the system.
 

7 hours ago, BritTim said:

They then go further in deciding that they will impose a limitation (not enshrined in Thai immigration law) to stop people staying long periods in Thailand using tourist visas. That is an abuse of their authority.

Why would that be an abuse of their authority. Who´s authority do they stand under. Due to that a person who is tax resident, and at the same time never can be seen as a tourist in a country, then they are not  abusing their authority. They are actually following the law and interpret the same in the right way for once.

[jacko45k]

9 hours ago, elviajero said:

Give me a break!!!! If the “police order“ limits a stay of 90/180 it follows that you can only stay 180/360.

 

There are two 6 month periods in 1 year. You could stay any 90 days in each 6 month period. That equates to a maximum stay of 180 days in 360.

 

Surely that really depends on the timing of all the arrivals and departures....  and intended duration of stays.

Anyhow, it would just be nice to know, if there is a rule being applied, exactly what is it!

[ubonjoe]

7 hours ago, Tounge Thaied said:

It's been expressed, and is my understanding, 3 VISA exempt entries per 6 months for a total of 6 per year. Any immigration officer is going to begin to scrutinize your entries when you approach these two thresholds correct?

There is no such rule. There was never a limit on the number of entries you could do.

Back when there was a 90 days in 6 months rule the 90 days could of been from many entries less 30 than days each. For example that could of been ten 9 day entries.

[ubonjoe]

7 hours ago, elviajero said:

Okay, so it’s just a coincidence that 180 days has been used by immigration in the past and been repeatedly quoted for years.

Actually the long rescinded police order for it said 6 months.

From a side by side comparison of the of the two orders here. visa exemp tPO 778-2551_en.pdf

 

Six months can be more or less than 180 days.

 

 

[mngmn]

Wow! So glad I came here for some clarification on the visa rules in Thailand. Much clearer now.

[BritTim]

3 hours ago, Matzzon said:

11 hours ago, BritTim said:

They then go further in deciding that they will impose a limitation (not enshrined in Thai immigration law) to stop people staying long periods in Thailand using tourist visas. That is an abuse of their authority.

Why would that be an abuse of their authority. Who´s authority do they stand under. Due to that a person who is tax resident, and at the same time never can be seen as a tourist in a country, then they are not  abusing their authority. They are actually following the law and interpret the same in the right way for once.

They are supposed to follow Thai law. Under the Immigration Act, officials are only supposed to deny entry if those arriving satisfy one of the reasons for denial specified in Section 12 of the Immigration Act (or according to orders issued by the Minister). The Act specifically makes clear that only the Minister has discretion to deny entry for arbitrary reasons. This is different from the immigration laws of most countries which is why many people assume immigration officials have more power by law than is the reality.