Non IMM OA Visa renewal - Income letter vs 800K deposit

[farangkrab]

I got my Non IMM O-A in the States last year and will renew in Bangkok this year. 
 

At the time I liked the idea of not having to move some funds to another account to satisfy the income requirement. I read that the income letter for the renewal needs to be certified from the embassy and that the US embassy is no longer doing this. Is this the case?
 

I’m thinking at this point to just keep 800K in an account at my Thai bank. Easiest option?

[Tanoshi]

14 minutes ago, farangkrab said:

I got my Non IMM O-A in the States last year and will renew in Bangkok this year. 

No you won't.

You can only obtain a new Non O-A Visa from a Thai Embassy where you have permanent residency.

You cannot obtain it within Thailand.

What you can do is apply for a 1 year extension of your permission of stay granted when you entered on your O-A Visa at CW using form TM7.

 

14 minutes ago, farangkrab said:

At the time I liked the idea of not having to move some funds to another account to satisfy the income requirement. I read that the income letter for the renewal needs to be certified from the embassy and that the US embassy is no longer doing this. Is this the case?

Correct, the US Embassy no longer issues Income support letters.

 

14 minutes ago, farangkrab said:

I’m thinking at this point to just keep 800K in an account at my Thai bank. Easiest option?

 

It must be in your Thai bank account for at least 2 months prior to the date of submitting your application to temporarily extend your permission of stay in Thailand.

You'll also need the required 400/40K Health Insurance to apply.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Tanoshi

[wwest5829]

You use the method best for your interests. I can only relate what I have done as a fellow American when I retired here with an O-A visa issued by the Royal Thal Consulate in Chicago. in 2011. I have chosen to use the monthly income method, reasoning that my funds are invested and earning me income. Thus, I find the idea of selling investments, paying the tax and "parking" 800,000 baht in a Thai bank as not meeting my best interest. I use the 65,000 baht a month income method. My Social Security ($1320.00 a month) is deposited in my US bank account (Fidelity). Each month, I transfer about $2300.00 USD from my US account, matching my SS with funds from savings via Wise. Upon applying for the annual Extension of Stay, I submit the record of my monthly deposits into my Bangkok Bank Account and have had no issues with having my Extension of stays renewed annually.

[skatewash]

1 hour ago, wwest5829 said:

You use the method best for your interests. I can only relate what I have done as a fellow American when I retired here with an O-A visa issued by the Royal Thal Consulate in Chicago. in 2011. I have chosen to use the monthly income method, reasoning that my funds are invested and earning me income. Thus, I find the idea of selling investments, paying the tax and "parking" 800,000 baht in a Thai bank as not meeting my best interest. I use the 65,000 baht a month income method. My Social Security ($1320.00 a month) is deposited in my US bank account (Fidelity). Each month, I transfer about $2300.00 USD from my US account, matching my SS with funds from savings via Wise. Upon applying for the annual Extension of Stay, I submit the record of my monthly deposits into my Bangkok Bank Account and have had no issues with having my Extension of stays renewed annually.

The first time you applied for your retirement extension using the monthly method how many months of deposits did you have to show?  At which office?

[wwest5829]

1 hour ago, skatewash said:

The first time you applied for your retirement extension using the monthly method how many months of deposits did you have to show?  At which office?

I am in Chiang Mai. I entered in 2011 and got two years on the original Via as I was able to exit and re-enter extending the original Visa for an additional year. Every year since I was able to show 12 months of monthly 65K coming in each month from outside Thailand.

[skatewash]

22 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

I am in Chiang Mai. I entered in 2011 and got two years on the original Via as I was able to exit and re-enter extending the original Visa for an additional year. Every year since I was able to show 12 months of monthly 65K coming in each month from outside Thailand.

When they started enforcing mandatory balances over the entire year for the lump sum in the bank (800,000) method I investigated what it would take to transition from that method to the monthly deposit method.  My understanding at the time was that I would have to keep the lump sum in the bank for 12 months to fulfil my obligation for my previous retirement extension and simultaneously start depositing in excess of 65,000 baht per month into my bank account in order to qualify for my new extension.

The desirability of the monthly deposit method of course is that your money need not be tied up in a bank account for the whole year and that you can spend the monthly deposits as you wish during the year.

The reason I didn't pursue that transition was the concern that I would be asked to demonstrate that the funds were coming from a pension.  Which i cannot do as I don't receive a pension and am too young to receive social security.  So, while I can certainly deposit 65,000 baht/month indefinitely that money comes from my savings not a pension.

So, that's a long explanation for why I was asking about your experience.  It sounds like your experience was doing the monthly deposits during the first year(s) you were in Thailand on a year's permission to stay based on a Non-OA visa entry.  And you used that time to make the 12 monthly deposits necessary to qualify for the retirement extension using the monthly deposit method.  That is, you never had to transition from one method (lump sum deposit) to another (monthly deposit).  Maybe someone else has that experience.  Did you ever need to demonstrate that the monthly deposits were from a pension?  Or was that issue never raised as long as the 12 monthly deposits were made as required?

[Tanoshi]

32 minutes ago, skatewash said:

It sounds like your experience was doing the monthly deposits during the first year(s) you were in Thailand on a year's permission to stay based on a Non-OA visa entry.  And you used that time to make the 12 monthly deposits necessary to qualify for the retirement extension using the monthly deposit method. 

Bare in mind that until 2019, Thai Immigration only accepted the proof of income method by means of an Embassy Income letter. Only the 800K was accepted in a Thai bank account.

 

That changed only when the UK, US and Australian Embassies stopped issuing the Income support letters and Immigration amended orders accepting income to be proved my means of overseas monthly transfers into a Thai bank account.

 

I think more probable is that @wwest5829was already transferring the 65K per month prior to the change in Income requirements, so it didn't really affect him, he was already in compliance.

It did affect a lot of other foreigners who previously used the Embassy Income letters and could just transfer what they wanted, when they wanted and now finding the Income letters no longer available were forced between either depositing 800K in a Thai bank, start transferring 65K per month from overseas, change to extensions based on marriage, or find an alternative solution.

I daresay some were forced to leave.

[wwest5829]

45 minutes ago, skatewash said:

When they started enforcing mandatory balances over the entire year for the lump sum in the bank (800,000) method I investigated what it would take to transition from that method to the monthly deposit method.  My understanding at the time was that I would have to keep the lump sum in the bank for 12 months to fulfil my obligation for my previous retirement extension and simultaneously start depositing in excess of 65,000 baht per month into my bank account in order to qualify for my new extension.

The desirability of the monthly deposit method of course is that your money need not be tied up in a bank account for the whole year and that you can spend the monthly deposits as you wish during the year.

The reason I didn't pursue that transition was the concern that I would be asked to demonstrate that the funds were coming from a pension.  Which i cannot do as I don't receive a pension and am too young to receive social security.  So, while I can certainly deposit 65,000 baht/month indefinitely that money comes from my savings not a pension.

So, that's a long explanation for why I was asking about your experience.  It sounds like your experience was doing the monthly deposits during the first year(s) you were in Thailand on a year's permission to stay based on a Non-OA visa entry.  And you used that time to make the 12 monthly deposits necessary to qualify for the retirement extension using the monthly deposit method.  That is, you never had to transition from one method (lump sum deposit) to another (monthly deposit).  Maybe someone else has that experience.  Did you ever need to demonstrate that the monthly deposits were from a pension?  Or was that issue never raised as long as the 12 monthly deposits were made as required?

No requirement was ever raised here in Chiang Mai that the funds came from any pension (I do not receive any pension). Keep in mind that I was able to use the Consulate letter up until the US Embassy stopped issuing the required guarantee of income. I have had no experience in transitioning from one method to another. While I have not needed to try and get around any immigration requirements, I have used an agency from the beginning reasoning that they keep up with any changes in the local immigration office requirements. 

[wwest5829]

7 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Bare in mind that until 2019, Thai Immigration only accepted the proof of income method by means of an Embassy Income letter. Only the 800K was accepted in a Thai bank account.

 

That changed only when the UK, US and Australian Embassies stopped issuing the Income support letters and Immigration amended orders accepting income to be proved my means of overseas monthly transfers into a Thai bank account.

 

I think more probable is that @wwest5829was already transferring the 65K per month prior to the change in Income requirements, so it didn't really affect him, he was already in compliance.

It did affect a lot of other foreigners who previously used the Embassy Income letters and could just transfer what they wanted, when they wanted and now finding the Income letters no longer available were forced between either depositing 800K in a Thai bank, start transferring 65K per month from overseas, change to extensions based on marriage, or find an alternative solution.

I daresay some were forced to leave.

True, as I already was transferring the required 65k per month into my Thai bank, there was no issue with providing the bank statements confirming. The change in getting the Ebassy letter caused issues for those who had not been transferring the required amount or not having the 800K deposit.

[skatewash]

5 minutes ago, wwest5829 said:

No requirement was ever raised here in Chiang Mai that the funds came from any pension (I do not receive any pension). Keep in mind that I was able to use the Consulate letter up until the US Embassy stopped issuing the required guarantee of income. I have had no experience in transitioning from one method to another. While I have not needed to try and get around any immigration requirements, I have used an agency from the beginning reasoning that they keep up with any changes in the local immigration office requirements. 

Thanks for your response and also Tanoshi's.  I had forgot how relatively recent the demise of the embassy letter was. 

[farangkrab]

Thank you all for the initial reply and comments on the responses. All very helpful. 

[DrJack54]

11 hours ago, skatewash said:

.  Did you ever need to demonstrate that the monthly deposits were from a pension?

This is potentially a problem for some folk.

It seems that some imm offices are obsessed with the word 'pension' and wanting to see some evidence that the income is from a Pension.

 

[skatewash]

4 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

This is potentially a problem for some folk.

It seems that some imm offices are obsessed with the word 'pension' and wanting to see some evidence that the income is from a Pension.

 

Yeah, I just don't want to go through all the hassle of bringing 65,000 baht every month into Thailand for 12 months, while maintaining 800,000 baht in a Thai bank, just to have immigration say show evidence of a pension.  I understand having a pension is more or less a guaranteed income for life, but I imagine if someone can bring 65,000 a month for 12 months while leaving 800,000 in a Thai bank account, they're reasonably financially secure.  However, I sincerely doubt that would cut any ice with immigration.  So I leave the 800,000 alone secure (to the extent that anything is secure in Thailand) in the knowledge that I'll have no problem getting a retirement extension as usual. 

It's not a problem exactly, but it is suboptimal.  If I knew I wouldn't have any problems (in the sense I know I won't have any problems with the lump sum) I would do the monthly deposit rather than the lump sum deposit as it would give me more control over my money.  As it is I just accept the 800,000 deposit as the cost of having an otherwise drama-free stay in Thailand. ????

[KhunBENQ]

On 6/1/2021 at 3:42 PM, farangkrab said:

I’m thinking at this point to just keep 800K in an account at my Thai bank. Easiest option?

Absolutely yes. Put it on the Thai account in time.

And as written you are doing an extension based on retirement.

And you need that useless health insurance.

There is plenty of advice on the forum how to get it as cheap as possible (pro forma).

I paid 7600 Baht last year (age 63). I will likely escape the trap and do extension based on marriage this year.

[DrJack54]

19 minutes ago, skatewash said:

As it is I just accept the 800,000 deposit as the cost of having an otherwise drama-free stay in Thailand

I do exactly that. 

Call it a 'living in Thailand tax'

[DrJack54]

11 minutes ago, KhunBENQ said:

And you need that useless health insurance.

When borders are open again (without quarantine) next trip out don't obtain reentry permit thereby killing off your non O-A. Enter visa exempt and obtain non O at immigration. Then no need for useless Thai insurance. 

Yes bit of mucking about but worth it.

[KhunBENQ]

39 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

When borders are open again (without quarantine)

I was naive enough to hope for that last year ????

I have only 4.5 months to wait and with the news here and in the region I am not too optimistic.

Edited June 3, 2021 by KhunBENQ

[DrJack54]

1 minute ago, KhunBENQ said:

I was naive enough to hope for that last year ????

I have only 4.5 months to wait for that and with the news here and in the region I am not too optimistic.

Your right, will be more that 4.5 months imo. 

 

[Tanoshi]

1 hour ago, skatewash said:

Yeah, I just don't want to go through all the hassle of bringing 65,000 baht every month into Thailand for 12 months, while maintaining 800,000 baht in a Thai bank, just to have immigration say show evidence of a pension.

Your right to be cautious.

 

Acceptable income is defined as being from a retirement pension, interest or dividends.

The one defining criteria is you must be 50 years of age.

Who at 50 years of age, with a minority of exceptions, will be in receipt of some kind of pension. In fact in most Countries the lower age limit even for private/company pension is 55 before one can receive it. Who can provide proof of receiving 65K per month from interest or dividends and would Immigration even know what that proof would look like?

 

For the majority of expats an Embassy Income letter is sufficient.

If you can show your Embassy the equivalent of 800K in a bank account, they'll issue a letter stating you meet the monthly requirements. (800K divide 12 = 66,666 per month). Hell, they don't ask where it came from.

 

For the US, UK and Australian nationals, proof of income is as per pension, interest or dividends with evidence of the source sometimes requested. They much prefer these nationalities use the 400/880K Funds in the bank method, simply because it makes their life easier.

Why they couldn't have included 'investments', which I'd argue Savings are an 'investment' for future life, early retirement, is beyond my logic, or rather perhaps beyond theirs.