Norwegian Embassy in Bangkok: New income documentation requirements

[Joebuzzz]

1 hour ago, statman78 said:

I have a Thai wife so everything goes to her.  I decided on the retirement extension instead of the marriage extension.  Less work every year.  Also, there is very little money in my account.  Since I transfer the required amount every month we can spend it.  We’ve been buying rental properties and land so that when I pass away my wife will have a source of income.  No need to keep the 800k in the bank.

Well that's good for you.  However, that's why I added the last word ..... "Seriously".  I was hoping someone could tell me EXACTLY how my family would go about getting my million baht back.  Seriously.

[ChicagoExpat]

2 hours ago, Joebuzzz said:

Fine. Use your taxes on illegal aliens.  Chicagostan loves them. The embassy doesn't do squat. Just the minimum to qualify for their tax paid paychecks.

Again, screwed up priorities.  The point is -- not to spend YOUR time and money on this, and not to waste the Embassy's time on this.  I've seen that this embassy and the others I've been in contact with do so much for U.S. citizens that I know you, like all of us, are just a crabby old man determined to spread your bile.  Not perfect, and not always as much as we'd like, but for sure not what you say.

 

What this comes down to is you and the other guy constantly arguing that you want to spend more time and money on this process, and you deeply resent the Embassy making it better.  Thank God you guys aren't calling the shots.

Edited September 13, 2023 by ChicagoExpat
typo

[NanLaew]

On 9/2/2023 at 8:17 AM, OJAS said:

Well, at least the Norwegian Embassy are still providing an income confirmation service for their expats, in stark contrast to their American, Australian and British counterparts! Makes me seriously wonder why that particular trio of embassies were unable to come up with similar documentary requirements, instead of merely hoisting the white flag of surrender by throwing their arms up in the air and pulling the plug.

 

Argued and explained over four years ago.

 

Do try and keep up.

[KannikaP]

On 9/4/2023 at 10:14 AM, Hummin said:

And do you pay tax to Thailand, or do you solely transfer founds more than one year old?

The funds which I transfer every month, via Wise, are my UK State Pension and income from some private pensions from the late 1990s. None of it earned this year.

[Hummin]

1 hour ago, KannikaP said:

The funds which I transfer every month, via Wise, are my UK State Pension and income from some private pensions from the late 1990s. None of it earned this year.

I thought you had to pay tax in Thiland if you stay more than 180 days a year out of everything you transfer of salary, pension, or social security? 

 

Someone know the exact rules? I am still paying tax to Norway solely, and only transfer founds from my bank account more than one year old.

[KannikaP]

12 minutes ago, Hummin said:

I thought you had to pay tax in Thiland if you stay more than 180 days a year out of everything you transfer of salary, pension, or social security? 

 

Someone know the exact rules? I am still paying tax to Norway solely, and only transfer founds from my bank account more than one year old.

How would anyone ( Imm O) know whether the cash you transfer this month was put in your bank this month or last year?

Edited September 13, 2023 by KannikaP

[Hummin]

2 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

How would anyone ( Imm O) know whether the cash you transfer this month was put in your bank this month or last year?

That's true, but another question. 

 

If I pay Tax to Thailand, I will be refunded the tax I paid to Norway of my income I transfer, and deliver proof of tax paid in Thailand. Can save 150k a year if I do, but I prefer to still have my social security back in Norway in case of deleted happens. 

[Felt 35]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

I thought you had to pay tax in Thiland if you stay more than 180 days a year out of everything you transfer of salary, pension, or social security? 

 

Someone know the exact rules? I am still paying tax to Norway solely, and only transfer founds from my bank account more than one year old.

Following a link from my retired and emigrated Norwegian neighbor https://www.rd.go.th/fileadmin/download/nation/Norwegian_answer.pdf

[KannikaP]

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

That's true, but another question. 

 

If I pay Tax to Thailand, I will be refunded the tax I paid to Norway of my income I transfer, and deliver proof of tax paid in Thailand. Can save 150k a year if I do, but I prefer to still have my social security back in Norway in case of deleted happens. 

Sorry, no idea. I get my UK State pension, plus a small one from Norway for the time I worked there as a musician. I am below the tax threshold for UK, and as for Thai tax......................none existent.

[sqwakvfr]

6 hours ago, Liquorice said:

Firstly, most Government state pensions come nowhere near meeting the financial requirement of 65K per month.
The current UK state pension equates to the equivalent of 39,338 baht per month.
The shortfall comes from private or company pensions in order to meet the financial requirements.

 

'Verification' does not mean production of pension documents, but authenticating the information given on such documents.
Only your individual pension provider can verify your income, and that information is restricted due to Data Protection Acts.
Your pension provider will only deal with you as the recipient of the pension, after providing security details already on file to confirm your identity.
Only by providing a form of 'authorisation' to grant another 'named person' (not organisation), will your pension provider provide information or deal with that other named person.

Not in my case.  My pension is much higher than 65K Baht.  My pension agency answers external inquiries as long as I authorized the confirmation of my income to a specific inquiry.  Also, I am not British. 

[JimGant]

3 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Argued and explained over four years ago.

Indeed. The US understood that Thailand wanted absolute verification of income (doable thru State Dept apostilles or authentication certificates, but not practical, given the nature of finances being verified, plus Embassy/Consulate resources). Other countries interpreted the Thai request as "reasonable effort certification of income." And had minimum problem going that route.

 

The US was probably happy to get out of this sham, knowing that many (most?) income statements they were annually issuing were bogus. Thus, perfectly happy to no longer issue fraudulent income statements, as the Thais requested. But knowing legitimate US retirees had the resources to meet the Thai requirement for monthly cash flow to Thailand, or money balance kept in a Thai bank.

 

I certainly can't fault the Thai gov't for trying to eliminate faulty income statements from foreign embassies. But, actually, the Thai gov't should have eliminated all income statements, in lieu of having all foreign residents showing a positive cash flow into Thailand of sustainable resources, either periodically or lump sum in a bank account.

 

But, hats off to Norway, and similar others, that took the "reasonable effort certification of income" route. Sure, some extra resources required -- but it does give its citizens of character a additional option over cash flow to Thailand, periodically or in lump sum.

 

 

[Hummin]

37 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Indeed. The US understood that Thailand wanted absolute verification of income (doable thru State Dept apostilles or authentication certificates, but not practical, given the nature of finances being verified, plus Embassy/Consulate resources). Other countries interpreted the Thai request as "reasonable effort certification of income." And had minimum problem going that route.

 

The US was probably happy to get out of this sham, knowing that many (most?) income statements they were annually issuing were bogus. Thus, perfectly happy to no longer issue fraudulent income statements, as the Thais requested. But knowing legitimate US retirees had the resources to meet the Thai requirement for monthly cash flow to Thailand, or money balance kept in a Thai bank.

 

I certainly can't fault the Thai gov't for trying to eliminate faulty income statements from foreign embassies. But, actually, the Thai gov't should have eliminated all income statements, in lieu of having all foreign residents showing a positive cash flow into Thailand of sustainable resources, either periodically or lump sum in a bank account.

 

But, hats off to Norway, and similar others, that took the "reasonable effort certification of income" route. Sure, some extra resources required -- but it does give its citizens of character a additional option over cash flow to Thailand, periodically or in lump sum.

 

 

Everything about officiall income is through one database in Norway, which is connected to tax, social security and pentions founds, so we only need a print out of the yearly tax documents. 

[Liquorice]

16 hours ago, Hummin said:

Everything about officiall income is through one database in Norway, which is connected to tax, social security and pentions founds, so we only need a print out of the yearly tax documents. 

You miss the point.

Immigration were requesting 'validation' of such documents, rather than them being taken at face value, to eliminate forgery.
The UK Embassy had suspected for some time that Immigration assumed all Embassies 'authenticated' submitted documents, when in fact all Embassies were merely 'certifying' their letters, as per Immigration Orders.

 

During the course of several meetings over several months between the UK, US and Australian Embassies with Thai Immigration, it became apparent that the Thais didn't understand the difference between 'certified' and 'verified' and the almost impossible task of verifying documents due to Data Protection laws.
The 3 Embassies became frustrated with Thai Immigration and thus elected to withdraw the service of issuing 'Income letters' under the false pretence that all submitted documents of income had been 'verified'.

 

This action took Thai Immigration by surprise and as a result they were forced to introduce a new Immigration Order amending Order 138/2557, allowing proof of income for extension applications via monthly overseas transfers to a Thai bank account as an alternative to Embassy Income letters.
What surprised everyone was that the amended order, when Immigration had the opportunity to change the requirement to 'verified' income, chose instead to stick with the term 'certified' Embassy Income letters.
Had they requested 'verified' incomes in the amended order, then all Embassies would have ceased the service.
As it is, most Embassies continue the service by complying with the requirement to 'certify' their Income letters.

 

I know for fact that Thai Immigration expected the UK, US and Australian Embassies to resume their service after publication of the new order, but after months of negotiations, and frustrations with Thai Immigration, planning redeployment of staff months in advance, that wasn't about to happen.

 

Thai Immigration shot themselves in the foot, and the 3 Embassies want nothing more to do with Thai Immigration.

[BritTim]

41 minutes ago, Liquorice said:

Thai Immigration shot themselves in the foot, and the 3 Embassies want nothing more to do with Thai Immigration.

That is one interpretation. Another is that it forces retirees of those countries to bring post-tax income of 65,000 baht a month into Thailand rather than just show a pre-tax income of this amount averaged over the year, and allowing some of this income to be used in home country. This was a way of increasing the income requirement or forcing people to use money in the bank or agents. The Thai authorities probably do not regard this as a bad thing.

[Liquorice]

21 hours ago, BritTim said:

Another is that it forces retirees of those countries to bring post-tax income of 65,000 baht a month into Thailand rather than just show a pre-tax income of this amount averaged over the year, and allowing some of this income to be used in home country. This was a way of increasing the income requirement or forcing people to use money in the bank or agents.

That was the result of cessation of Income letters.
It's no different from using the 400/800K funds method, where the funds come from savings after post tax.

 

21 hours ago, BritTim said:

The Thai authorities probably do not regard this as a bad thing.

Immigration loath going through statements to confirm 12 monthly overseas transfers, against an Embassy Income letter.

It's caused them unnecessary work (their words, not mine).
Heavens, they've had to educate themselves how to use a calculator since!

[Joebuzzz]

On 9/13/2023 at 11:18 AM, ChicagoExpat said:

Again, screwed up priorities.  The point is -- not to spend YOUR time and money on this, and not to waste the Embassy's time on this.  I've seen that this embassy and the others I've been in contact with do so much for U.S. citizens that I know you, like all of us, are just a crabby old man determined to spread your bile.  Not perfect, and not always as much as we'd like, but for sure not what you say.

 

What this comes down to is you and the other guy constantly arguing that you want to spend more time and money on this process, and you deeply resent the Embassy making it better.  Thank God you guys aren't calling the shots.

Who's the crybaby?  Thousands of us wouldn't have to deposit $20,000+ if OUR embassy worked for us.  They're lazy. Typical tax payed government employees.

[ChicagoExpat]

On 9/22/2023 at 2:12 PM, Joebuzzz said:

Who's the crybaby?  Thousands of us wouldn't have to deposit $20,000+ if OUR embassy worked for us.  They're lazy. Typical tax payed government employees.

Who mentioned crybabies?  It's incredible that 4 years later, people are still whining that they want fake income verifications from the Embassy.  Time to move on, Joe.

[OJAS]

On 9/13/2023 at 12:19 PM, NanLaew said:

Argued and explained over four years ago.

 

Do try and keep up.

What a pathetic response.

 

[OJAS]

On 9/14/2023 at 10:35 AM, Liquorice said:

You miss the point.

Immigration were requesting 'validation' of such documents, rather than them being taken at face value, to eliminate forgery.
The UK Embassy had suspected for some time that Immigration assumed all Embassies 'authenticated' submitted documents, when in fact all Embassies were merely 'certifying' their letters, as per Immigration Orders.

 

During the course of several meetings over several months between the UK, US and Australian Embassies with Thai Immigration, it became apparent that the Thais didn't understand the difference between 'certified' and 'verified' and the almost impossible task of verifying documents due to Data Protection laws.
The 3 Embassies became frustrated with Thai Immigration and thus elected to withdraw the service of issuing 'Income letters' under the false pretence that all submitted documents of income had been 'verified'.

 

This action took Thai Immigration by surprise and as a result they were forced to introduce a new Immigration Order amending Order 138/2557, allowing proof of income for extension applications via monthly overseas transfers to a Thai bank account as an alternative to Embassy Income letters.
What surprised everyone was that the amended order, when Immigration had the opportunity to change the requirement to 'verified' income, chose instead to stick with the term 'certified' Embassy Income letters.
Had they requested 'verified' incomes in the amended order, then all Embassies would have ceased the service.
As it is, most Embassies continue the service by complying with the requirement to 'certify' their Income letters.

 

I know for fact that Thai Immigration expected the UK, US and Australian Embassies to resume their service after publication of the new order, but after months of negotiations, and frustrations with Thai Immigration, planning redeployment of staff months in advance, that wasn't about to happen.

 

Thai Immigration shot themselves in the foot, and the 3 Embassies want nothing more to do with Thai Immigration.

So how come that 76 of the 79 foreign embassies in Bangkok are still able to provide income confirmation services to their nationals, presumably in full compliance with Immigration Bureau requirements, then?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_in_Thailand

 

[Liquorice]

7 hours ago, OJAS said:

So how come that 76 of the 79 foreign embassies in Bangkok are still able to provide income confirmation services to their nationals, presumably in full compliance with Immigration Bureau requirements, then?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_diplomatic_missions_in_Thailand

 

Why did the UK, US and Aus.odt 

[Joebuzzz]

On 9/22/2023 at 2:12 PM, Joebuzzz said:

Who's the crybaby?  Thousands of us wouldn't have to deposit $20,000+ if OUR embassy worked for us.  They're lazy. Typical tax payed government employees.

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by Joebuzzz
Wrong reply location.

[Joebuzzz]

On 10/3/2023 at 11:59 AM, ChicagoExpat said:

Who mentioned crybabies?  It's incredible that 4 years later, people are still whining that they want fake income verifications from the Embassy.  Time to move on, Joe.

Guess you didn't understand my point.  Again ........  The US Embassy, IS, The United States Government.  The Social Security Administration IS the United States Government.  How is it that the State Department, that runs the EMBASSIES,  can't seem to verify SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS ONLY?  They can find anything they want to know on the planet, accept for maybe Joe Bidens MILLION$ hidden in his offshore accounts.  I'll tell you why they won't do it ............ They're LAZY.  That comes from paychecks for doing little to nothing every day of their lives. Move on?  I'd did.  I'm here with no plans to go back to the dem run pathetic country I left.

AND .....

Why is it the US Embassy was happy to take $50 a head to NOTARIZE possibly fake submitted income letters and now that they can actually VERIFY Social Security Benefits legitimately ...... it won't?  Ah, too much work.

Edited October 5, 2023 by Joebuzzz

[brianthainess]

On 9/2/2023 at 8:04 AM, giddyup said:

The Aussies were just signing a stat dec re income, no proof needed. Obviously that was being exploited by some and saved  the expense of using an agent to circumvent the requirements.

Plus they were stamping off a stat Dec without any proof of income which could be a legal hurdle to said embassies.

[giddyup]

3 minutes ago, brianthainess said:

Plus they were stamping off a stat Dec without any proof of income which could be a legal hurdle to said embassies.

I thought I said that.

[brianthainess]

On 9/3/2023 at 5:08 PM, sqwakvfr said:

Ok.  You got me. Spelling error.  I did not realize you were the grammar and spelling enforcement officer on this forum?   

Most of us do, any chance to criticize and he'll be there.

[brianthainess]

8 minutes ago, giddyup said:

I thought I said that.

Well you didn't mention the legal side of it for the embassies, it could even lead to fraud charges to them. IMO 

[ChaiyaTH]

On 9/13/2023 at 11:18 AM, ChicagoExpat said:

Again, screwed up priorities.  The point is -- not to spend YOUR time and money on this, and not to waste the Embassy's time on this.  I've seen that this embassy and the others I've been in contact with do so much for U.S. citizens that I know you, like all of us, are just a crabby old man determined to spread your bile.  Not perfect, and not always as much as we'd like, but for sure not what you say.

 

What this comes down to is you and the other guy constantly arguing that you want to spend more time and money on this process, and you deeply resent the Embassy making it better.  Thank God you guys aren't calling the shots.

I don't think you need to thank god for that, it's not like any USA president was any good for the world, since so many decades. Anyway, I am not even an American but I know you are entirely wrong.

 

They can easily request this information and they would not need access for that themselves. They might just not want to do that, because it likely will take time, to request it, get the result, and then hand it out.

 

The fact that thailand sucks with papers, sure, does that mean America is smart with their action? Not at all, it stops helping Americans with what they need and Thailand is not going to change for America. Perhaps that is your thinking mistake, to think everyone listens to USA.

 

Anyway, I thought this topic was about Norwegian embassy.

Edited October 5, 2023 by ChaiyaTH

[Sheryl]

On 9/13/2023 at 2:36 PM, Hummin said:

I thought you had to pay tax in Thiland if you stay more than 180 days a year out of everything you transfer of salary, pension, or social security? 

 

Someone know the exact rules? I am still paying tax to Norway solely, and only transfer founds from my bank account more than one year old.

Until recently you only had to to pay tax if money was brought into Thailand in the same year it was earned.

 

This has now changed.

 

That aside almost every country has a Double Taxation Agreement with Thailand and you need to read the terms of yours as each one varies. You will certainly be protected against double taxation but whether you should be taxed in Norway or Thailand (and on which income) will vary.

 

Some Norwegians have mentioned preferring to be nonresident for tax purposes in n orway and paying in Thailand instead as taxes are lower here.

 

 

[Sheryl]

13 minutes ago, ChaiyaTH said:

 I am not even an American but I know you are entirely wrong.

 

They can easily request this information and they would not need access for that themselves. They might just not want to do that, because it likely will take time, to request it, get the result, and then hand it out.

 

 

If by "they" you mean the Embassy, no they cannot easily request and access this information. Social Security records  and tax records for example are not  available to them...in contrast to many European countries were Embassies can directly access State Pension rosters.

 

Asking people to bring bring copues of such records with them raises the problem of authenticity as these could be photoshopped and there is no way for Embassy to authenticate.

 

That is not to say there is no way to solve this but it would be complex  and time consuming to do.  What they could (and IMO should do) is outsource this to a private firm which charges for the service. Eben then private firm would face challenges in authenticating what is shown them.

 

 

[Sheryl]

On 9/13/2023 at 5:31 PM, Hummin said:

Everything about officiall income is through one database in Norway, which is connected to tax, social security and pentions founds, so we only need a print out of the yearly tax documents. 

And presumably the Embassy can validate it (as print outs can be altered).

 

Not the case for the US.  These are all completely separate databases with very restricted  access. In addition, since US provides far less generous benefits to its senior citizens, most people's retirement income comes at least in part from private sources.