Australian govt seems to be reviewing the tax residency rules

[4MyEgo]

7 hours ago, gearbox said:

The non resident would pay no tax, so 7.5k is to pocket if resident.

 

I have a question regarding the $7.5k to pocket you are referring to e.g. lets say one returns to Oz and is a resident and is working for a year, does that $7.5k credit amount reduce the taxable income earned by the whole $7.5k e.g. one earns $60,000, would they then say, ok, but we have $7.5k franking credits and reduce the taxable income to say $52,500 which would give them a tax refund of say $2,437.50 on the tax already paid, or would they get a straight $7.5k back ?

 

If it's similar to negative gearing, i.e. offsetting ones rental losses after interest from banks charged, then it's a claim on the difference and they deduct the expense from the tax paid, but not all of it is claimable, only a portion when calculating the tax rates.

[gearbox]

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

I have a question regarding the $7.5k to pocket you are referring to e.g. lets say one returns to Oz and is a resident and is working for a year, does that $7.5k credit amount reduce the taxable income earned by the whole $7.5k e.g. one earns $60,000, would they then say, ok, but we have $7.5k franking credits and reduce the taxable income to say $52,500 which would give them a tax refund of say $2,437.50 on the tax already paid, or would they get a straight $7.5k back ?

 

If it's similar to negative gearing, i.e. offsetting ones rental losses after interest from banks charged, then it's a claim on the difference and they deduct the expense from the tax paid, but not all of it is claimable, only a portion when calculating the tax rates.

Franking credits are tax offset, not tax deduction. For example you have 50000 taxable income and 10000 tax on that income. If you have 10000 franking credits your tax is zero. If you have 15000 franking credits you'll  get 5000 refund. So  tax payable on income - franking credits = tax to be paid.

[4MyEgo]

33 minutes ago, gearbox said:

Franking credits are tax offset, not tax deduction. For example you have 50000 taxable income and 10000 tax on that income. If you have 10000 franking credits your tax is zero. If you have 15000 franking credits you'll  get 5000 refund. So  tax payable on income - franking credits = tax to be paid.

 

I think I follow, however, if you have, as you say 10,000 franking credits and you already paid $10,000 to the taxman, wouldn't that be then claimed back on the $10,000 paid in tax already therefore rendering a tax refund and no tax payable in lieu of tax already paid ?

 

 

[gearbox]

2 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

I think I follow, however, if you have, as you say 10,000 franking credits and you already paid $10,000 to the taxman, wouldn't that be then claimed back on the $10,000 paid in tax already therefore rendering a tax refund and no tax payable in lieu of tax already paid ?

 

 

Nowadays if you provide the tax file number to your broker, the franking credits are prefilled in your online tax return and automatically deducted from the tax payable. So in the 10000 franking credits case above, they'll offset your 10000 tax to be paid, and you don't have to pay tax.

[4MyEgo]

13 hours ago, gearbox said:

Nowadays if you provide the tax file number to your broker, the franking credits are prefilled in your online tax return and automatically deducted from the tax payable. So in the 10000 franking credits case above, they'll offset your 10000 tax to be paid, and you don't have to pay tax.

 

I suppose if I return to apply for the age pension, then I will have to let the broker know that I am a resident again for tax purposes 🍻

[4MyEgo]

On 10/19/2023 at 1:22 PM, gearbox said:

Basically anyone who spends more than 45 days in Oz may be classified as a tax resident.

 

I just stumbled on these two articles, the 1st in June this year and the 2nd in August, if you haven't already read them, it's interesting to say the least, and looks like we might see the changes come into effect on 1 July 2024.

 

The 1st one is more clearer then the 2nd IMO.

 

https://kpmg.com/xx/en/home/insights/2023/06/flash-alert-2023-126.html

 

https://www.accountantsdaily.com.au/tax-compliance/18930-why-a-bright-line-residency-test-must-focus-on-certainty-equity#:~:text=Bright-line test,days in an income year.

 

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 10/28/2023 at 5:19 AM, 4MyEgo said:

 

I just stumbled on these two articles, the 1st in June this year and the 2nd in August, if you haven't already read them, it's interesting to say the least, and looks like we might see the changes come into effect on 1 July 2024.

 

The 1st one is more clearer then the 2nd IMO.

 

https://kpmg.com/xx/en/home/insights/2023/06/flash-alert-2023-126.html

 

https://www.accountantsdaily.com.au/tax-compliance/18930-why-a-bright-line-residency-test-must-focus-on-certainty-equity#:~:text=Bright-line test,days in an income year.

 

 

 

This guy, the head of InterRetire, says the 1st July 2024 also. 

 

This article is dated 21st September 2023.

 

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/australian-tax-residency-rule-changes-back-expats-dale-hoy#:~:text=The intent is to have,considered an Australian tax resident.

 

"The intent is to have new tax residency rules in place and effective from 1 July, 2024." 

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 10/27/2023 at 10:20 AM, 4MyEgo said:

If the new 45 day rule "returning" every 45 days within a 3 years period, then there is no requirement to challenge anything is there ?

That's 45 days every financial year, not every 3 years. 

 

See the link in the post above.

 

Here's the relevant section.

 

Here’s a breakdown for incoming tax residents

1️⃣ 183-Day Test: Spend 183 days or more in Australia during an income year, and you become a tax resident.

2️⃣ 45-Day Test: If you spent between 45-182 days in Australia during the financial year, keep going to the factor tests.

3️⃣ Factor Tests: Meeting two or more of these factors deems you an Australian tax resident from day one in Australia. These include citizenship, accommodation, family, and economic ties.

 

It reads to me you need to spend at least 45 days in Australia in a financial year, to proceed to the factor tests, and then meet any two of them.  Citizenship is easy.  Family would be the next easiest one to prove, but you don't get to the factor tests unless you do the 45 days in Australia every financial year.  

Edited November 1, 2023 by KhunHeineken

[gearbox]

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

That's 45 days every financial year, not every 3 years. 

 

See the link in the post above.

 

Here's the relevant section.

 

Here’s a breakdown for incoming tax residents

1️⃣ 183-Day Test: Spend 183 days or more in Australia during an income year, and you become a tax resident.

2️⃣ 45-Day Test: If you spent between 45-182 days in Australia during the financial year, keep going to the factor tests.

3️⃣ Factor Tests: Meeting two or more of these factors deems you an Australian tax resident from day one in Australia. These include citizenship, accommodation, family, and economic ties.

 

It reads to me you need to spend at least 45 days in Australia in a financial year, to proceed to the factor tests, and then meet any two of them.  Citizenship is easy.  Family would be the next easiest one to prove, but you don't get to the factor tests unless you do the 45 days in Australia every financial year.  

That's not quite right....quoting from the link 4MyEgo posted:

 

"For departing long-term residents the four factors will not need to be applied. Rather, it will be necessary to spend fewer then 45 days in Australia for this year and the previous two income years. This means that Australians moving overseas would need to be overseas for three years before they could change tax residency, unless they fell within the special foreign employment rule. This will make the process more difficult for some individuals and is likely to produce some inequitable outcomes, for example, business owners who will not be taking up external employment. "

 

To go non-resident you need to spend less than 45 days in the current financial year and the previous 2 financial years.

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, gearbox said:

That's not quite right....quoting from the link 4MyEgo posted:

 

"For departing long-term residents the four factors will not need to be applied. Rather, it will be necessary to spend fewer then 45 days in Australia for this year and the previous two income years. This means that Australians moving overseas would need to be overseas for three years before they could change tax residency, unless they fell within the special foreign employment rule. This will make the process more difficult for some individuals and is likely to produce some inequitable outcomes, for example, business owners who will not be taking up external employment. "

 

To go non-resident you need to spend less than 45 days in the current financial year and the previous 2 financial years.

 

I see your point.

 

There have been so many interpretations put forward by different organizations and professionals, and we have seen some differences in their interpretations through the many links posted from them. 

 

How many expats have been back to Australia in the past 3 years?  Aussie expats that are either self funded, on a part pension, or a full pension, these changes will have something for everyone, one way or another.  Then, you have to deal with Thailand taxing foreign income.  However, more information needs to be forthcoming on this, and the tax treaty. 

 

https://atlaswealth.com/au/news/thailand-to-begin-taxing-foreign-income-remitted-into-the-country-by-australian-expats/#:~:text=October 18%2C 2023-,Thailand to Begin Taxing Foreign Income Remitted into the Country,Thailand from 1 January 2024.

 

We will have to see the final legislation, and maybe some subsequent test cases in Court, before we all know where we stand within the new laws. 

 

One thing is for sure though, they will be passed, and they are not just for guys like Paul Hogan. 

Edited November 1, 2023 by KhunHeineken

[4MyEgo]

13 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

I see your point.

 

There have been so many interpretations put forward by different organizations and professionals, and we have seen some differences in their interpretations through the many links posted from them. 

 

How many expats have been back to Australia in the past 3 years?  Aussie expats that are either self funded, on a part pension, or a full pension, these changes will have something for everyone, one way or another.  Then, you have to deal with Thailand taxing foreign income.  However, more information needs to be forthcoming on this, and the tax treaty. 

 

https://atlaswealth.com/au/news/thailand-to-begin-taxing-foreign-income-remitted-into-the-country-by-australian-expats/#:~:text=October 18%2C 2023-,Thailand to Begin Taxing Foreign Income Remitted into the Country,Thailand from 1 January 2024.

 

We will have to see the final legislation, and maybe some subsequent test cases in Court, before we all know where we stand within the new laws. 

 

One thing is for sure though, they will be passed, and they are not just for guys like Paul Hogan. 

 

I have a question after reading the link you provided, what do you make of this, in particular the word "tax resident", to me generally speaking, the meaning of the word "tax resident" ordinarily means someone who is working or paying tax in the country, in this instance (Thailand), e.g. a school teacher, or a farang working in and office earning a salary and paying tax in Thailand that is also earning an income from abroad and remitting it into Thailand.

 

Be interesting to hear anyone's thoughts on this, if I think it refers to as mentioned above, I believe those of us that do not pay tax here in Thailand, because we do not work in Thailand, cannot be deemed "tax residents" for tax purposes in Thailand, because as I said, we are not deriving an income from Thailand.

 

The new interpretation stipulates that a tax resident of Thailand who is deriving income from assets located abroad and subsequently brings that income into Thailand in any tax year, has a duty to include that income in calculating income tax under Section 48 of the Revenue Code in the tax year in which the assessable income is brought into Thailand.

 

They might have us on the below as the word changes to residents and 180 days in any tax calendar year.

 

But what happens when we have already paid tax on the money we are bring into Thailand, they can't have two bites of the cherry, or can they ?

 

Residents are defined as persons residing in Thailand at one or more times for an aggregate period of 180 days or more in any tax (calendar) year.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by 4MyEgo

[gearbox]

23 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

I have a question after reading the link you provided, what do you make of this, in particular the word "tax resident", to me generally speaking, the meaning of the word "tax resident" ordinarily means someone who is working or paying tax in the country, in this instance (Thailand), e.g. a school teacher, or a farang working in and office earning a salary and paying tax in Thailand that is also earning an income from abroad and remitting it into Thailand.

 

Be interesting to hear anyone's thoughts on this, if I think it refers to as mentioned above, I believe those of us that do not pay tax here in Thailand, because we do not work in Thailand, cannot be deemed "tax residents" for tax purposes in Thailand, because as I said, we are not deriving an income from Thailand.

 

The new interpretation stipulates that a tax resident of Thailand who is deriving income from assets located abroad and subsequently brings that income into Thailand in any tax year, has a duty to include that income in calculating income tax under Section 48 of the Revenue Code in the tax year in which the assessable income is brought into Thailand.

 

They might have us on the below as the word changes to residents and 180 days in any tax calendar year.

 

But what happens when we have already paid tax on the money we are bring into Thailand, they can't have two bites of the cherry, or can they ?

 

Residents are defined as persons residing in Thailand at one or more times for an aggregate period of 180 days or more in any tax (calendar) year.

 

 

 

 

According to the law you are tax resident of Thailand if you stay more than 180 days in "tax year" in the country. AFAIK the Thai tax year is the calendar year, the Oz tax year ends at 30th June.

 

So what is tax resident? Simply put it is someone required to file tax return and maybe pay tax, although Oz doesn't require filing even if you are resident in specific circumstances, e.g you are way below the tax free threshold etc.

 

Depending on legislation you can be a tax resident of more than one country.

 

Also depending on the legislation the tax may need to be paid on income not derived in the "taxing" country, see for example how Spain and soon Portugal is taxing residents and retirees.

 

In short, clear as mud, it depends on the individuals where they want to be taxed and adjust their circumstances and moves. All governments want to grab your money, that's the first rule.

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

I have a question after reading the link you provided, what do you make of this, in particular the word "tax resident", to me generally speaking, the meaning of the word "tax resident" ordinarily means someone who is working or paying tax in the country, in this instance (Thailand), e.g. a school teacher, or a farang working in and office earning a salary and paying tax in Thailand that is also earning an income from abroad and remitting it into Thailand.

 

Be interesting to hear anyone's thoughts on this, if I think it refers to as mentioned above, I believe those of us that do not pay tax here in Thailand, because we do not work in Thailand, cannot be deemed "tax residents" for tax purposes in Thailand, because as I said, we are not deriving an income from Thailand.

 

The new interpretation stipulates that a tax resident of Thailand who is deriving income from assets located abroad and subsequently brings that income into Thailand in any tax year, has a duty to include that income in calculating income tax under Section 48 of the Revenue Code in the tax year in which the assessable income is brought into Thailand.

 

They might have us on the below as the word changes to residents and 180 days in any tax calendar year.

 

But what happens when we have already paid tax on the money we are bring into Thailand, they can't have two bites of the cherry, or can they ?

 

Residents are defined as persons residing in Thailand at one or more times for an aggregate period of 180 days or more in any tax (calendar) year.

 

 

 

 

 

Firstly, a resident for taxation purposes is different to physical residency.  

 

I am a tax resident of Australia, but haven't been back for some time.  This is due to the loopholes in the current 90 year old laws based around "domicile" and "intention."  I personally know many guys slipping through the non resident tax net for the same reasons.  We have always been expecting the party to end, alas, that time appears to be near. 

 

As I posted before, the only way I can see maintaining tax residency of Australia each year, is to do 183 days, or,  45 days and meet two criteria of the factor test, which is easy, but you have to do your 45 days.

 

There is some discussion that the 45 days may only be needed every 3 years.  We will have to see.  

 

In relation to Thailand, we will have to look at the tax treaty, but Thailand is looking at taxing remitted funds, not income earned inside Thailand.  Remitted funds basically means any money transferred into Thailand, including pensions.   

 

A way around this maybe to stop sending money from Australia to your Thai bank account, and pulling the money out in Thailand with your Aussie ATM card.  Yes, costly in fees, but maybe cheaper than Thai tax.  Or, sending the money to the Thai wife's account, or having her set up a Thai bank account for you, in her name, in which you have full access.  I would only consider these for a month to month thing, not to hold any substantial amount of money.  I haven't really looked into this new Thailand policy as yet. 

 

Interesting times ahead. 

 

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by KhunHeineken

[KhunHeineken]

57 minutes ago, gearbox said:

All governments want to grab your money, that's the first rule.

 

Well, I'm glad we have progressed from they only want to grab Paul Hogan's money. 

[KhunHeineken]

Here's Thailand's tax brackets.  Never needed to Google for them in the past. 

 

https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/thailand/individual/taxes-on-personal-income

 

Say you are on the full single rate aged pension of about $1000AUD per fortnight.  That's around 600,000 baht.  The Thai tax rate on 600,000 baht, as per the above link from PWC is 15%. 

 

15% of 600,000 baht is 90,000 or 7,500 baht per month in Thai tax. 

[sirineou]

On 10/19/2023 at 9:51 AM, hotandsticky said:

Even though it is posted in the  Australia & Oceania Topics and Events section?

Why an article about the Australian government's reaction to the Thai scheme to  tax foreign income could not be posted in the Australia & Oceania Topics and Events section ?

[hotandsticky]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Why an article about the Australian government's reaction to the Thai scheme to  tax foreign income could not be posted in the Australia & Oceania Topics and Events section ?

 

 

Jesus!  Dragging up a post from 2 weeks ago.....that makes you sad!

 

 

Now go back and read the post that I was replying  -  surely you understood the comment..........................obviously not!

 

 

  On 10/19/2023 at 9:49 AM, Moonlover said:

It would be helpful if the topic title indicated that is was referring to Australia!

 

 

 

I said:-

 

 

Even though it is posted in the  Australia & Oceania Topics and Events section?

[KhunHeineken]

35 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

Firstly, a resident for taxation purposes is different to physical residency.  

 

I am a tax resident of Australia, but haven't been back for some time.  This is due to the loopholes in the current 90 year old laws based around "domicile" and "intention."  I personally know many guys slipping through the non resident tax net for the same reasons.  We have always been expecting the party to end, alas, that time appears to be near. 

 

As I posted before, the only way I can see maintaining tax residency of Australia each year, is to do 183 days, or,  45 days and meet two criteria of the factor test, which is easy, but you have to do your 45 days.

 

There is some discussion that the 45 days may only be needed every 3 years.  We will have to see.  

 

In relation to Thailand, we will have to look at the tax treaty, but Thailand is looking at taxing remitted funds, not income earned inside Thailand.  Remitted funds basically means any money transferred into Thailand, including pensions.   

 

A way around this maybe to stop sending money from Australia to your Thai bank account, and pulling the money out in Thailand with your Aussie ATM card.  Yes, costly in fees, but maybe cheaper than Thai tax.  Or, sending the money to the Thai wife's account, or having her set up a Thai bank account for you, in her name, in which you have full access.  I would only consider these for a month to month thing, not to hold any substantial amount of money.  I haven't really looked into this new Thailand policy as yet. 

 

Interesting times ahead. 

 

 

 

I forgot to mention, one issue on the 45 days is a lot of expats working abroad have lobbied the government to make them change the 45 days to a longer period, this is because they do not want to be a tax resident of Australia.  Examples were given of a school teacher returning for their holidays, then needing to return for a sick family member or a funeral, which puts them over the 45 days.  

 

The problem for retired expats may mean spending more than 45 days back in Australia.  I have posted a link showing the current Labor government were considering changing this part of the proposed laws.

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

Jesus!  Dragging up a post from 2 weeks ago.....that makes you sad!

 

 

Now go back and read the post that I was replying  -  surely you understood the comment..........................obviously not!

 

 

  On 10/19/2023 at 9:49 AM, Moonlover said:

It would be helpful if the topic title indicated that is was referring to Australia!

 

 

 

I said:-

 

 

Even though it is posted in the  Australia & Oceania Topics and Events section?

I don't think that makes me sad at all. But your response makes me a bit sad. 

I understand what you are saying or what you said.  but your response was to "Thailand was once LoS = Land of Smiles. Today, under this government , you have to translate it = Land of Stupids. " 

and even though I don't agree with that statement , from the title I can see how one might mistake the article as the Australian's response to the Thai goverment scheme to tax foreign income, in fact when I initially seen it I thought the same . And if it was it could be posted in the Australian subforum. 

[hotandsticky]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I don't think that makes me sad at all. But your response makes me a bit sad. 

I understand what you are saying or what you said.  but your response was to "Thailand was once LoS = Land of Smiles. Today, under this government , you have to translate it = Land of Stupids. " 

and even though I don't agree with that statement , from the title I can see how one might mistake the article as the Australian's response to the Thai goverment scheme to tax foreign income, in fact when I initially seen it I thought the same . And if it was it could be posted in the Australian subforum. 

 

 

DOH!

 

It was posted in the Australian sub-forum!

[Tom A Hawk]

On 10/28/2023 at 5:19 AM, 4MyEgo said:

 

I just stumbled on these two articles, the 1st in June this year and the 2nd in August, if you haven't already read them, it's interesting to say the least, and looks like we might see the changes come into effect on 1 July 2024.

 

The 1st one is more clearer then the 2nd IMO.

 

https://kpmg.com/xx/en/home/insights/2023/06/flash-alert-2023-126.html

 

https://www.accountantsdaily.com.au/tax-compliance/18930-why-a-bright-line-residency-test-must-focus-on-certainty-equity#:~:text=Bright-line test,days in an income year.

 

 

 

I can qualify for the secondary tests, but I really don't want to go back to Australia for 45 days.  I can stay with my kids for a while, maybe some airbnb for a while, and do a little domestic travel, but 45 days in Australia is a PITA, and now you have to worry about being in Thailand for more than 6 months because it looks like they are going to tax you here in the future. 

[4MyEgo]

4 hours ago, Tom A Hawk said:

I can qualify for the secondary tests, but I really don't want to go back to Australia for 45 days.  I can stay with my kids for a while, maybe some airbnb for a while, and do a little domestic travel, but 45 days in Australia is a PITA, and now you have to worry about being in Thailand for more than 6 months because it looks like they are going to tax you here in the future. 

 

I wouldn't worry about either until we hear that they have been passed both into legislation (law).

 

Now from my workings, if you are deemed a non resident for tax purposes, and they tax your pension, once you register for SAPTO, you can reduce your tax payable by about about $120 per week off the tax payable on your pension, suffice to say if you are all good as a single and get your pension made portable, then you will end up with about 45,500 baht per month after tax and SAPTO, end of story.

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/Beneficiary-tax-offset-and-seniors-and-pensioner-tax-offset-calculator/

 

Now to go back for 45 days to retain your residency for $120 a week, you have to work out the cost of remaining there for 45 days, flight tickets, taxi's hotels, food etc, in other words hardly worth it, so being a non resident for tax purposes won't be that bad, albeit there is someone a particular person on here scaremongering people, he doesn't do the math or offer alternatives if they ever came to fruition, like SAPTO which reduces your tax liability and you don't have to be a resident to qualify.

 

Now if Thailand does bring in this remittance regulation, i.e. if it's passed, then they can't tax you if you have already paid tax on your pension now can they as there is a tax treaty with Australia.

 

I believe the word is SLAMDUNK 

Edited November 14, 2023 by 4MyEgo

[KhunHeineken]

On 11/14/2023 at 10:07 AM, 4MyEgo said:

 

I wouldn't worry about either until we hear that they have been passed both into legislation (law).

 

Now from my workings, if you are deemed a non resident for tax purposes, and they tax your pension, once you register for SAPTO, you can reduce your tax payable by about about $120 per week off the tax payable on your pension, suffice to say if you are all good as a single and get your pension made portable, then you will end up with about 45,500 baht per month after tax and SAPTO, end of story.

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/Calculators-and-tools/Beneficiary-tax-offset-and-seniors-and-pensioner-tax-offset-calculator/

 

Now to go back for 45 days to retain your residency for $120 a week, you have to work out the cost of remaining there for 45 days, flight tickets, taxi's hotels, food etc, in other words hardly worth it, so being a non resident for tax purposes won't be that bad, albeit there is someone a particular person on here scaremongering people, he doesn't do the math or offer alternatives if they ever came to fruition, like SAPTO which reduces your tax liability and you don't have to be a resident to qualify.

 

Now if Thailand does bring in this remittance regulation, i.e. if it's passed, then they can't tax you if you have already paid tax on your pension now can they as there is a tax treaty with Australia.

 

I believe the word is SLAMDUNK 

I can see you are having another dig at me, yet, aren't you scaremongering when you say, and by your own calculations, pensioners MAY lose $240 per fortnight?

 

Why is it when you say it, and back it up with calculations, it's fine, but when I simply alert members to the proposed changes, and their possible impact on pensioners, it's "scaremongering?"  Ahhhh, the hypocrisy. 

 

As for the "SLAMDUNK" the only slam dunk I see is from either the Australian government, the Thai government, or both.     

 

 

[4MyEgo]

8 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I can see you are having another dig at me, yet, aren't you scaremongering when you say, and by your own calculations, pensioners MAY lose $240 per fortnight?

 

Why is it when you say it, and back it up with calculations, it's fine, but when I simply alert members to the proposed changes, and their possible impact on pensioners, it's "scaremongering?"  Ahhhh, the hypocrisy. 

 

As for the "SLAMDUNK" the only slam dunk I see is from either the Australian government, the Thai government, or both.     

 

 

 

It's obvious to me that you didn't digest what I said in my post, i.e. worst case scenario is $120 a week, taxed in Australia, on the pension after SAPTO is taken into consideration, in other words you end up with around 45,500 baht a month.

 

If Australia does go down this path, you won't pay tax in Thailand die to the DTA, now if Thailand does bring in the new taxing of remitted funds into play, which won't be targeting pensioners IMO, but lets say they do, and Australia doesn't go down the path they are proposing, again, you will still receive about 45,500 baht a month.

 

Scaremongering, lol, this is just looking at both sides of the coins, but what about the 3rd side of the coin, did you consider that ?

 

At the end of the day, nothing has happened thus far, so go back to enjoying life and always expect the unexpected, but if it doesn't happen, then just keep living, no point in sitting at a keyboard worrying about this or that, and when it does happen, if it does happen, you know what will transpire and how many pennies you will still e getting in hand as opposed to growing more grey hair from all your doom and gloom posted here trying to prove a point that has no relevance at this point in time and if and when it does go your way, (highly unlikely) IMO, no one will pat you on the back, so move on, life's to short for trying to prove points that no one wants to know about.

 

Your a stickler for punishment, like I said, get away from the keyboard and live a little.

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 12/7/2023 at 12:22 AM, 4MyEgo said:

 

It's obvious to me that you didn't digest what I said in my post, i.e. worst case scenario is $120 a week, taxed in Australia, on the pension after SAPTO is taken into consideration, in other words you end up with around 45,500 baht a month.

 

If Australia does go down this path, you won't pay tax in Thailand die to the DTA, now if Thailand does bring in the new taxing of remitted funds into play, which won't be targeting pensioners IMO, but lets say they do, and Australia doesn't go down the path they are proposing, again, you will still receive about 45,500 baht a month.

 

Scaremongering, lol, this is just looking at both sides of the coins, but what about the 3rd side of the coin, did you consider that ?

 

At the end of the day, nothing has happened thus far, so go back to enjoying life and always expect the unexpected, but if it doesn't happen, then just keep living, no point in sitting at a keyboard worrying about this or that, and when it does happen, if it does happen, you know what will transpire and how many pennies you will still e getting in hand as opposed to growing more grey hair from all your doom and gloom posted here trying to prove a point that has no relevance at this point in time and if and when it does go your way, (highly unlikely) IMO, no one will pat you on the back, so move on, life's to short for trying to prove points that no one wants to know about.

 

Your a stickler for punishment, like I said, get away from the keyboard and live a little.

 

 

Any suggestions for the pensioners that need to show 65,000 baht coming in each month? 

 

Yes, we all continue to live.  Nothing has changed at this point. 

 

You are the one that posted the calculations.  You would have done the maths to see where you stand with it.  Is that not informing one's self, and planing for the scenario? 

 

Some still think the proposed changes are only for guys like Paul Hogan, and the tax free threshold exists for non residents for taxation purposes. 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

I stumbles across this while researching something else - recalled this thread and decided to grab the link and send it.

ATO ID 2003/154 | Legal database

Note all the legal and legislative precedents.  About the same thing applies to the Age Pension. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 12/26/2023 at 3:31 AM, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I stumbles across this while researching something else - recalled this thread and decided to grab the link and send it.

ATO ID 2003/154 | Legal database

Note all the legal and legislative precedents.  About the same thing applies to the Age Pension. 

I note the decision was in 2003.  Over 20 years ago.  Whilst it's positive news, is the information in your link still relevant?