Australian OAP Taxation Issues.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

2 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

You know, every now and again another dipstick comes along, albeit it the last one put his tail under his legs and hasn't surfaced since I shamed him, that said, I don't have the time to argue with thick headed people who believe what they believe, I know from the research that I have provided also in another topic Australian Age Pensions which was started 10 + years ago, that all of the links and confirmations from others as well, points to Australian Age Pensions being taxable in Thailand.

You have come out of nowhere and are trying to stir up the hornets nest as did someone else, and to be honest, I am not buying into it as I have more important things to do earning a buck then to try and convince some Troubled Grumpy guy who thinks he knows everything, no thanks.

I'm out of here, maybe the others can entertain you, but if you did read the 3rd post in this topic, it should have gotten through, maybe your name is something other than what it says who has come back to start up again.  

Good riddance - we are all far better off on this topic sharing our opinions.  I have met a few dipsticks in my time and what is very much a constant with them is that they immediately abuse anyone that dares disagree or criticise what they state - and they never defend their stated position.

  

[TroubleandGrumpy]

1 hour ago, CharlesHolzhauer said:

It's essential to focus on your personal situation and not be swayed by opinionated individuals citing hearsay on remitting procedures by other nationalities. If your investment products are placed in an Account Based Pension, you pay zero taxes, PERIOD. None of the Account Based Pension platform operators will remit pension payments to an overseas account; you'll need to arrange it yourself.

Go to <https://aseannow.com/topic/1318120-revenue-department-contact-reports/#comment-18647010> and locate poster 'pauku1' and download his excell spreadsheet to compute your taxes if any - you might be pleasantly surprised.

I have a Scandinavian relative and he knows one of those blokes that have done that - they are in Hua Hin. I tried looking for the post one of them about it last year and why he pays income taxes in Thailand and not back home - could not find it.  If you did not know the taxes most scandinavians pay omn their 'retirement savings/super' is extremely high - in fact it is higher if you live overseas, than if you live in the home country. Their system is very much more complicated than the Aust system - it is run by their Government so need I say more. 

 

Yes Australian Account Based Super Funds' earnings are not taxed.  But Accumulation Phase Super Fund's earnings are taxed - at 15%. Converting from Accumulation Phase to Account Based when a person retires and then receiving regular "Pension Payments" has a few ATO and CLink 'issues' (gotchas) and now doing that also has potential Thailand taxation issues too. The former issue is why I remained in the Accumulation Phase and the latter issue is another positive for having made that decision. I can stay in Accumulation Phase until I turn 75 - for the time being I will withdraw irregular payments fromk my Super account as and when I need them. 

 

Yes that spreadsheet is OK - I have made one of my own and have calculated that I paid more taxes in Aust on my Super 'earnings' last year than I would had to pay in Thailand - but the difference is not a lot so going forward so I will stay paying taxes on Super earnings/growth in Australia.  Having said that, my read of the TRD Guidlines is that growth in a mutual trust fund is not 'taxable income'. However, that is obviously for mutual trust funds in Thailand and not specifically for Super mutal trust funds in Australia - they could be said to be the same thing - but I will stay away from lodging a tax return to find that out.    

[TroubleandGrumpy]

On 2/19/2024 at 10:28 AM, 4MyEgo said:

From my understanding/interpretation, if you like, Age Pensions paid to Australia expats living in Thailand since 1989/90 under the DTA have been blanketed from paying any tax in Australia as the DTA states that Thailand (the state) where the expat/resident resides shall pay tax, pretty straight forward for the majority of members to understand, i.e. Article 18 which is what the Age Pensions falls under, end of story on that.

 

17 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

You have come out of nowhere and are trying to stir up the hornets nest as did someone else, and to be honest, I am not buying into it as I have more important things to do earning a buck then to try and convince some Troubled Grumpy guy who thinks he knows everything, no thanks.

 

I read what you mentioned in more detail and I think I now know who you are referring to - that bloke with a beer name?  That is not me mate - not by a long way - my answers can be 'long winded' at time, but my excuse is that I did long winded Government Tenders as part of my job for over 20 years so I am used to writing long detailed replies to questions.  This is another one because I have decided to supply to you and others my reasons - clauses from the DTA agreement and my explanatons are below.

 

Article 3 - General Definitions

Where under this Agreement income is relieved from tax in one of the Contracting States and, under the law in force in the other Contracting State a person, in respect of the said income, is subject to tax by reference to the amount thereof which is remitted to or received in that other State and not by reference to the full amount thereof, then the relief to be allowed under this Agreement in the first - mentioned State shall apply only to so much of the income as is remitted to or received in the other State.

What that means is if an income from one State is exempted etc. that same exemption etc. (relief) is applied in the other State when the money is transferred to the other State.  The Pension is tax free when it is paid in Australia - that exemption/relief applies in Thailand. That should be enough but I will go on - as I am want to do.

 

Article 4 - Residence:

(c)        if the person has an habitual abode in both Contracting States, or in neither of them, the person shall be deemed to be a resident solely of the Contracting State with which the person's personal and economic relations are the closer.

In my case I have both (still) and am far 'closer' economically and personally to Australia (kids etc.).  In Thailand I am a tourist on a 12 month Tourist Visa (non-Immigration) that is only extended past 90 days upon application and approval and I have no 'right of residence', and that is only extended for another 12 months vailidity upon application and approval.   

If you read further down under the Article 5 you will see that the DTA is written for organisations and people who work for those organisations - it was not written for people who are living in Thailand as a retired person.

 

Article 6 - Real Property

1.         Income from real property may be taxed in the Contracting State in which the real property is situated.

That should alleviate those worrying about extra Thai taxes on the rent received from property in Australia - only payable in Australia.

 

Article 11 - Interest

Under Australian Tax Law 'interest' is defined as follows "Under the general law, the term "interest" signifies "a sum payable in respect of the use of another sum of money called the principal". IT 2468 (Addendum exists) | Legal database (ato.gov.au)

Superannuation Growth or Decline in value does not constitute 'interest' and is not considered by Australia as 'taxable income' and is therefore not taxable income in Thailand. 

 

We have to go out for a while (wife is reminding me right now 🙂) - I will finish this off at a later time.

[4MyEgo]

On 4/3/2024 at 8:40 PM, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Good riddance - we are all far better off on this topic sharing our opinions.  I have met a few dipsticks in my time and what is very much a constant with them is that they immediately abuse anyone that dares disagree or criticise what they state - and they never defend their stated position.

  

 

If you think I abused you, you misunderstood....LOL

 

I disagree with the below from your post above, and provide you with a copy & paste of Article 18 & 19 from the DTA, as I couldn't copy the link for some unknown reason and went back to the OAP topic to extract it from one of my previous posts in that topic.

 

Article 3 - General Definitions

Article 4 - Residence

Article 6 - Real Property

Article 11 - Interest

 

Australian Treaty Series 1989 No 36

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE

CANBERRA

 

                                                                       Article 18

 

 

Pensions and annuities

 

1. Subject to the provisions of Article 19, pensions and annuities paid to a resident of one of the Contracting States shall be taxable only in that State.

 

2. The term "annuity" means a stated sum payable periodically at stated times during life or during a specified or ascertainable period of time under an obligation to make the payments in return for adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth.

 

 

Article 19

Government service

 

1. Remuneration (other than a pension) paid by one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of that State or a local authority of that State to any individual in respect of services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions shall be taxable only in that State. However, such remuneration shall be taxable only in the other Contracting State if the services are rendered in that other State and the recipient is a resident of that other State who:

 

(a) is a citizen or national of that other State; or

 

(b) did not become a resident of that other State solely for the purpose of performing the services.

 

2. Any pension paid to an individual in respect of services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions to one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of that State or a local authority of that State shall be taxable only in that State. Such pension shall, however, be taxable only in the other Contracting State if the recipient is a resident of, and a citizen or national of, that other State.

 

 

Edited April 5 by 4MyEgo

[TroubleandGrumpy]

On 4/5/2024 at 9:06 AM, 4MyEgo said:

If you think I abused you, you misunderstood....LOL

I disagree with the below from your post above, and provide you with a copy & paste of Article 18 & 19 from the DTA, as I couldn't copy the link for some unknown reason and went back to the OAP topic to extract it from one of my previous posts in that topic.

Article 3 - General Definitions

Article 4 - Residence

Article 6 - Real Property

Article 11 - Interest

 

Australian Treaty Series 1989 No 36

DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE

CANBERRA

 

                                                                       Article 18

 

 

Pensions and annuities

 

1. Subject to the provisions of Article 19, pensions and annuities paid to a resident of one of the Contracting States shall be taxable only in that State.

 

2. The term "annuity" means a stated sum payable periodically at stated times during life or during a specified or ascertainable period of time under an obligation to make the payments in return for adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth.

 

 

I preferred it when you said you would be ignoring me and 'not playing'.  I dont mind a debate and an exchange of thoughts and ideas - but immature insults and antagonistic comments, plus no rationale or logic behind those thoughts provided, is preferred.  State your case and back it up with some thoughts, comments and links/pastes with thoughts and comments. A cut and past with no comment does not cut it.

 

Try to remember that this 'converation' is not just between or about me or you - others are reading.  I have provided cut/pastes and links, AND my thoughts and reasons for the decision I have made on the wordsa in those links provided. My decision is that the OAP is not taxable income in Thailand before or when remitted into Thailand - I will now furtehr expand on why.  

 

Interpretations of written Contracts and Rules and Regulations can be a very 'flexible' matter. Topical example is that in this case TRD has decided that their interpretation of the Rule/Regulation has changed - no new Law has been passed.  Their new interpretation is that 'earnings' made overseas from investments and salaries and investments, are NOT tax free (any more) when remitted back into Thailand in a year later than in the year in which that earnings was received. It was tax free if an investment realised, an earnings was received, and income was received, if remitted into Thailand in a following year ONLY because the TRD interpreted the applicable Cluase/Section that new way.  

 

Going forward, because of all the complications this change is going to be making in their administration of the income tax collections, TRD is likely in the future (if Govt directs them) will just tax all 'earnings' of all Thai tax residents made overseas - whether remitted into Thailand or not. That will take some new Law/s, but that is a lot simpler than only taxing the remittances - and it is the way this new 'global taxation system is moving all over the world - very much like the USA tax model. 

 

You have quoted Article 18 and 19 of the Aust/Thai DTA  - In particular 

ARTICLE 18
PENSIONS AND ANNUITIES

1.         Subject to the provisions of Article 19, pensions and annuities paid to a resident of one of the Contracting States shall be taxable only in that State.

 

And you are referring not to the 'Annuities' part but to the 'Pension' part. A pension is "a regular income paid by a government or a financial organization to someone who no longer works" (Cambridge).  I will point out that 'pension' does not mean the Old Age Pension (OAP) - it means and refers to ANY regular income paid by any GOVERMENT or FINANCIAL ORGANISATION.  That clause is not just about the OAP, it covers a multitude of possible regular payments from both Government and non-Government sources.

 

Regarding the literal interpretation you imply - that some people have read that clause to mean that if you get a Pension and are a resident of a State, then you pay taxes in that State you are a resident of.  That is clearly wrong IMO and is not what the Clause states at all. 

 

Before I show why I think that, I will firstly point out that interpretation and application of the whole document to any individual requires that the whole document to be applied, not merely one Clause.  You can be applicable in a clause and excluded in another - who/what decides? Well in Thailand it is you - it is a self determined system - the TRD does not opertate like the ATO who determines exactly what income taxes are applicable for every person and company - and publishes complete and detailed regular guides, assesments and provides training and certifications. TRD uses self-determination system, and only gets involved if/when there is some reason to believe that a tax resdient has not lodged a tax return and should, or has lodged a tax return that is wrong.

 

I have already shown how under Articles 3 and 4, part or all of a tax resident's earnings can be excluded. That definitely applies to myself at this time, because I am still a tax resident of Australia (will be for at least 2 years - and hope to remain that).  I will now provide my interpretation of that Clause regarding pensions and annuities - as it applies to anyone/everyone. 

 

IMO Clusae 18 means that is a person is receiving a pension from one State then that pension payment is only taxable in that State. Taking Government Pensions as a separate issue from say investment pensions/annuities, the issue of differentiation realtes to the issue of 'resident'.

 

In order to get an Old Age Pension you must be a Resident of Australia.  Unlike other countries where you can apply from overseas, you must be both in Australia and a Resident and meet defined criteria to be approved to get the OAP.  Once you are reciving the OAP there has been made a determination, in with International Obligations, that allows under certain very limited circumstances for a recipient of the OAP to move and reside overseas either short term or indefinitely and keep the OAP payments (albeit reduced). That does not preclude or exclude the fact that the recipient of the OAP living overseas is technically a resident for the purposes of receiving the OAP because the only people whoi can receive the OAP in Australia are residents.  They can be temporarily or indefinitely living overseas in one or many countries, but they are still a resident under the OAP rules and regulations and can return to Australia at any time.

 

The next issue as it relates to paying income taxes on the OAP in Thailand, as per the DTA, becomes a matter of 'domicile'.  If any person receiving the OAP who lives in another State (any) renounces their Citizenship or Permanent Residience, they will immediately lose their right to receive the OAP.  Continued receipt of the OAP when overseas, means that the person has the legal right and could at any time return to Australia.  How that relates to the domicile issue within the DTA, and in genral, is that in order to be permanetly domocile in another country means having a 'permanent abode'. That is not the case for the vast majority of Expats living in Thailand. We are required to apply for and get approval to remain in Thailand for another 3 months. Plus we are required to apply for and get approval to stay in Thailand up to another 12 months, but only on the basis that we apply for and receive approval to remain another 3 months. At any time that approval to stay in Thailand can be removed at any time for any reason.  I will not go into all the other facts that would prove I am not domicile and will never be domicile in Thailand - this is long enough already.  I will state that the DTA with Thailand very much echos the same (almost exactly) as Aust has with many other countries. There are many other countries in the world whereby I could live and be domicile long term - particlularly in Europe (and that includes both the right to live permanently, and to own land, etc etc etc.). Suffice to state the fact that I am legally a long term Tourist in Thailand and under that fact along, let alone all the other Clauses/Sections in the DTA, I am not domicile here and am liable to pay income taxes on the OAP - no more than any other Aussie on the OAP who visits Thailand for a holiday for 3 months or longer (after approval). 

 

If I was to make money in Thailand, then yes I am liable to pay income taxes.  If I was residient more than 180 days and was earning income from overseas (such as a Youtube vlogger or any other online job) then I am liable to pay income taxes in Thailand, but only when that income is remitted into Thailand.  IMO I am not liable to pay income taxes in Thailand on that part of the OAP that I remit into Thailand (nor on any part that I dont remit into Thailand). That is my 'self determination' and being well versed (trained and practice) in Contract Laws I am certain my read of the Clauses/Sections in the DTA is valid. 

[KhunHeineken]

2 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

 

I preferred it when you said you would be ignoring me and 'not playing'.  I dont mind a debate and an exchange of thoughts and ideas - but immature insults and antagonistic comments, plus no rationale or logic behind those thoughts provided, is preferred.  State your case and back it up with some thoughts, comments and links/pastes with thoughts and comments. A cut and past with no comment does not cut it.

 

Try to remember that this 'converation' is not just between or about me or you - others are reading.  I have provided cut/pastes and links, AND my thoughts and reasons for the decision I have made on the wordsa in those links provided. My decision is that the OAP is not taxable income in Thailand before or when remitted into Thailand - I will now furtehr expand on why.  

 

Interpretations of written Contracts and Rules and Regulations can be a very 'flexible' matter. Topical example is that in this case TRD has decided that their interpretation of the Rule/Regulation has changed - no new Law has been passed.  Their new interpretation is that 'earnings' made overseas from investments and salaries and investments, are NOT tax free (any more) when remitted back into Thailand in a year later than in the year in which that earnings was received. It was tax free if an investment realised, an earnings was received, and income was received, if remitted into Thailand in a following year ONLY because the TRD interpreted the applicable Cluase/Section that new way.  

 

Going forward, because of all the complications this change is going to be making in their administration of the income tax collections, TRD is likely in the future (if Govt directs them) will just tax all 'earnings' of all Thai tax residents made overseas - whether remitted into Thailand or not. That will take some new Law/s, but that is a lot simpler than only taxing the remittances - and it is the way this new 'global taxation system is moving all over the world - very much like the USA tax model. 

 

You have quoted Article 18 and 19 of the Aust/Thai DTA  - In particular 

ARTICLE 18
PENSIONS AND ANNUITIES

1.         Subject to the provisions of Article 19, pensions and annuities paid to a resident of one of the Contracting States shall be taxable only in that State.

 

And you are referring not to the 'Annuities' part but to the 'Pension' part. A pension is "a regular income paid by a government or a financial organization to someone who no longer works" (Cambridge).  I will point out that 'pension' does not mean the Old Age Pension (OAP) - it means and refers to ANY regular income paid by any GOVERMENT or FINANCIAL ORGANISATION.  That clause is not just about the OAP, it covers a multitude of possible regular payments from both Government and non-Government sources.

 

Regarding the literal interpretation you imply - that some people have read that clause to mean that if you get a Pension and are a resident of a State, then you pay taxes in that State you are a resident of.  That is clearly wrong IMO and is not what the Clause states at all. 

 

Before I show why I think that, I will firstly point out that interpretation and application of the whole document to any individual requires that the whole document to be applied, not merely one Clause.  You can be applicable in a clause and excluded in another - who/what decides? Well in Thailand it is you - it is a self determined system - the TRD does not opertate like the ATO who determines exactly what income taxes are applicable for every person and company - and publishes complete and detailed regular guides, assesments and provides training and certifications. TRD uses self-determination system, and only gets involved if/when there is some reason to believe that a tax resdient has not lodged a tax return and should, or has lodged a tax return that is wrong.

 

I have already shown how under Articles 3 and 4, part or all of a tax resident's earnings can be excluded. That definitely applies to myself at this time, because I am still a tax resident of Australia (will be for at least 2 years - and hope to remain that).  I will now provide my interpretation of that Clause regarding pensions and annuities - as it applies to anyone/everyone. 

 

IMO Clusae 18 means that is a person is receiving a pension from one State then that pension payment is only taxable in that State. Taking Government Pensions as a separate issue from say investment pensions/annuities, the issue of differentiation realtes to the issue of 'resident'.

 

In order to get an Old Age Pension you must be a Resident of Australia.  Unlike other countries where you can apply from overseas, you must be both in Australia and a Resident and meet defined criteria to be approved to get the OAP.  Once you are reciving the OAP there has been made a determination, in with International Obligations, that allows under certain very limited circumstances for a recipient of the OAP to move and reside overseas either short term or indefinitely and keep the OAP payments (albeit reduced). That does not preclude or exclude the fact that the recipient of the OAP living overseas is technically a resident for the purposes of receiving the OAP because the only people whoi can receive the OAP in Australia are residents.  They can be temporarily or indefinitely living overseas in one or many countries, but they are still a resident under the OAP rules and regulations and can return to Australia at any time.

 

The next issue as it relates to paying income taxes on the OAP in Thailand, as per the DTA, becomes a matter of 'domicile'.  If any person receiving the OAP who lives in another State (any) renounces their Citizenship or Permanent Residience, they will immediately lose their right to receive the OAP.  Continued receipt of the OAP when overseas, means that the person has the legal right and could at any time return to Australia.  How that relates to the domicile issue within the DTA, and in genral, is that in order to be permanetly domocile in another country means having a 'permanent abode'. That is not the case for the vast majority of Expats living in Thailand. We are required to apply for and get approval to remain in Thailand for another 3 months. Plus we are required to apply for and get approval to stay in Thailand up to another 12 months, but only on the basis that we apply for and receive approval to remain another 3 months. At any time that approval to stay in Thailand can be removed at any time for any reason.  I will not go into all the other facts that would prove I am not domicile and will never be domicile in Thailand - this is long enough already.  I will state that the DTA with Thailand very much echos the same (almost exactly) as Aust has with many other countries. There are many other countries in the world whereby I could live and be domicile long term - particlularly in Europe (and that includes both the right to live permanently, and to own land, etc etc etc.). Suffice to state the fact that I am legally a long term Tourist in Thailand and under that fact along, let alone all the other Clauses/Sections in the DTA, I am not domicile here and am liable to pay income taxes on the OAP - no more than any other Aussie on the OAP who visits Thailand for a holiday for 3 months or longer (after approval). 

 

If I was to make money in Thailand, then yes I am liable to pay income taxes.  If I was residient more than 180 days and was earning income from overseas (such as a Youtube vlogger or any other online job) then I am liable to pay income taxes in Thailand, but only when that income is remitted into Thailand.  IMO I am not liable to pay income taxes in Thailand on that part of the OAP that I remit into Thailand (nor on any part that I dont remit into Thailand). That is my 'self determination' and being well versed (trained and practice) in Contract Laws I am certain my read of the Clauses/Sections in the DTA is valid. 

Interesting argument, but the Thai government has stated that if you you are inside Thailand for 180 days or more, they will deem you to be a "resident" and by law can / will tax world wide remitted income into Thailand. 

 

I see what you are getting at with the visa status and domicile, but it appears to me the Thai government is using the word "resident" differently in this case to how it is used in the term "permanent resident" as we know it in Australia.  

 

It's only a matter of time before the proposed changes to residency are passed, which will see Australia transition to a physical presence and time based model also, just like Thailand, and many other countries. 

 

Good post. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/3/2024 at 7:14 AM, 4MyEgo said:

albeit it the last one put his tail under his legs and hasn't surfaced since I shamed him

No tail between my legs, and I certainly feel no shame. 

 

You asked for "the law, the law, the law" and when someone presented Article 18 and Article 19 of the DTA between Australia and Thailand, I asked for your opinion on the "provisions" set out in Article 19 and your response was, and I quote, "forget about Article 19."  Yes, that's right, forget about the law, because it now suits yourself to do so. 

 

You wanted to see the legislation, you saw the legislation, then you cheery picked from it to suit your narrative, and offered no further discussion on the matter. 

 

"Article 18

 

1. Subject to the provisions of Article 19, pensions and annuities paid to a resident of one of the Contracting States shall be taxable only in that State."

 

The provisions in Article 19 haven't gone away. 

 

All you saw was, "shall only be taxable in that Sate" and declared victory over the ATO, and me.    All the while, with Thailand implementing the taxing of remitted funds to foreigners inside Thailand. 

 

In any case, Australia is in the process of updating all of its DTA's and the DTA with Thailand can't be far off being updated.  From memory, they were updating Sweden which was 1983, so with Thailand being 1989, it will be sooner, rather than later. 

 

I posted the DTA with Germany, which was updated not so many years ago, as to what we can possibly expect, and note the word "possibly" but you would not even consider a DTA with Thailand may look the same. 

 

I have a feeling the updating of DTA's is being timed to correspond with the proposed changes to tax residency.  This is just my suspicion.  I have no link or evidence.  

 

I see another member has offered subject matter worthy of debate, but you also resort to petty abuse because it dare questions your "opinions" and "interpretations"  which you have admitted that's all they are, yet do not accept the different opinions and interpretations of others.  

 

Time will tell how all this plays out, but in my opinion, you have celebrated a victory too early. 

 

I will simply say, times are changes, tax laws are changing, and the ground is shifting beneath the feet of expats.  One should keep an open mind, practice due diligence, seek professional advice, and be prepared to make some changes to their finances and possibly their lifestyle. 

 

The 90 year old tax residency laws in Australia will change.  The 41 year old DTA with Thailand will be updated.  Thailand has implemented taxing remitted funds. All of these factors are not just for guys like Paul Hogan.       

 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Interesting argument, but the Thai government has stated that if you you are inside Thailand for 180 days or more, they will deem you to be a "resident" and by law can / will tax world wide remitted income into Thailand.

 

I see what you are getting at with the visa status and domicile, but it appears to me the Thai government is using the word "resident" differently in this case to how it is used in the term "permanent resident" as we know it in Australia.

 

It's only a matter of time before the proposed changes to residency are passed, which will see Australia transition to a physical presence and time based model also, just like Thailand, and many other countries. 

 

Good post. 

Actually that 179+ days only means that you are 'qualified' (obliged) to pay income taxes in Thailand on applicable taxable income. If you are under 180 days then you are not 'qualified' (obliged). However, if you work in Thailand and earn money in Thailand, then it does not matter how long you stay - you pay income taxes on the money earned here if only here for 1 week. The 179+ day qualification only comes into it if/when other conditions are met -= including those under a DTA

 

Where there is a possible different interpretation of a word/definition used in the DTA, and where there is no definition stated in Clause 3 - General Definitons, or is not specifically defined in anotjher Clause, then what applies is the definition of the State where the money is earned (source) or located (bank accounts etc).  The DTA is not Thailand's DTA, it is a joint agreement between Australia and Thail;and designed to avoid double taxation of businesses, the people who work for those businesses, and other persons as defined.  Under the DTA there is no specific coverage for Australian Citizens receiving Government Pensions and living in Australia - they can be deemed to fall under a specific Clause or a combination of several - but it is not Thailand's decision where anything is not clearly stated - or where it has not been separately agreed between Thailand and Australia. Plus in the DTA it states very clearly that where possible a person can choose to adopt whatever rule bests suits their onw circumstances.  And as I have said before a few times, IMO there is no way that the Aust Govt would agree to pay the Thailand Government the money of taxpayers in Australia (which is the source of the OAP). 

 

Yes it is possible that in the future  Australia will change the OAP qualifications to only those in and resident in Australia. However, under the  International Obligations that Australia signed up to, it is not possible to change the conditions upon which a person has been granted OAP payments in the past and then apply them unilaterally to all people receiving the OAP who are residents overseas.  If you did not know, there are many people living overseas (especially Greece) who are receiving the OAP under the same conditions that they were entitled to at the time it was first granted (lucky bas*****). Those additional conditions, such as 40 years living in Australia, do not apply to those who had already been granted the OAP and are an overseas resiodent. 

 

Under the Social Security Act a person approved for a payment continues to receive that payment - that is why each 'decision' CLink makes is so technical and at times difficult.  Decisions made by ATO affect all applicable persons and companies immediately - CLink's apply to each person and only to that person.  That isd why there are qualified tax experts to enbsure you minimise your taxation, but there are no qualified experts to ensure you recieve the maxium social welfgare payments.  If the OAP is ever made to be for those 'resident and present' in Australia only, or any other such draconian change that affects overseas residents, then make sure you never return to Australia - once you return any new conditions can apply to your ongoing OAP payments and qualifications. 

 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

No tail between my legs, and I certainly feel no shame. 

 

You asked for "the law, the law, the law" and when someone presented Article 18 and Article 19 of the DTA between Australia and Thailand, I asked for your opinion on the "provisions" set out in Article 19 and your response was, and I quote, "forget about Article 19."  Yes, that's right, forget about the law, because it now suits yourself to do so. 

 

You wanted to see the legislation, you saw the legislation, then you cheery picked from it to suit your narrative, and offered no further discussion on the matter. 

 

"Article 18

 

1. Subject to the provisions of Article 19, pensions and annuities paid to a resident of one of the Contracting States shall be taxable only in that State."

 

The provisions in Article 19 haven't gone away. 

 

All you saw was, "shall only be taxable in that Sate" and declared victory over the ATO, and me.    All the while, with Thailand implementing the taxing of remitted funds to foreigners inside Thailand. 

 

In any case, Australia is in the process of updating all of its DTA's and the DTA with Thailand can't be far off being updated.  From memory, they were updating Sweden which was 1983, so with Thailand being 1989, it will be sooner, rather than later. 

 

I posted the DTA with Germany, which was updated not so many years ago, as to what we can possibly expect, and note the word "possibly" but you would not even consider a DTA with Thailand may look the same. 

 

I have a feeling the updating of DTA's is being timed to correspond with the proposed changes to tax residency.  This is just my suspicion.  I have no link or evidence.  

 

I see another member has offered subject matter worthy of debate, but you also resort to petty abuse because it dare questions your "opinions" and "interpretations"  which you have admitted that's all they are, yet do not accept the different opinions and interpretations of others.  

 

Time will tell how all this plays out, but in my opinion, you have celebrated a victory too early. 

 

I will simply say, times are changes, tax laws are changing, and the ground is shifting beneath the feet of expats.  One should keep an open mind, practice due diligence, seek professional advice, and be prepared to make some changes to their finances and possibly their lifestyle. 

 

The 90 year old tax residency laws in Australia will change.  The 41 year old DTA with Thailand will be updated.  Thailand has implemented taxing remitted funds. All of these factors are not just for guys like Paul Hogan.       

 

Well said mate.

[4MyEgo]

18 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Well said mate.

 

I see you found a soul mate......LoL

[TroubleandGrumpy]

37 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

I see you found a soul mate......LoL

Not sure about that (yet) - but I do have many of them - how about you? 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

21 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

I see you found a soul mate......LoL

Still waiting for your reply with details of why you think the Old Age Pension is taxable income in Thailand - so are others.

All I/we have received is a cut and past from the DTA - where is your rationale and thoughts?

 

[4MyEgo]

3 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Still waiting for your reply with details of why you think the Old Age Pension is taxable income in Thailand - so are others.

All I/we have received is a cut and past from the DTA - where is your rationale and thoughts?

 

 

Go to the Topic Old Age Pension, you could probably start from page 193.

 

My reasons and rational are posted there, I don't like to repeat myself, as for the "other" they already know my posts and reasonings.

 

You should really catch up.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

4 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

Go to the Topic Old Age Pension, you could probably start from page 193.

My reasons and rational are posted there, I don't like to repeat myself, as for the "other" they already know my posts and reasonings.

You should really catch up.

You got a link? I dont want to waste my time looking for your khrapp posts.

Knowing you will not do that and that I will not bother anyway, my response it obvious.

You are wrong - the OAP is not taxable income in Thailand.

If you were correct you would be able to respond to my posts in this thread and refute them.

Because you cannot do that and because you have not even tried.

IMO THE OAP IS NOT TAXABLE INCOME IN THAILAND  (see my posts above for proof) 

[4MyEgo]

2 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

You got a link? I dont want to waste my time looking for your khrapp posts.

Knowing you will not do that and that I will not bother anyway, my response it obvious.

You are wrong - the OAP is not taxable income in Thailand.

If you were correct you would be able to respond to my posts in this thread and refute them.

Because you cannot do that and because you have not even tried.

IMO THE OAP IS NOT TAXABLE INCOME IN THAILAND  (see my posts above for proof) 

 

 

You really should go to the Topic, start from page 193 onwards. Hopefully this will quash your opinion.

 

It's never to late to say, I misunderstood what I was reading and that I now understand that the age pension is taxable in Thailand under the DTA, but is your ego bigger than you ?

[TroubleandGrumpy]

8 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

 

You really should go to the Topic, start from page 193 onwards. Hopefully this will quash your opinion.

 

It's never to late to say, I misunderstood what I was reading and that I now understand that the age pension is taxable in Thailand under the DTA, but is your ego bigger than you ?

Read my posts - obviously you have not out of spite anger or whatever.

I have provided another alternative to those words, plus several additional reasons why an OAP is not taxable income. 

[4MyEgo]

39 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Read my posts - obviously you have not out of spite anger or whatever.

I have provided another alternative to those words, plus several additional reasons why an OAP is not taxable income. 

 

Regardless of what you believe or what your opinion is, because you, and you alone believe what you believe, doesn't make you right, it's actually detrimental in the way you perceive things in life.

 

You have to agree, that you cannot get a better clarification (independent) of you or me or HK, on Article 18, i.e. from the Ministerial Correspondence Team for the ATO, who in case you didn't read it, stated that if you are a RESIDENT of Thailand, your age pension, is TAXABLE in Thailand.

 

There is an old quote that says, "You can't convince anyone of anything. You can only give them the right information, so that they can convince themselves. 

 

Also some people know they're wrong, but just like to argue.

 

The above said, I have beaten this dead horse enough, believe what you want, just don't try to convince me with what you believe, because there is nothing more right than Article 18 of the DTA, which is backed up by the Ministerial Correspondence Team for the ATO who are independent to anyone on this forum.

 

Hoo-roo..............

 

 

Edited April 8 by 4MyEgo

[TroubleandGrumpy]

3 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

 

You really should go to the Topic, start from page 193 onwards. Hopefully this will quash your opinion.

 

It's never to late to say, I misunderstood what I was reading and that I now understand that the age pension is taxable in Thailand under the DTA, but is your ego bigger than you ?

 

3 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Regardless of what you believe or what your opinion is, because you, and you alone believe what you believe, doesn't make you right, it's actually detrimental in the way you perceive things in life.

You have to agree, that you cannot get a better clarification (independent) of you or me or HK, on Article 18, i.e. from the Ministerial Correspondence Team for the ATO, who in case you didn't read it, stated that if you are a RESIDENT of Thailand, your age pension, is TAXABLE in Thailand.

There is an old quote that says, "You can't convince anyone of anything. You can only give them the right information, so that they can convince themselves. 

Also some people know they're wrong, but just like to argue.

The above said, I have beaten this dead horse enough, believe what you want, just don't try to convince me with what you believe, because there is nothing more right than Article 18 of the DTA, which is backed up by the Ministerial Correspondence Team for the ATO who are independent to anyone on this forum.

Hoo-roo..............

 

I will respond to you for 2 reasons.

 

1. Because I have debunked you several times, but you deserve more 'kicking' - and you have at last givcen some reational behind your opinion. 

 

2. Because some Aussies getting the OAP will read your comments and think they must pay income taxes on their Pension.

 

Here is just one of the posts I provided in response to your rubbish before - go look up the rest of my posts where you have been debunked as an alarmist and fear mongerer.

The Ministerial Correspondence Team for the ATO do not provide rulings or advice - they have absolutely no authority to do so and I know because I worked in a Ministerial Correspondence Team (Telco related). There is NIL official ruling from ATO that the OAP is taxable in Thailand for a tax resident - that is an interpretation of one Clause by some 'technical officer' and IMO it could easily just be a fake statement - it certainly does not look like any Ministyerial SAadvice letter I have evber seen before.  And as far as I could find there has been NIL official determination by the TRD that the Australian OAP is taxable income in Thailand under the DTA.    If you can find either of those - not opinions from forums or comunity groups - then and only then will I re-consider.  But eher is somewthing for you to thiunk about - if TRD was to give an opinion, I gurantee even if it was they consider it taxcable income, they will caveat that it all depends on individual cirstances - many of whihc are covered under other Clauses in the DTA and in the TRD Guidelines and in the Taxation Act itself. 

 

As I said before, it is not a matter of one Clause and that is it. There are many other factors that are involved in a decision regarding taxable income and taxability of a person - as I have detailed many times before. What happens when someone is a tax resident of Thailand and is still a tax resident of Australia?  What happens if they are taxable residents of two States? What happens if they are domicile in another State.  

 

To use the informal views of someone not authorised in Australia to decide how the TRD sees things, is total khrapp and illogical - you are clearly unaware of how the Law and the management of the collection of taxes is conducted in Thailand.  If/when Thailand TRD makes a determination about taxing the Pensions of any Expats, then and only then will we know where they are coming from - but even then, that is challengeable in Tribunal and Court. The Thaialnd tax system is self-assesment - I have elaborated on this many times - and if you assess that you do not have to pay any income taxes and those reasons are valid, then that is it.  The TRD can later question that assesment - but as long as you have the documentation and valid reasons why you made that assesment, then IMO you are fine.  

 

Stop being a fear monger and I sure hope people do not listen to you. 

 

Oooo effin rooo to yourself mate.

 

[KhunHeineken]

3 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Regardless of what you believe or what your opinion is, because you, and you alone believe what you believe, doesn't make you right, it's actually detrimental in the way you perceive things in life.

 

You have to agree, that you cannot get a better clarification (independent) of you or me or HK, on Article 18, i.e. from the Ministerial Correspondence Team for the ATO, who in case you didn't read it, stated that if you are a RESIDENT of Thailand, your age pension, is TAXABLE in Thailand.

 

There is an old quote that says, "You can't convince anyone of anything. You can only give them the right information, so that they can convince themselves. 

 

Also some people know they're wrong, but just like to argue.

 

The above said, I have beaten this dead horse enough, believe what you want, just don't try to convince me with what you believe, because there is nothing more right than Article 18 of the DTA, which is backed up by the Ministerial Correspondence Team for the ATO who are independent to anyone on this forum.

 

Hoo-roo..............

 

 

What makes Jim Quinn right, and all the other people in the many links, some of them being ATO staff, and all the people in the youtube clips, wrong? 

 

You are only backing Jim because it suits your narrative to do so.  You don't give any consideration to the possibility Jim could be inaccurate, or wrong. 

 

You refuse to address the provisions of Article 19 which Article 18 relies upon. 

 

T & G has brought up an interesting point regarding the legal definition in Article 18 of "resident."  Jim says "resident for tax purposes" but Article 18 just says, "resident."  Could that be "permanent resident" in which case just about no foreigners in Thailand have Thai permanent residency because Thailand does not offer a reasonable pathway to permanent residency. 

 

A retirement visa is not permanent residency.  The Thai government says after 180 days you will be a resident for tax purposes, but once again, what type of residency is Article 18 referring to?  I said the DTA needed more research, and I keep an open mind.  That's still the case. 

 

Jim mentions resident for tax purposes, but that's not in Article 18, is it?  Article 18 just says "resident."  Why type of resident?  Permanent resident, or resident for tax purposes.  If Article 18 means permanent resident, then Australia, being the source country, gets to tax you, because none of us have Thai permanent residency. 

 

In any case, as I said before, the DTA with Thailand will soon be updated and may look different to the DTA of 1989, but T & G does raise a good point.  

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

What happens when someone is a tax resident of Thailand and is still a tax resident of Australia? 

When, and it's when, not if, Australia passes the proposed changes to tax residency and moves to a physical presence and time based tax residency model, it's possible one could be a tax resident of both Thailand and Australia. 

 

Leaving the 45 days part of the proposed changes aside, one could do 183 days inside Australia and fly to Thailand and do 180 days.  That would make them a tax resident of both countries, but why would someone on an aged pension want to be a tax resident of Thailand for the sake of staying a few extra days in Australia and living tax free for the year? 

 

Of course, none of us want to do 6 months in Australia every year, and the cost of doing so would far outweigh and tax Thailand would try to impose, if, as you say, they can impose it. 

 

I certainly agree with you, the matter goes well beyond Jim Quinn and Article 18, despite another member putting all their faith in Jim's comment. 

Edited April 8 by KhunHeineken

[TroubleandGrumpy]

20 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

When, and it's when, not if, Australia pass the proposed changes and move to a physical presence and time based tax resident model, it's possible one could be a tax resident of both Thailand and Australia. 

 

Leaving the 45 days part of the proposed changes aside, one could do 183 days inside Australia and fly to Thailand and do 180 days.  That would make them a tax resident of both countries, but why would someone on an aged pension want to be a tax resident of Thailand for the sake of staying a few extra days in Australia and living tax free for the year? 

 

Of course, none of us want to do 6 months in Australia every year, and the cost of doing so would far outweigh and tax Thailand would try to impose, if, as you say, they can impose it. 

 

I certainly agree with you, the matter goes well beyond Jim Quinn and Article 18, despite another member putting all their faith in Jim's comment. 

I like the comment one bloke made a while ago that if he stays 179 days in Thailand and less than the specified days in another 1-2 countries, then he is not a tax resident of any country and he is not required to pay taxes in any country.  Likewise if he stays 180+ days in Thailand and 180+ days in Australia then he is a tax resident of both countries - who wins then? The fact is that it is not about one Clause or a few words here and there - it is about the total situation of each person and his/her situation with regards to every Clause and word. 

 

Example - another one just to be deliberatly proocative to you know who.  Clause 18 states "........... shall be taxable ......"  That word taxable does not mean every person receiving a Pension has to pay income taxes - it means 'taxable' it does not mean must pay income taxes.  Another - if the Pension is only 'taxable' in one State and not 'taxable' in the other State, that could mean a tax resident in Thailand cannot be taxed in Australia, if that domile requirement starts and they try to tax the Pension in Australia of those not living full-time in Australia.  There are lots of potential interetations just of the words meaning, and then there are lots more interpretations possible for each persons situation.

 

Egoboy has also ignored my point about another meaning of the word 'resident' in addition to your points.  Anyone who receives the Austratlian pension, both in Australia or overseas, is a resident. If an OAP receiver is living overseas they are a resident who has had 'portability' approved - unlike other countries where being 'resident' is not a requirement to be approved to receive the pension. Technicality yes - but that is how laws, rules ansd regulations work - I have been involved in their creation, amendment and interpretation - Egoboy clearly has not or he would know laws, rules and regulations are constantly being changed and updated because of ever changing circumstances and changing interpetation.

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/8/2024 at 11:57 AM, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I like the comment one bloke made a while ago that if he stays 179 days in Thailand and less than the specified days in another 1-2 countries, then he is not a tax resident of any country and he is not required to pay taxes in any country.  Likewise if he stays 180+ days in Thailand and 180+ days in Australia then he is a tax resident of both countries - who wins then? The fact is that it is not about one Clause or a few words here and there - it is about the total situation of each person and his/her situation with regards to every Clause and word. 

That goes to the tie breaker in a DTA.

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/international-tax-agreements/in-detail/what-are-tax-treaties

 

"Your residency status determines the jurisdiction in which you pay income tax and how much tax you are liable to pay.

Most tax treaties include a 'tie-breaker' test under which a dual resident is deemed to be a resident solely of one of the two jurisdictions for the purposes of taxation."

 

On 4/8/2024 at 11:57 AM, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Example - another one just to be deliberatly proocative to you know who.  Clause 18 states "........... shall be taxable ......"  That word taxable does not mean every person receiving a Pension has to pay income taxes - it means 'taxable' it does not mean must pay income taxes.  Another - if the Pension is only 'taxable' in one State and not 'taxable' in the other State, that could mean a tax resident in Thailand cannot be taxed in Australia, if that domile requirement starts and they try to tax the Pension in Australia of those not living full-time in Australia.  There are lots of potential interetations just of the words meaning, and then there are lots more interpretations possible for each persons situation.

I agree. 

 

It's like the use of the word "may" in legislation. May does not mean "will" or "can" or "can not" etc.  That one small word "may" can and has effected big cases in the past. 

 

On 4/8/2024 at 11:57 AM, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Egoboy has also ignored my point about another meaning of the word 'resident' in addition to your points.  Anyone who receives the Austratlian pension, both in Australia or overseas, is a resident. If an OAP receiver is living overseas they are a resident who has had 'portability' approved - unlike other countries where being 'resident' is not a requirement to be approved to receive the pension. Technicality yes - but that is how laws, rules ansd regulations work - I have been involved in their creation, amendment and interpretation - Egoboy clearly has not or he would know laws, rules and regulations are constantly being changed and updated because of ever changing circumstances and changing interpetation.

All true. 

 

As I said in the other thread, the current residency tax laws are 90 years old.  There's so many loopholes in them that they are no longer fit for purpose.  I have no doubt the proposed changes will be passed by government in the not so distant future.  

 

The current DTA with Thailand is  35 years old.  The government has stated they are updating all DTA's with countries.  The DTA with Thailand will change in the future also.  

 

Then, you can see how quick Thailand moved on taxing remitted funds by foreigners.  Where were all the comments about how "the Thai government would never do that" and expat pensioners would be up in arms" and "Thailand is only looking to tax guys like Paul Hogan." 

 

As Thailand has done, so will Australia.  You'll read the news one day that legislation has changed and it will most likely have a financial impact on expats, including pensioners.  Change is inevitable.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

4 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

That goes to the tie breaker in a DTA.

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/about-ato/international-tax-agreements/in-detail/what-are-tax-treaties

 

"Your residency status determines the jurisdiction in which you pay income tax and how much tax you are liable to pay.

Most tax treaties include a 'tie-breaker' test under which a dual resident is deemed to be a resident solely of one of the two jurisdictions for the purposes of taxation."

 

I agree. 

 

It's like the use of the word "may" in legislation. May does not mean "will" or "can" or "can not" etc.  That one small word "may" can and has effected big cases in the past. 

 

All true. 

 

As I said in the other thread, the current residency tax laws are 90 years old.  There's so many loopholes in them that they are no longer fit for purpose.  I have no doubt the proposed changes will be passed by government in the not so distant future.  

 

The current DTA with Thailand is  35 years old.  The government has stated they are updating all DTA's with countries.  The DTA with Thailand will change in the future also.  

 

Then, you can see how quick Thailand moved on taxing remitted funds by foreigners.  Where were all the comments about how "the Thai government would never do that" and expat pensioners would be up in arms" and "Thailand is only looking to tax guys like Paul Hogan." 

 

As Thailand has done, so will Australia.  You'll read the news one day that legislation has changed and it will most likely have a financial impact on expats, including pensioners.  Change is inevitable.

Agree with that - there are far too many unknowns to state with absolute certainty anything definitive. But to claim that the OAP is definitely going to be taxed in Thailand and/or that all OAP recipients must lodge a tax return, is total BS. One swallow does not a summer make - nor does one Clause in a DTA mean tax is payable. 

 

[CharlesHolzhauer]

4 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

The government has stated they are updating all DTA's with countries.  The DTA with Thailand will change in the future also.

Links please

[CharlesHolzhauer]

38 minutes ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

One swallow does not a summer make

How original.

[TroubleandGrumpy]

15 minutes ago, CharlesHolzhauer said:

How original.

The oldies are the best - tried and proven.

[KhunHeineken]

3 hours ago, CharlesHolzhauer said:

Links please

Just a couple from a random search.

 

https://taxsummaries.pwc.com/australia/individual/foreign-tax-relief-and-tax-treaties

 

"The Australian government plans to enter into new and updated tax treaties in the coming years. The relatively recently signed treaty with Iceland has entered into force to apply from as early as 1 January 2024. A new treaty with Portugal was signed on 30 November 2023 (yet to enter into force)."

 

https://www.internationaltaxreview.com/article/2a6a9z41xb9ag79w1rh1c/australia-announces-expanded-double-tax-treaty-network

 

"The government has restated its commitment to modernise and expand Australia’s double tax treaty network and has committed critical resources and funding to support this expansion of Australia’s double tax treaty network."

[KhunHeineken]

3 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Agree with that - there are far too many unknowns to state with absolute certainty anything definitive. But to claim that the OAP is definitely going to be taxed in Thailand and/or that all OAP recipients must lodge a tax return, is total BS. One swallow does not a summer make - nor does one Clause in a DTA mean tax is payable. 

 

Thailand wants to tax the funds, not the person. 

 

On that basis, Thailand doesn't care how young or old you are, whether you are rich or poor, and whether the funds are a pension or some other form of passive income, and where the money originates from.  They are simply seeking to tax the cash, and they don't care who's cash it is. 

 

It will be interesting to see how they are going to implement it and tweak it over the next couple of years. 

 

As I said in another post, the only way I can see it working is the Thai banking system will have to be onboard, otherwise, expat retirees could simply leave their pension in their home country and withdraw it from an ATM with a Visa card from their home country, just like tourists do.  If the fees and exchange rate is cheaper than Thai tax, there's one solution. 

 

One would still be living in Thailand, and would be deemed a resident for tax purposes, but not remitting funds in the traditional sense.  Of course, it would come down to the Thai legal definition of "funds" and "remitting" but I can't see Thailand taxing ATM withdrawals in the future.  

 

Interesting times ahead, particularly for Aussie expats. 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Thailand wants to tax the funds, not the person. 

On that basis, Thailand doesn't care how young or old you are, whether you are rich or poor, and whether the funds are a pension or some other form of passive income, and where the money originates from.  They are simply seeking to tax the cash, and they don't care who's cash it is. 

It will be interesting to see how they are going to implement it and tweak it over the next couple of years. 

As I said in another post, the only way I can see it working is the Thai banking system will have to be onboard, otherwise, expat retirees could simply leave their pension in their home country and withdraw it from an ATM with a Visa card from their home country, just like tourists do.  If the fees and exchange rate is cheaper than Thai tax, there's one solution. 

One would still be living in Thailand, and would be deemed a resident for tax purposes, but not remitting funds in the traditional sense.  Of course, it would come down to the Thai legal definition of "funds" and "remitting" but I can't see Thailand taxing ATM withdrawals in the future.  

Interesting times ahead, particularly for Aussie expats. 

I see egoboy has not responded to any of our comments and posts this week - not complaining 🙂

 

Interesting post egoboy made today in another thread that clearly IMO precludes his inputs into any OAP forum. He was slagging off about baby boomers and how we will not embrace bitcoin and other cryptocurreny investments - claiming that he of course is killing it (( have met a few of those type of barflies). But the point is that the 'are soul' is not even on the OAP - because you have to be a baby boomer (1946 to early 1960s) and at least 67 to get the OAP - which means 1956 or older - which is right in the middle of the baby boomers.  I have blocked the are soul.

[KhunHeineken]

On 4/11/2024 at 11:14 AM, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I see egoboy has not responded to any of our comments and posts this week - not complaining 🙂

 

Interesting post egoboy made today in another thread that clearly IMO precludes his inputs into any OAP forum. He was slagging off about baby boomers and how we will not embrace bitcoin and other cryptocurreny investments - claiming that he of course is killing it (( have met a few of those type of barflies). But the point is that the 'are soul' is not even on the OAP - because you have to be a baby boomer (1946 to early 1960s) and at least 67 to get the OAP - which means 1956 or older - which is right in the middle of the baby boomers.  I have blocked the are soul.

I find his posts amusing.  Especially his "interpretations" of legislation.  Very entertaining.  Most of them are up there with the famous "that's just for guys like Paul Hogan" post. 

 

His latest claim to fame is how contracts and caveats on the house and land be bought, which is not in his name, offers some security to him in the future for his accommodation.  I'm sure those pieces of paper will stop a bullet or machete.  Just another farang thinking western laws work in Thailand for foreigners.   

 

You should unblock him, just for the laughs.