Australian OAP Taxation Issues.

[Pattaya57]

11 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

WHEN the proposed changes to tax residency are passed, that "pretty standard info" changes the game for many.  Eg.  Pattaya57 has been outside of Australia for 183 days, thus, no a non resident for tax purposes, therefore, non resident tax brackets apply. 

That so called new bright line test has sat dormant for years and no word of if or when it'll ever be put into legislation.

 

You have it backwards anyway. What's proposed is If you are living in Australia for 183+ days you are automatically a resident for tax. If you lived in Australia less than 183 days you can be declared a resident if you're a citizen and stay for minimum 45 days in one of the previous 3 income years. Only less than 45 days for 3 income years straight would someone be declared a non-resident.

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 6/25/2024 at 7:12 AM, Pattaya57 said:

That so called new bright line test has sat dormant for years and no word of if or when it'll ever be put into legislation.

Has the Assistant Treasurer for Labor, Stephen Jones, forgot about it?  Liberal surely haven't, they proposed them. 

 

The current laws are 90 years old.  For how much longer do you think they will last before being moderized? 

 

https://www.afr.com/policy/tax-and-super/assistant-treasurer-flags-new-tax-residency-rules-20220826-p5bd1v

 

On 6/25/2024 at 7:12 AM, Pattaya57 said:

You have it backwards anyway. What's proposed is If you are living in Australia for 183+ days you are automatically a resident for tax. If you lived in Australia less than 183 days you can be declared a resident if you're a citizen and stay for minimum 45 days in one of the previous 3 income years. Only less than 45 days for 3 income years straight would someone be declared a non-resident.

What about meeting the factor tests?

 

What about expat retirees who haven't been home in years?  Any advice for these people, when the proposed changes are passed? 

[Bvor]

13 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

The current laws are 90 years old.  For how much longer do you think they will last before being moderized? 

I'm with you that change will eventually occur (calm down KH bashers) but it appears been sitting in the Khun Jones in tray for 2 years or so plus the time elapsed since libs first proposed them makes forecasting how much longer somewhat tedious - bit like some LOS proposed changes. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 6/27/2024 at 9:39 AM, Bvor said:

I'm with you that change will eventually occur (calm down KH bashers) but it appears been sitting in the Khun Jones in tray for 2 years or so plus the time elapsed since libs first proposed them makes forecasting how much longer somewhat tedious - bit like some LOS proposed changes. 

Every May budget and every 1st July they are not passed I celebrate another year of not paying non resident tax. 

 

The party has to end one day, but ostriches don't like hearing about it. 

[KhunHeineken]

Haven't heard from Ego about this youtube clip at 18:50 minutes.

 

Maybe he missed it. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1chBfp8_XE

 

We could all do with his expert interpretation on it. 

[Bvor]

50 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

We could all do with his expert interpretation on it. 

I sent him a query weeks ago, which he received but has not yet answered, whether the application of SAPTO is deemed to have paid the tax payable on my OAP -  ie tax has been met in Australia - what is your take?

It may be irrelevant to my intended <180 stays in LOS but I still would like clarification specific to my query as I may decide to go 180> sometime down the track .

Attached is screen shot from youtube clip re DTA and OAP. 

      

[KhunHeineken]

8 minutes ago, Bvor said:

I sent him a query weeks ago, which he received but has not yet answered, whether the application of SAPTO is deemed to have paid the tax payable on my OAP -  ie tax has been met in Australia - what is your take?

It may be irrelevant to my intended <180 stays in LOS but I still would like clarification specific to my query as I may decide to go 180> sometime down the track .

Attached is screen shot from youtube clip re DTA and OAP. 

      

Well, I thought Ego would "come out to play" but I guess not.  I remember him posting something about me having my tail between my legs on this issue.  Interesting he hasn't posted how wrong this guy is.  He was quite vocal about Article 18, and how we all should "forget about Article 19."

 

Article 18 and Article 19 of the DTA between Australia and Thailand was put forward as the big victory for Aussie pensioners, alas, at least one professional doesn't see it that way. 

 

Perhaps Lacessit can post about it. He claimed Article 18 and Article 19 clearly set out why Aussie aged pensioners will not be taxed.  Maybe he will be more forthcoming on how this professional is wrong. 

 

It just leaves me wondering if the information from Jim Quinn, from the ATO, is accurate, or not, particularly as there were a few other staff members from the ATO that said non resident tax must be paid by aged pensioners living overseas. 

 

Hopefully Ego and / or Lacessit will be along soon to clear it all up. 

[Bvor]

4 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Hopefully Ego and / or Lacessit will be along soon to clear it all up. 

 That's all very well for the DTA/OAP bizzo but what's your take and or anybody elses take on my SAPTO tax met in Oz query.

[TigerandDog]

On 3/30/2024 at 9:28 AM, mfd101 said:

On 2 or 3 occasions in the last 2 years I have received queries from my various Oz financial institutions (including NAB) as to my tax status in Thailand. In (then) total ignorance of the Thai proposals & decisions to follow, I replied in each case (truthfully) that I don't have a TIN & I have no income sourced in Thailand ie all my income comes from Oz. At the time I thought that was an end of the matter.

 

In addition, for the last 4 or 5 years, without consultation the ATO has treated me as non-resident for tax purposes. Fair enough I guess, and it means I now have to pay additional tax (AUD8 or 9K) at the end of each FY as I have no 32% tax-free threshold.

 

My income is entirely Federal government public service superannuation (CSC/CSS - long-since closed).

 

Question: What happens when, later this year, I take out a TIN and prepare my first tax statement for Thailand starting 1Jan24? Noting the DTA, will that mean I cease to pay any Oz tax? And can I get refunded on the Oz tax I will already have paid from January this year? (Without knowing the likely Thai taxes I will have to pay it's hard to decide whether I'll be better off taxwise here, but I think with the ATO now swiping 32% of my total income I'm likely to be better off paying ONLY Thai tax.)

 

 

Regardless of whether you have a Thai tax file number or not, under the Australia/Thai DTA Oz CANNOT legally tax you, even at non resident rates as long as you are a resident for Thai taxation purposes (viz 180 days or more per calendar year). The DTA stipulates that ONLY the country where a person is a resident for tax purposes can tax that person, viz. Thailand. All you need to be able to do is prove to the ATO, preferably using a tax accountant who has full knowledge of the DTA, that you have been a Thai resident for tax purposes for those 4 or 5 years and submit a claim for a FULL refund of all taxes paid to the ATO during that period.  Earlier this year I telephoned a tax accountant in Melbourne who specialises in DTA's, with regards to my Oz Age pension to be told that even though it was tax free in Oz it was assessable income here in Thailand, and during that conversation he told me about one of his clients who had been living fulltime in Thailand for the previous 15 years and being taxed by the ATO at the Oz non-resident tax rate of 32,5% on his age pension. The accountant lodged a claim with the ATO making them aware that under the relevant section of the DTA that the ATO could not legally tax their client on any income as he was aThai resident for taxation purposes. The client received a FULL refund  of the tax paid over those 15 years. 

 

The thing to keep in mind is that as per several posts by Mike Lister, there is a full range of deductions that we can claim to reduce the actual assessable amount thus reducing the amount of tax payable if any. In my case those deductions will reduce the annual amount of my assessable income (age pension only) to below the 120,000 baht level thus resulting in my still having to lodge a tax return BUT not having to pay any tax whatsoever.  The other step yhou should take, via a tax accountant, is to have the ATO notified that your last tax return was your final one as you would not be returning to Australia.

[mfd101]

1 hour ago, TigerandDog said:

Regardless of whether you have a Thai tax file number or not, under the Australia/Thai DTA Oz CANNOT legally tax you, even at non resident rates as long as you are a resident for Thai taxation purposes (viz 180 days or more per calendar year). The DTA stipulates that ONLY the country where a person is a resident for tax purposes can tax that person, viz. Thailand. All you need to be able to do is prove to the ATO, preferably using a tax accountant who has full knowledge of the DTA, that you have been a Thai resident for tax purposes for those 4 or 5 years and submit a claim for a FULL refund of all taxes paid to the ATO during that period.  Earlier this year I telephoned a tax accountant in Melbourne who specialises in DTA's, with regards to my Oz Age pension to be told that even though it was tax free in Oz it was assessable income here in Thailand, and during that conversation he told me about one of his clients who had been living fulltime in Thailand for the previous 15 years and being taxed by the ATO at the Oz non-resident tax rate of 32,5% on his age pension. The accountant lodged a claim with the ATO making them aware that under the relevant section of the DTA that the ATO could not legally tax their client on any income as he was aThai resident for taxation purposes. The client received a FULL refund  of the tax paid over those 15 years. 

 

The thing to keep in mind is that as per several posts by Mike Lister, there is a full range of deductions that we can claim to reduce the actual assessable amount thus reducing the amount of tax payable if any. In my case those deductions will reduce the annual amount of my assessable income (age pension only) to below the 120,000 baht level thus resulting in my still having to lodge a tax return BUT not having to pay any tax whatsoever.  The other step yhou should take, via a tax accountant, is to have the ATO notified that your last tax return was your final one as you would not be returning to Australia.

Thanks for that. I will take it on board as I head towards taking out a Thai TIN in January next. Meantime I will talk to my current (Canberra) accountants re the DTA - it may be news to them(!).

[Fat is a type of crazy]

2 hours ago, TigerandDog said:

Regardless of whether you have a Thai tax file number or not, under the Australia/Thai DTA Oz CANNOT legally tax you, even at non resident rates as long as you are a resident for Thai taxation purposes (viz 180 days or more per calendar year). The DTA stipulates that ONLY the country where a person is a resident for tax purposes can tax that person, viz. Thailand. All you need to be able to do is prove to the ATO, preferably using a tax accountant who has full knowledge of the DTA, that you have been a Thai resident for tax purposes for those 4 or 5 years and submit a claim for a FULL refund of all taxes paid to the ATO during that period.  Earlier this year I telephoned a tax accountant in Melbourne who specialises in DTA's, with regards to my Oz Age pension to be told that even though it was tax free in Oz it was assessable income here in Thailand, and during that conversation he told me about one of his clients who had been living fulltime in Thailand for the previous 15 years and being taxed by the ATO at the Oz non-resident tax rate of 32,5% on his age pension. The accountant lodged a claim with the ATO making them aware that under the relevant section of the DTA that the ATO could not legally tax their client on any income as he was aThai resident for taxation purposes. The client received a FULL refund  of the tax paid over those 15 years. 

 

The thing to keep in mind is that as per several posts by Mike Lister, there is a full range of deductions that we can claim to reduce the actual assessable amount thus reducing the amount of tax payable if any. In my case those deductions will reduce the annual amount of my assessable income (age pension only) to below the 120,000 baht level thus resulting in my still having to lodge a tax return BUT not having to pay any tax whatsoever.  The other step yhou should take, via a tax accountant, is to have the ATO notified that your last tax return was your final one as you would not be returning to Australia.

I think you are mistaken i.e. if the income is sourced in Australia it may be taxable in Australia at non-resident rates e.g. the government super pension mentioned, rental income on Australian property, etc. Of course interest earned in Australia is still taxed at 10 per cent for non residents. You can likely get a tax credit for tax paid in the other country but the way your post reads is once you are a resident of Thailand and pay tax in Thailand on all income there is no tax to pay in Australia full stop. 

This post was quite good in the name of Dinga - it is  looking at the new tax rules for Thailand but discusses the Double Taxation Agreement and tax for non residents of Australia. 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1306896-thai-government-to-tax-remitted-income-from-abroad-for-tax-residents-starting-2024/page/282/

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

On 3/30/2024 at 1:28 PM, mfd101 said:

On 2 or 3 occasions in the last 2 years I have received queries from my various Oz financial institutions (including NAB) as to my tax status in Thailand. In (then) total ignorance of the Thai proposals & decisions to follow, I replied in each case (truthfully) that I don't have a TIN & I have no income sourced in Thailand ie all my income comes from Oz. At the time I thought that was an end of the matter.

 

In addition, for the last 4 or 5 years, without consultation the ATO has treated me as non-resident for tax purposes. Fair enough I guess, and it means I now have to pay additional tax (AUD8 or 9K) at the end of each FY as I have no 32% tax-free threshold.

 

My income is entirely Federal government public service superannuation (CSC/CSS - long-since closed).

 

Question: What happens when, later this year, I take out a TIN and prepare my first tax statement for Thailand starting 1Jan24? Noting the DTA, will that mean I cease to pay any Oz tax? And can I get refunded on the Oz tax I will already have paid from January this year? (Without knowing the likely Thai taxes I will have to pay it's hard to decide whether I'll be better off taxwise here, but I think with the ATO now swiping 32% of my total income I'm likely to be better off paying ONLY Thai tax.)

 

 

I have noted this in other posts I think but the post above notes that what they call civil service pensions - which I assume includes employee superannuation like the CSS and PSS pensions - are specifically excluded by the Double Tax Agreement and only taxable in the state that disperses them and are not taxable in Thailand. So that to me indicates you have been taxed correctly up till now and will not be taxed in Thailand on this income but not a bad idea to look into it further as the other poster says.

 

[mfd101]

1 hour ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I have noted this in other posts I think but the post above notes that what they call civil service pensions - which I assume includes employee superannuation like the CSS and PSS pensions - are specifically excluded by the Double Tax Agreement and only taxable in the state that disperses them and are not taxable in Thailand. So that to me indicates you have been taxed correctly up till now and will not be taxed in Thailand on this income but not a bad idea to look into it further as the other poster says.

 

Noted, thanks. I agree.

 

The key point is that the Oz federal government CSS issue is DIFFERENT from age pension matters. It is a particular issue arising from the long-closed superannuation CSS which was not taxed going in, so is now taxed coming out. And now complicated for me as a 'non-resident for tax purposes' in Oz. Which doesn't mean that I'm not taxed there; it means I'm taxed at a higher rate (32.5%) than age pensioners.

 

There's also the difficulty that arises from first reading of article 19 of the DTA ['Government Service'] which seems to have a bob each way. Careful reading & rereading clarifies this: My CSS super is taxable ONLY in Oz [at the confiscatory rate of 32.5%] and will continue to be so & there's nothing I can do about it.

 

I will nevertheless follow up with my Canberra accountants when I'm preparing inputs to my 23/24 tax return.

[KhunHeineken]

14 hours ago, TigerandDog said:

Regardless of whether you have a Thai tax file number or not, under the Australia/Thai DTA Oz CANNOT legally tax you, even at non resident rates as long as you are a resident for Thai taxation purposes (viz 180 days or more per calendar year).

Link please.

 

14 hours ago, TigerandDog said:

The DTA stipulates that ONLY the country where a person is a resident for tax purposes can tax that person, viz. Thailand. All you need to be able to do is prove to the ATO, preferably using a tax accountant who has full knowledge of the DTA, that you have been a Thai resident for tax purposes for those 4 or 5 years and submit a claim for a FULL refund of all taxes paid to the ATO during that period. 

Didn't you just said you can not be taxed, therefore, how can you be refunded?

 

Another member posted a link to the thread, but here's the link to the actual youtube video.  Also, a member has posted a screenshot. 

 

 

Have a look at around 18:50 minutes.  It states there is no exclusion for the Australian aged pension in the DTA.

 

There's also this from these from the ATO.

 

https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s0000002ngF/p00172380

 

https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s000000O2y4/p00197245

 

In fairness, a screenshot was posted by a member that was from another ATO staff member who said no tax was payable due to the DTA, but it's a screenshot and I can't link it. 

 

Article 18 and Article 19 of the DTA relate to pensions.  

 

An aged pension is not a civil service pension. 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, mfd101 said:

The key point is that the Oz federal government CSS issue is DIFFERENT from age pension matters.

Correct. 

 

1 hour ago, mfd101 said:

There's also the difficulty that arises from first reading of article 19 of the DTA

Those pesky "provisions" in Article 19 that Article 18 relies upon. 

[TigerandDog]

On 7/1/2024 at 8:18 PM, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I think you are mistaken i.e. if the income is sourced in Australia it may be taxable in Australia at non-resident rates e.g. the government super pension mentioned, rental income on Australian property, etc. Of course interest earned in Australia is still taxed at 10 per cent for non residents. You can likely get a tax credit for tax paid in the other country but the way your post reads is once you are a resident of Thailand and pay tax in Thailand on all income there is no tax to pay in Australia full stop. 

This post was quite good in the name of Dinga - it is  looking at the new tax rules for Thailand but discusses the Double Taxation Agreement and tax for non residents of Australia. 

https://aseannow.com/topic/1306896-thai-government-to-tax-remitted-income-from-abroad-for-tax-residents-starting-2024/page/282/

 

My post was based entirely on information I received from a tax accountant in Melbourne. After watching the video in another post it appears that the information I was given by that accounting firm was not entirely correct. Nevertheless it still means that the aussie age pension is assessable income here and a tax return must be submitted. The other point I will reiterate is that if an aussie expat is permanently residing in Thailand, full time, and they have no assets in Oz they should notify the ATO that they have permanently left Oz which means no more aussie tax returns are required and as such no aussie non-resident taxation on the age pension. With all the deductions we are entitled to claim ( see posts by Mike Lister itemising them all) spme tax would be payable here, BUT if you have been receiving interest on your bank account and that interest has exceeded 20kTHB then teh tax that is automatically deducted could be enough to reduce your tax payable to zero or get you a partial refund of teh tax you've already paid on your bank interest.

[Fat is a type of crazy]

32 minutes ago, TigerandDog said:

The other point I will reiterate is that if an aussie expat is permanently residing in Thailand, full time, and they have no assets in Oz they should notify the ATO that they have permanently left Oz which means no more aussie tax returns are required and as such no aussie non-resident taxation on the age pension. 

Note though that non-residents are taxed on their Australian based income in Australia including the age pension. The Double Tax Agreement will stop double taxing e.g. take into account credits for tax paid in the other country - but Australia would in theory want you to lodge and potentially pay some tax if they are aware you are a non-resident and getting the pension being a form of income. 

Here is an example from ATO Community:

https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s0000002ngF/p00172380

 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, TigerandDog said:

The other point I will reiterate is that if an aussie expat is permanently residing in Thailand, full time, and they have no assets in Oz they should notify the ATO that they have permanently left Oz which means no more aussie tax returns are required and as such no aussie non-resident taxation on the age pension.

Wrong.

 

It's been proven the aged pension is an income at law.

 

It's been proven the aged pension is taxable.

 

The non resident tax rate is 30% from $0 to $135,000.

 

After the proposed changes are passed, the government will have the ability to automatically deem an individual a non resident for tax purposes after being outside of Australia for 183 days in a financial year.  

 

The information in the video you are referring to shows the DTA does not include aged pensions.  

 

Another member has posted a link setting this out.  

 

Here's another one.

 

  https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s000000O2y4/p00197245

 

"As a non-resident for tax purposes, we'll only tax you on the income you receive from Australia sources such as interest and your pension." 

[KhunHeineken]

41 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Note though that non-residents are taxed on their Australian based income in Australia including the age pension. The Double Tax Agreement will stop double taxing e.g. take into account credits for tax paid in the other country - but Australia would in theory want you to lodge and potentially pay some tax if they are aware you are a non-resident and getting the pension being a form of income. 

Here is an example from ATO Community:

https://community.ato.gov.au/s/question/a0J9s0000002ngF/p00172380

 

Correct. 

 

As you said, "if they are aware" which is why the current 90 year old laws will change in the near future to a physical presence and time based model, just like Thailand with their 180 days a calendar year, Australia will be 183 days in a financial year.

 

Immigration records will make the ATO "aware" who will most likely make Centerlink "aware" which MAY see the aged pension taxed at non resident rates because it is an income, and it is taxable. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

8 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Correct. 

 

As you said, "if they are aware" which is why the current 90 year old laws will change in the near future to a physical presence and time based model, just like Thailand with their 180 days a calendar year, Australia will be 183 days in a financial year.

 

Immigration records will make the ATO "aware" who will most likely make Centerlink "aware" which MAY see the aged pension taxed at non resident rates because it is an income, and it is taxable. 

But as has been said many times being outside 183 days does not automatically make you a non-resident so they couldn't rely on immigration records alone. Because the proposed bright line test is hard and fast in one direction - to say you are a resident for 183 days in Australia not necessarily a non-resident for 183 days out of Australia. 

[KhunHeineken]

6 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

But as has been said many times being outside 183 days does not automatically make you a non-resident so they couldn't rely on immigration records alone. Because the proposed bright line test is hard and fast in one direction - to say you are a resident for 183 days in Australia not necessarily a non-resident for 183 days out of Australia. 

And has been asked by me to members here, many times, how does an Aussie expat living in Thailand, who has not returned to Australia for several years, argue they are still a tax resident of Australia?  This scenario describes the majority of Aussie expats here, does it not? 

 

Perhaps you can answer this question.

 

The current 90 year old laws practically allow everyone and anyone to declare they are "domiciled" in Australia, therefore a resident for tax purposes.  The "long holiday" scenario.  I've been using this loophole myself.  

 

The idea of the proposed changes is to modernize the current 90 year old laws to a physical presence and time based model.  Obviously, this is easily proven by immigration records that can not be challenged. 

 

It also goes to compliance and enforcement, not just deeming one's tax residency status.     

[Pattaya57]

5 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

After the proposed changes are passed, the government will have the ability to automatically deem an individual a non resident for tax purposes after being outside of Australia for 183 days in a financial year.  

You've been corrected on this numerous times by multiple people on various threads and yet you continue to ignore and keep posting your scare mongering rubbish.

 

The actual proposed "bright line test" states: "If an individual is present in Australia for 183 days or more in an income year, the individual will be considered an Australian tax resident.". 

 

Your constant twisting of that proposal to say anyone outside Australia for 183 days will automatically be considered a non-resident by government tracking us is at best saying you don't understand the rules you're quoting, while worst case is you plan to continue to keep scare mongering by posting this same false information over and over 

 

You've never once acknowledged the proposed rules allow one 45 day entry to Australia in any of the previous 3 tax years. This is also the answer to your question on how long term residents of Thailand can keep their Aussie Residency. Go backpacking on the gold coast for 6 weeks and you're a resident 

 

[KhunHeineken]

2 minutes ago, Pattaya57 said:

You've been corrected on this numerous times by multiple people on various threads and yet you continue to ignore and keep posting your scare mongering rubbish.

 

The actual proposed "bright line test" states: "If an individual is present in Australia for 183 days or more in an income year, the individual will be considered an Australian tax resident.". 

 

Your constant twisting of that proposal to say anyone outside Australia for 183 days will automatically be considered a non-resident is at best saying you don't understand the rules you're quoting, while worst case is you plan to continue to keep scare mongering by posting this same false information over and over

 

You've never once acknowledged the proposed rules allow one 45 day entry to Australia in any of the previous 3 years. This is also the answer to your question on how long term residents of Thailand can keep their Aussie Residency.

Yawn. 

 

Been through this with you before and you always decline to reply. 

 

Your typical Aussie expat retiree hasn't been back to Australia in several years.  Do you agree?  Yes, or no? 

 

What's your advice to these expats about how they can remain a tax resident of Australia, in order to avail themselves of the tax free threshold, AFTER the proposed changes are legislated and implemented? 

 

Many can't afford the flights, let alone living in Australia for 46 days, then they have to meet two out of four factor tests.  One is super easy, one out of the other three may not be easy for them to meet. 

 

It's not scaremongering.  The proposed changes are there for all to see.  They will close the loopholes in the current 90 year old laws.  Non residents will be taxed at non resident rates.  The pension is deemed an income an the pension is taxable. 

 

After the proposed changed are implemented, perhaps you can tell us just how many days one must be OUTSIDE of Australia before they are deemed to be a non resident for tax purposes.  

 

You are still looking at it from the perspective of keeping your Australian tax residency status.  So am I.  I have said before I could do 46 days in Australia, but wouldn't be happy with 60 or 90 days, but what about all the expats that haven't been back to Australia in years?  What do YOU think their tax residency status is now, and will be, after the proposed changes are implemented?     

[KhunHeineken]

4 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

But as has been said many times being outside 183 days does not automatically make you a non-resident so they couldn't rely on immigration records alone. Because the proposed bright line test is hard and fast in one direction - to say you are a resident for 183 days in Australia not necessarily a non-resident for 183 days out of Australia. 

Same questions to you.

 

Is an expat that hasn't been back to Australia in several years a resident or non resident for taxation purposes?  Is this demographic a few, or many? 

 

Given the pension is deemed an income, and the pension is taxable, what advice do you have for these expats?

 

After the proposed changes are implemented, how many days do YOU say one has to be outside of Australia before being deemed a non resident for tax purposes? 

[Pattaya57]

6 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Yawn. 

 

Been through this with you before and you always decline to reply. 

 

Your typical Aussie expat retiree hasn't been back to Australia in several years.  Do you agree?  Yes, or no? 

 

What's your advice to these expats about how they can remain a tax resident of Australia, in order to avail themselves of the tax free threshold, AFTER the proposed changes are legislated and implemented? 

 

Many can't afford the flights, let alone living in Australia for 46 days, then they have to meet two out of four factor tests.  One is super easy, one out of the other three may not be easy for them to meet. 

 

It's not scaremongering.  The proposed changes are there for all to see.  They will close the loopholes in the current 90 year old laws.  Non residents will be taxed at non resident rates.  The pension is deemed an income an the pension is taxable. 

 

After the proposed changed are implemented, perhaps you can tell us just how many days one must be OUTSIDE of Australia before they are deemed to be a non resident for tax purposes.  

 

You are still looking at it from the perspective of keeping your Australian tax residency status.  So am I.  I have said before I could do 46 days in Australia, but wouldn't be happy with 60 or 90 days, but what about all the expats that haven't been back to Australia in years?  What do YOU think their tax residency status is now, and will be, after the proposed changes are implemented?     

So again you ignore that proposed rules say it is one 45 day entry in any of the last 3 years to retain Australian tax residence. There's no point responding to you any further as you obviously do not understand the proposed rules you keep quoting as fact 

 

I've reported you as posting against this forum rule:

 

5. You will not use ASEAN NOW to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false

 

But apparently none of the mods know you're continuously posting porky's in this sub-forum so your free to keep posting your BS

[KhunHeineken]

Just now, Pattaya57 said:

So again you ignore that proposed rules say it is one 45 day entry in any of the last 3 years to retain Australian tax residence. There's no point responding to you any further as you obviously do not understand the proposed rules you keep quoting as fact 

Again you ignore that many expats haven't been back to Australia in years. 

 

What is your advice to them on how to remain a resident for tax purposes in order to avail themselves of the tax free threshold? 

[Pattaya57]

11 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Again you ignore that many expats haven't been back to Australia in years. 

 

What is your advice to them on how to remain a resident for tax purposes in order to avail themselves of the tax free threshold? 

Are you a <deleted> idiot? These rules aren't in place so they're fine. If somehow they do come into law, how many times do I have to say go back to Australia on holiday for 45 days and then they're good for 3 years as an Australian resident for tax

 

I've posted that at least 4 times that proposed rules say 45 days in Australia in any of last 3 years is all that's required. Why do you continuously ignore this and keep posting your made up rule that 183 days out of Australia is an automatic government declaration that someone is declared a non-resident for tax (absolute BS)

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

5 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

And has been asked by me to members here, many times, how does an Aussie expat living in Thailand, who has not returned to Australia for several years, argue they are still a tax resident of Australia?  This scenario describes the majority of Aussie expats here, does it not? 

 

Perhaps you can answer this question.

 

The current 90 year old laws practically allow everyone and anyone to declare they are "domiciled" in Australia, therefore a resident for tax purposes.  The "long holiday" scenario.  I've been using this loophole myself.  

 

The idea of the proposed changes is to modernize the current 90 year old laws to a physical presence and time based model.  Obviously, this is easily proven by immigration records that can not be challenged. 

 

It also goes to compliance and enforcement, not just deeming one's tax residency status.     

It's almost like you are finally admitting that you got it a bit wrong regarding the bright line test. Good job. 

But yes there is no surprise that if you out of Thailand for years if the authorities bother to look at you they'll likely say you are a non-resident. Under old rules or proposed new rules. The old and new rules have different advantages in finding ways to remain a resident -  e.g. the 45 day situation - so in some ways no big difference or the new rules could be better for some people. 

[KhunHeineken]

17 hours ago, Pattaya57 said:

Are you a <deleted> idiot?

No, but you are. 

 

17 hours ago, Pattaya57 said:

These rules aren't in place

That's why they are "proposed changes." 

 

17 hours ago, Pattaya57 said:

If somehow they do come into law, how many times do I have to say go back to Australia on holiday for 45 days and then they're good for 3 years as an Australian resident for tax

How many times do I have to ask you, how many expats are capable of returning to Australia for the 46 days, and meeting one out of the remaining three factor tests????

 

First of all, they have to have the health to do so, mainly being mobility.   Many have a Thai missus caring for them.  Then they have to have the funds to afford the flights and cost of living for a minimum of 6 weeks.  Then they have to meet one of the three remaining factor tests.  Admittedly, the factor tests may not be scrutinized.  Eg. property ownership or having a lease. 

 

17 hours ago, Pattaya57 said:

I've posted that at least 4 times that proposed rules say 45 days in Australia in any of last 3 years is all that's required. Why do you continuously ignore this and keep posting your made up rule that 183 days out of Australia is an automatic government declaration that someone is declared a non-resident for tax (absolute BS)

I am aware 45 days in the past three years is somewhat of a loophole.  Yes, it's in the proposed changes.  I get what you are saying.  Are we clear on that now?

 

I have said 46 days and two out of the four factor tests are no problem for me, and it appears neither are they for you, but that may not be the case for many other expats.  Also, the Labor government has stated they are looking at increasing the 45 days to 60 or probably 90 days.  (link previously posted)  This increases the time one must spends inside Australia every 3 years.   

 

As I have posted several times, how many expats do YOU think are capable of reestablishing residency?  I've addressed some of the main hurdles facing many of them. 

 

What you fail to understand is, many have not returned to Australia in years.  Therefore, the 45 days every 3 years is irrelevant to them.  They are definitely non residents for tax purposes, with many not being capable of returning to Australia to reestablish residency.  Just look at all the threads about returning to Australia for 2 years to achieve portability and the hardship it causes. 

 

If we took a poll on this forum of expats with the simple question:  "Have you been back to Australia for more than 45 days in the last 3 years?"  Yes or No. 

 

How many do YOU think will answer "Yes?"  

 

If you haven't been back to Australia in the last 3 years, then the 183 day rule, every year thereafter comes into play.  Are you stating the 183 days outside of Australia does not apply to expats that haven't been back to Australia in years?

[KhunHeineken]

17 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

It's almost like you are finally admitting that you got it a bit wrong regarding the bright line test. Good job. 

It's almost like you are finally admitting that you got it a bit wrong regarding the bright line test and expats that haven't returned to Australia in several years.  Good job. 

 

17 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

But yes there is no surprise that if you out of Thailand for years if the authorities bother to look at you they'll likely say you are a non-resident.

The proposed changes makes "looking at you" a lot easier for the ATO, do they not? 

 

As I have just posted, if you haven't been back to Australia for more than 46 days in the last 3 years, and I suggest this is the majority of expat retirees, then the 183 day rule in the proposed changes comes into play every year thereafter.  This would mean ongoing non resident tax on any income derived from Australia, and it's been proven the pension is deemed an income, and is taxable. 

 

17 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

The old and new rules have different advantages in finding ways to remain a resident -  e.g. the 45 day situation - so in some ways no big difference or the new rules could be better for some people. 

Same question to you. 

 

How many expat retirees do you think are capable of returning to Australia for 46 days to reestablish residency?  Remembering, the 45 days MAY become 90 days. 

 

If the poll I mentioned in a previous post ran, what percentage results do YOU think would be the outcome?