Australian Aged Pension

[Lacessit]

16 minutes ago, norbra said:

My view.I am an Australian national,I am a tax resident of Thailand, I accept that my Australian Aged Pension is ASSESSABLE to be taxed by Thai legislation. Them's the facts.

 

My view : I am either an Australian resident for tax purposes, or I am not. I am either deemed to be resident in Thailand to be paying tax there, or I am not.

[KhunHeineken]

23 hours ago, georgegeorgia said:

I have a million dollars in mine 

And the Thai government wants some it. 

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, KhunHeineken said:

And the Thai government wants some it. 

If it's money he can prove was in his savings prior to January 1, 2024, they can't touch it.

Perhaps you could give your laugh emoticon a rest, and concentrate on your syntax. There's a missing preposition in your post.

 

[norbra]

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

My view : I am either an Australian resident for tax purposes, or I am not. I am either deemed to be resident in Thailand to be paying tax there, or I am not.

Come on if you are in Thailand for more than 180 days you are a thai tax resident and obliged to pay any tax relevant levies 

[Lacessit]

34 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's funny because many other links have been provided that contain information that conflicts with "Jim's" information in nobra's link, but because it fits the agenda of many members, and that agenda may simply be tax minimization, Jim's information is now gospel, and all the other links should be disregarded. 

 

Once again, the psychology behind it is very interesting. 

 

Maybe it's a bit like Thai bar girls.  "My link is different." 

None of your links are official ATO responses to a query, referencing existing legislation. They are discussion/consultation papers only, without any ATO imprimatur.

I don't expect you to see the difference, due to your obsession with them.

[Lacessit]

1 minute ago, norbra said:

Come on if you are in Thailand for more than 180 days you are a thai tax resident and obliged to pay any tax relevant levies 

I am not disagreeing with you.

Very few foreigners are Thai residents. They can be deemed to be TAX residents.

I am making the point, perhaps not clearly, if I am deemed to be non-resident in Australia, I must be resident somewhere else.

I don't live in a vacuum, although there is one in a certain poster's head.

[Lacessit]

19 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Or, just withdraw it from an ATM with an Aussie debit card.  Yes, some fees to pay, but it might be a small price to pay to keep the money away from the Thai tax system.  

Bravo. The first constructive suggestion I have seen you make on this thread.

[KhunHeineken]

9 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Naturally that will depend on whether you accept my interpretation of the findings and legislation provided to me and read here on this forum. 

Naturally it would help if you could post how you came to the conclusion of forming your interpretation, rather than just posting your interpretation and then stating, "links don't exist." 

 

9 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

I have always said, it always depends on who you talk to, because not everyone is up to speed on legislation, some are good readers and interpreters, others lazy and just buying their time.

So can you explain why you accept and believe the information from some, and disregard the others?

 

9 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

It's a 50/50 mixed bag, that's why I always search for Legislative material because it's finale.

Yet, you've never posted links to any legislation.  Why is that?

 

9 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Minimal damage, as Lacessit has stated below:

 

" The first is you can only be taxed on income received and transferred after January 1, 2024. If you can prove what you are transferring is from savings prior to that date, no tax is payable. I've already got screenshots of my savings for that eventuality".

 

"The second is to marry a thai. For someone solely on the OAP, the amount of tax payable after various allowances is fairly miniscule. IIRC, I calculated it as 5000 baht pa".

I've posted a link, which came from the Treasury website, showing that Thailand gets to tax first, then Australia.   More research is needed, but do with that link as you please. 

 

9 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

I have a Thai bank account and a Thai wife, but don't have a TFN and until they become compulsory, I won't have one.

 

The Age Pension is a few years away for me, and now that after reading the Article 18 and 19, I am of the opinion that the Age Pension is definitely not taxable in Australia and hasn't been taxable in Australia since the DTA came into existence, hence the reason Age Pensioners i.e. non residents of Australia living in Thailand haven't had to pay tax.

 

The above said, that may all change now with the Amendment of the Revenue Code Act, which came into effect on 1 January 2024 as LosLobo pointed out above.

 

If anyone reading this post who is in agreement with my interpretation, i.e. non resident of Australia i.e. Age Pensions for this topic, are subject to tax in Thailand only, (if enforced) by the Thai Government, give me the thumbs up, alternatively please reply with your reasons as to why you think Age Pensions are subject to the non resident tax of 32.5c to the $.

 

I have copied and pasted Articles 18 & 19 of the below Act, and have interpreted Article 18 2. to be relevant to Age Pensioners living in Thailand as non residents, i.e. are subject to paying tax in Thailand and not Australia.

In my opinion they will become compulsory.  Of course this is debatable, but I am happy to hear any opinion you may have as to why they will not. 

 

What's your interpretation of Article 18 and Article 19, given Article 18 sates, " Subject to the provisions of Article 19..................?" 

 

It all may change as "Australia plans to enter into new an updated tax treaties..........."  (see link in other post)

 

No thumbs up from me at this stage.  You have not "sold" it to me.  There is conflicting evidence out there, and it will take more than just your "interpretation" to sway me. 

 

By now we have all read Articles 18 and 19.  Once again, can you post your reasoning behind your interpretation?

[Lacessit]

4 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

 

 

It all may change as "Australia plans to enter into new an updated tax treaties..........."  (see link in other post)

 

 

How long do you think a tax treaty will take to be updated between countries? IMO most people drawing a pension will be dead by then.

[Lacessit]

14 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I am not disagreeing with you.

Very few foreigners are Thai residents. They can be deemed to be TAX residents.

I am making the point, perhaps not clearly, if I am deemed to be non-resident in Australia, I must be resident somewhere else.

I don't live in a vacuum, although there is one in a certain poster's head.

Extract of Thai to English translation of the DTA, seen through Thai officialdom.

 

ARTICLE 4
RESIDENCE

1.         For the purposes of this Agreement,  a person is a resident of one of the Contracting States:
             (a)        in the case of Australia, if the person is a resident of Australia for
                         the purposes of Australian tax; and
             (b)        in the case of Thailand, if the person is a resident of Thailand for
                         the purposes of Thai tax. 

[KhunHeineken]

10 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

You asked, but can you accept it, I wait with bated breath for you to admit that you were WRONG, and to make it easy on you, i.e. that you don't read the whole legislation, Article 18 should make it easy for you.

 

https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1989/36.html

 

Come on, admit it........LoL

I take on board anything of substance that I can research and inform myself about.  I thank members for new links of substance.  That does not include your interpretations and opinion.  You asked for thumbs up, but you didn't see the p*ss take on your "interpretations"  by another member. 

 

If I am wrong, I will admit I am wrong.  I notice the double taxation treaty is now being put forward as an escape to non resident tax in Australia.  I have no problem with that, and have stated my position.  I will research more and report back.  The tax treaty is new ground for me, but "Subject to the provisions of Article 19" has raised my eyebrows. 

 

It's called a "double taxation treaty" for a reason.  Has it occurred to you the "double" part may only mean the portion of difference between Thailand's tax percentage and Australia's tax percentage? 

 

Can it be possible the residing country's small percent sees the source country unable to tax their bigger percent?  Maybe, but maybe not, and I have posted links to show that Thailand gets to tax first, and then Australia.  Not Thailand gets to tax first, and Australia gets nothing.  After reading my link, does these seem at all plausible to you? 

 

In any case, I have posted a link showing Australia is planning changes to all they tax treaties.  I will also research this, and typical time frames.  I have suggested that due to Thailand's announcement about taxing foreigners, Australia may put their treaty with Thailand at the top of the list, but that's just me speculating.   

 

In my opinion, it's too early to celebrate yet.  Sure, you may feel differently, and you are entitled to your opinion, but for me, more research is needed, which I propose to do. 

 

At least we have progressed past the list of ridiculous reasons why none of this will happen and / or why none of this is applicable. 

 

Go on, admit to which comment on the list was yours.  Was it the "Paul Hogan" comment?  Was it the "Medicare Card" comment?  Come on, own up to which one was yours.  I might scroll back tomorrow and bump the comments from some of the vocal haters.   

[KhunHeineken]

10 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The silence from our usually voluble and prolific poster has been quite deafening over the last 48 hours.

Karma really is a bitch, isn't it?

Wrong.

 

I have addressed things put to me in the general forum, and now replying to individual posts. 

 

I was offline last night as I went to a party. 

 

Today I was at home and replying, in between watching Australia v West Indies.  The match has finished so I am catching up with my AN fans, including you.   

[KhunHeineken]

10 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

I believe that after reading the DTA, in particular Article 18, (see 3 posts back), that they would have to change that Legislation and I can't see that happening as they are not after Age Pensioners, and as such, they are protected under that piece of Legislation in my opinion.

They are not after aged pensioners, but without an exemption they will scoop them up as well, and for no loss of votes. 

 

As for changing the tax treaty, would you care to comment on this link?

 

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)."

 

The above reads to me a lot like that are looking at changing legislation.  How does it read to you? 

[KhunHeineken]

10 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Pretty big pill for him to swallow, oi....LoL

Do you think you may have, just may have, popped the champagne cork too early? 

 

You have put all your faith in Article 18, which states, "Subject to the provisions of Article 19" and then I have provided a link setting out that Australia is planning on changing all their tax treaties in the near future anyway. 

 

I continue to find your "interpretations" amusing.  Go ahead, entertain me some more with your interpretations. 

[KhunHeineken]

10 hours ago, scorecard said:

•  

 

From above:

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 it remains to be seen exactly how the Thai RD / legislation will handle such incoming funds.

I got numerous e.mails from of the so called Tax consultants resident in the UK (Carl xxxxxxx) ut claiming to be an expert on Thai personal taxes. I asked him about Thai personal tax on Oz OAP where it was the only incoming funds received by an individual.  He said he didn't Know (which shocked me), then said he would ask his contact, a anr officer at the Thai RD.  He went on to say his RD contact instantly said 'old age pension' where it's the only income from other countries will never be subject to Thai personal tax. 

Well, if that's the case, I guess the ATO will be happy.   That means they get to tax more.  (see the link I posted in the general forum) 

[KhunHeineken]

10 hours ago, LosLobo said:

Seems likely I may be wrong, and I will be the first one to admit it.

I will give you an apology at the appropriate time if required.

But as I said "My Ego's response will be the definitive answer", so I will wait.

It would be foolish for me to again pre-empt a 'definitive' contextual response from the ATO.
t would be foolish for me to again pre-empt a 'definitive' contextual response from the ATO.

Though with respect, I do suggest that this discussion is not about who is wrong or right but getting the correct information for all to plan our future.

Though in the case of the other a good 'bollicking' may be well deserved.

 

"<deleted>" away, LosLobo, but can you point out, exactly, the reason for the bollocking?  After all, in your own words, "it would be foolish for you to pre-empt." 

[KhunHeineken]

9 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Come out, come out, to play, we are all waiting for your reply to my posts.

 

You did ask me to provide you with more links, and you did say:

 

"No confusion here". 

 

"Blake tells Bob he will have to pay 32.5% tax on his pension.  Seems clear to me". 

 

https://www.siam-legal.com/thailand-law/relationship-between-the-new-thai-tax-law-retirement-visa-holders-and-long-term-residency/#:~:text=A Double Tax Agreement between,Article 18 of this DTA.

 

What do you say to Blake now ?

 

Oh, I've been here "playing."  Next time to sign in you'll be able to catch up and give us more of your "interpretations."

 

That said, good to see you are finally researching and providing credible links for debate. 

 

Your link interests me.  I'll quote the relevant part and then comment.

 

"A Double Tax Agreement between Thailand and Australia classifies pensions as taxable only in 1 country, as defined in Article 18 of this DTA. If an Australian retiree moves into Thailand with pensions brought, the retiree can use it as tax credit against Thailand in paying a reduced tax rate during the Thailand residency."

 

Now, did you see the link I posted in he general forum?  When you do, pay particular notice to the word "credit/s" in that link.  It basically sets out that what Thailand taxes you goes as "credit" to what Australia will tax you, but because Thailand taxes you that doesn't mean you get a free pass from Australia taxing you.  Basically, Thailand tax you first, then hand you off to Australia to tax next. 

 

Could it be a coincident the term "credit" was used by Siam Legal?  If so, in what context did Siam Legal use the word "credit?"  What are they suggesting the "credit" is for"  Where does the "credit" go?   All interesting questions, don't you think?  Do you have any answers? 

 

In relation to Blake, and I know you will not accept this, and I haven't finished my research, but is it possible, just possible, that Blake's information is correct, as well as Caro's, and the Aussie expat pensioner will indeed pay 32.5% tax, but it's just that Thailand might get, say, 10%, and Australia the other 22.5%?  Is this something you even remotely would consider, even after reading the link I posted in the general forum?

 

Once again, eagerly awaiting your "interpretations" as they are always entertaining.      

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

9 hours ago, HighPriority said:

We seem to have arrived at position of no tax on the pension, let’s enjoy that.

Have we? Really? 

 

Perhaps not, but hope is a good thing. 

[KhunHeineken]

8 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

So you won't admit that you were WRONG, considering that there are no winners or losers, your words.

 

I don't see you gloating anymore, your tune has changed, but you have still not admitted that you were WRONG, a key word you used to throw in our faces, come on now, be a man, own up to the fact that you were WRONG, trying to deflect it, doesn't help you grow.

I will gladly admit I am wrong, after all, it will be in my financial benefit to be wrong.  I just don't think you have proven me wrong yet. 

 

You are taking it all very personally.  There's no need to.  I want you to be right and me wrong, because it means I retain more money, but I actually think you are wrong, but I still remain happy for you to prove me wrong, and please, with something more than your "interpretations." 

 

8 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

I just point out to you, that Age Pensioners don't pay non residents tax, that is what you asked for, but you haven't said you were wrong, deflecting again, nice try, there is only 5 letters in the word.

Have you read the link I posted in the general forum?  If not, after you do, please post your "interpretation." 

 

8 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Deflecting again.

 

Do you now agree or disagree that Age Pensioners that are non residents to a country with a DTA don't pay the 32.5c foreign resident tax in Australia, even though the Age Pension is deemed as an income.

 

I am waiting.....LoL

No deflection.  Been here all night, paying common courtesy and replying to posts such as this. 

 

No, I don't agree, and I have posted a link, which comes from the Treasury website, that says to me more research is needed.  

 

As I said in another post, perhaps you are celebrating too early. 

[KhunHeineken]

8 hours ago, Lacessit said:

I would like to point out KH has made over 600 posts on this thread, virtually all of which have caused mental distress to readers of this thread.

I have called him out repeatedly, and also reported him for repetitive posting.

 

Joseph Goebbels:  If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

 

The fact he is back posting without admitting he was wrong, or apologizing to people for causing them distress, tells me everything I need to know about his character.

 

You make a fair point. However, some things need to be said.

 

 

That's quite a statement, Lacessit. 

 

Unlike you, I have never reported anyone, ever, for anything, because I believe in freedom of speech, which is totally opposite to Geobbels.  You on the other hand....................

 

Perhaps you are more like Goebbels than me. 

 

As for mental distress, are you the spokesman for all Aussie members on this thread?  I don't think so. 

 

Since when, in Thailand or back in Australia, has paying more tax not been stressful?  Serious question.  It's not a pleasant subject, and any loss of even one extra dollar to the tax man causes angst.  As I have said in the past, don't shoot the messenger just because of the message.

 

I made a general post and then said I will address individual posts, as I am this post of yours.  One member has already begged me to reply.  I can only type so fast, but will get around to reply to all posts, eventually.  

 

Perhaps you should stop blaming me for Australia's tax policy.  It's the policy causing stress, not me point towards the policy, or would you rather members remain in ignorant bliss?      

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

8 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Now lets put it in simple terms, when I have the evidence, and share that evidence (links) to the person at question and know that, that person just wants to go around in circles, i.e. is full of it, e.g. not prepared to back down and admit that they were WRONG on the information provided to them, then there is nothing more to discuss.

Now let me put it in simple terms.  Just because you provide a link, why is it just because you provide it, it's beyond being questioned, when you have done nothing but question every single link I have ever posted on the issue? 

 

Why am I not afforded the opportunity to scrutinize your links in the same way you do mine.  What makes you think your links are not open to debate?  

 

What is funny is, you provide one link that conflicts with so many other links from credible sources, and then declared you are right, I am wrong, and I should just accept it.  

 

Well, no.  You are going to have to do better than that if you want me to concede I am wrong.  

 

I have posted a link that conflicts with yours.  Both links are from creditable sources.  What makes your link right and mine link wrong?

 

Prove it to me and I will gladly concede, after all, it's to my financial benefit that you are right. I just don't see it, and have provided links to show why I do not think you are right at this stage.  

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

8 hours ago, LosLobo said:

 

My point with all my posts to you has been your obsessive posting.
 

With respect, have you ever considered possibly becoming a valuable member of this forum.
 

Your past behaviour has had negative consequences for both you and this forum community, it:
 

Wastes time, energy, and resources.

Is obviously damaging your reputation, credibility, and relationships here.

Violates the rules of the forum.

Is annoying, offending, and alienating other users.

And, is disrupting, derailing, and dominating the forum discussion where we should be focussing on the topic of the forum, at a time of potential considerable change.
 

Have I not taken members from the ridiculous list of reasons that they thought the proposed changes would never happen, or would never apply to them, into the real world???? 

 

It's been quite an effort, yet, you criticize me for putting the work in. 

 

You've seen the crazy psychology behind the posts. You've seen the crazy ideas and beliefs.  You have seen the absolute hate directed towards me when I have challenged such ideas and beliefs, yet, it's not my policy, it was Scomo's, and now Albo is running with it.   

 

Here's a scenario for you.  Say I posted a little while ago "Thailand is going to tax foreigners."  Once again, I would have been ridiculed, personally attacked, trolled etc, for just daring to mention it.  Now, Thailand is taxing foreigners. 

 

I post Australia is proposing changes to its non resident taxation policy, and that's exactly what I have got from members, hate, and for what, it's not my policy, and I stand to lose more than most. 

 

Thailand moves faster than Australia, but when the proposed changes are passed, and I note there are some who still believe they will not be passed, and that's fine, they are entitled to their opinion, what will members say?

 

There's already members saying absurd things like how I am praying for the changes to be passed, despite me losing more money than them if they are passed.  As I have said before, it's not members of this forum against KhunHeiniken, it's all members of this forum against the ATO, but hey, if you throw enough rocks at the messenger, perhaps the message goes away with the messenger. Ignorance is bliss.   

[KhunHeineken]

9 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Is the DTA wrong, it's legislation (law), all of the above are WRONG if they have spoken outside of the DTA when it comes to simple terms relating to Article 18 when it boils down to Age Pensioners residing in Thailand as non residents.

 

In simple terms for the layman, there is no tax payable to the Australian Government from the Age Pension if you are a tax resident of Thailand.

 

Do you not understand this.

I have posted a link that I, and I suggest you, need to explore further. 

 

I will do more research.  I admit the tax treaty in new ground for me.  I have never needed to consider it before, but I will have to now.

 

I will reply back with some results of my research in the future. 

 

As I have said before, "Subject to provisions of Article 19" did raise my eyebrows in relation to Article 18.  I ill look into it more.  I suggest other do the same.

 

9 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

I am not talking about anything else, strictly Age Pensioners as non residents living in Thailand, that pay ZERO tax to the ATO, e.g. no 32.5c in the $.

 

It's game over, admit it, you have nowhere to hide...LoL

 

I will say it again, YOU ARE WRONG !!!

 

LOSER LoL

Err, not need to take tax policy personally.  I am not the Commissioner of The Australian Tax Office. 

 

If I am wrong, I will admit I am wrong.  It's interesting the Thai tax treaty has been wheeled out as an escape to non resident tax for Australia. 

 

You have the link I posted in  the general forum. Give it some consideration and report back.

 

Other members have disagreed with you, yet you don't call them a "Loser."  Why is that?  Could it be safety in numbers? 

[KhunHeineken]

9 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

It would appear that you haven't caught up with the posts, that or you are insane.

 

Article 18 (legislation)

 

https://www.austlii.edu.au/au/other/dfat/treaties/1989/36.html

 

Siam (not legislation), however relevant to the cause. 

 

https://www.siam-legal.com/thailand-law/relationship-between-the-new-thai-tax-law-retirement-visa-holders-and-long-term-residency/#:~:text=A Double Tax Agreement between,Article 18 of this DTA.

 

It's black and white, clear cut.

 

I am done, enough time wasted leading this donkey to the water, so to speak.

 

Yawn.

 

No, it's not black and white, clear cut.

 

You post a link or two and disregard other links that conflict with yours.  What makes you think your links are correct, and the other links incorrect?  I have given my reasoning, why don't you do the same? 

[KhunHeineken]

9 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

 

What about his later post, you are so far behind, struggling to read everything except the latest posts, move along now, time to catch up to reality.

I was watching some cricket. 

 

I am catching up. 

 

Unlike you, I have to reply to many members.  You only have to personally attack me.  

 

Be patient, I will eventually respond.   

[KhunHeineken]

9 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The non-resident tax brackets are irrelevant for anyone living in Thailand.

You may be right, there may be no change to non-resident tax brackets. It's a non-issue now.

Still refusing to admit you were WRONG, or apologizing. P!ss off.

Have you read my link/s in reply?

 

In any case, Australia is planning on changing its tax treaties, so interesting times ahead.  (link previously provided) 

 

You are on a part pension, so where does that leave your tax liability for your supplementary income?  Let me guess, somewhere around 32.5%, right? 

Edited February 4 by KhunHeineken

[KhunHeineken]

9 hours ago, Lacessit said:

If you want to split hairs over the difference between the two types of papers, go ahead. Find me someone else on this thread who gives a sh!t about what you post now.

You have lost all credibility, and obviously have the empathy of a scorpion. End of ride.

You are the one that boasted Labor and Albo would never move forward with the Liberals proposed changes. 

 

I post a link showing not only did Labor publicly state the proposed changes are in their "in tray" but in July 2023 Labor submitted the Consultation Paper for submissions.

 

How wrong can you be, and you want to talk about my credibility.  

 

At least I kept an open mind. 

Edited February 4 by KhunHeineken

[KhunHeineken]

8 hours ago, Olmate said:

It may be an opportune time for you to visit your local ALP branch to run your theories by them, be prepared to be "told" tho.! 

As I have said, hardly any expats go to their Embassy abroad to vote at election time.  

 

A bit difficult to visit a local ALP branch in Thailand, don't you think, but I appreciate the humor behind your post. 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

12 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

@norbra  @Lancessit  @scorecard @LosLobo @ 4MyEgo @Artisi @HighPriority

 

and any other interested members. 

 

Ok, so I see we have some interesting links worthy of some research and further discussion. 

 

I will make this general forum post addressing the links, but will then reply to some individual posts more briefly.  

 

As usual, I will talk members through how I came to my conclusions, which are debatable, and post some links.  

 

In relation to nobra's links, I would like to say I am concerned at the conflicting information from the tax office. 

 

It appears "Jim Quinn" states something completely different to "Blake" and "Caro" from the ATO Community website. 

 

I am not disregarding Jim Quinn's reply and your post.  I give it some weight.  The question to you is, why do you believe Jim Quinn over Blake and Caro?  Either Jim is correct and Blake and Caro are wrong, or Blake and Caro are correct, and Jim is wrong.   

 

Can you post why you think Jim is correct and Blake and Caro's information should be disregarded?  

 

In relation to Lacessit's post and link.  

 

It caused me to Google "Australia tax treaty with Thailand."  I then found the below link on the first page.  It's from the Treasury department, so I doubt even my most avid haters can doubt its credibility. 

 

https://treasury.gov.au/tax-treaties/income-tax-treaties

 

I then scrolled down to Thailand and then clicked on the section "Income Tax (International Agreements) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1989**.)  This lead me to the below link.

 

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/billsdgs/2156925/upload_binary/2156925.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search="R62"

 

What caught my eye was this part:

 

"The agreements work be giving the country of residence the exclusive right to tax certain catagories of income and allowing the remaining income to be taxed by the country where it was sourced. If the income is then taxed by the country of residence, it is to allow a credit for tax paid in the country of origin. Examples of catagories reserved for tax by the country of residence include: "Industrial or commercial profits where the taxpayer has no permanent establishment in the country where the profits are earned; -Most pensions and purchased annuities"

 

Now, for the record, Australia's tax treaty with Thailand is new ground for me.  I was always going to check it out once Thailand announced they were going to tax foreigners, but I hadn't got around to it until Lacessit's link.  I have only had a quick look.  

 

Many of my posts were dealing with members who refused to accept, despite links being provided constantly, that the pension was deemed an income, the pension was taxable, and there was no non resident tax free threshold, and then to explain the proposed changes.  It appears we may finally have moved on from the ridiculous to some actual legal argument. 

 

So, the way the above reads to me is, Thailand get first bite of the cherry for whatever percent tax they want, then Australia takes what they want, but Thailand's percent is credited to the total 32.5%, thus, the individual is not paying 32.5% AFTER Thailand has taken their tax, which would effectively be double taxation, which is what the treaty is designed to stop.     

 

The words that stand out for me are: "giving the country of residence (Thailand) the exclusive right to tax certain categories of income and allowing the remaining income to be taxed by the country where it was sourced. (Australia)  This basically reads to me like Thailand gets gets to tax an Aussie expat first, and then Australia gets the rest, being the 32.5% non resident tax rate.

 

Of course this is open to debate, and I would be interested in what members think of the link.  I noted the "warning" at the top.  Once again, I will have to research how double tax treaty work. 

 

It appears the above conflicts with Lacessit's link leading to the treaty which says pensions are only taxed in the resident state, but I did see it stated, "Subject to the provisions of Article 19 etc etc"  and then under Article 19 it states "as a citizen or national of that other state."  As we all know, very few foreigners can be a Thai citizen, and we are certainly not Thai nationals."  

 

I will have to do more research, but I don't think it's as cut and some on here would like it to be. 

 

So, as you said to me Lacessit, "enjoy." 

 

 

Now, for those relying heavily on the current tax treaty Australia has with Thailand, this may also come into the mix, particularly as Thailand has announced the taxing of foreigners, and Australia has announced its proposed changes to non resident taxation laws.  

 

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

 

Two things stood out for me on this page.

 

"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)."

 

Who knows when Australia's current tax treaty with Thailand will be changed, but as the link says, the government is planning it, and I would suggest, due to Thailand's new tax, Thailand's treaty might be at the top of the list. 

 

The other thing that stood out for me was.

 

"* Limited to allocation of taxing rights in respect of certain income derived by specified individuals, such as retirees, government employees, and students."

 

I note there is no asterisk next to Thailand.  Does this mean the limitation of taxing right does not exist for Thailand and the tax can be shared between the two countries, as mentioned in the link;/s above?  I have no idea. 

 

I will research more, but I have to say, despite the sly negative comments, it's refreshing to see we have finally moved on from the ridiculous reasons put forward in the list I posted as to why certain member believe none of it will happen, and if it doesn't happen, none of it will apply to them. 

 

As LosLobo says, it's about the exchange of information, and to that point, I finally think we have finally started to get somewhere. 

 

That said, I welcome all the personal attacks and trolling about how one link is right, and another link is wrong, despite no reasons being given, just because I, KhunHeinhen, posted the link. 

 

Bloody Nora. So many posts. I haven't fully read them all but I'll put in my 2 cents. A reason Jim Quinn's opinion carries wait over Blake and Caro is that that advice is specific to the Double Tax Agreement with Thailand. The other is in general for non-residents. It is noted too that special care will be taken for a ministerial opinion.

I take umbridge at your attempts to say past discussions about the politics of the situation would have carried no weight on the issue of treatment of tax and residency. You may disagree with opinions as to what effect the politics might have but that doesn't mean the previous discussion points were not valid. The fact they have a Consultation paper indicates they are looking for input on how people may be appropriately or unfairly affected. 

I note too in some posts you are now noting the 45 days and other factors that can affect residency in certain situations in the Consultation paper whereas before you made a number of posts saying it will be 180 days end of. 

 

[KhunHeineken]

I would encourage members to watch this short youtube clip.  He explains it very well.  Australia and Thailand even gets a mention. 

 

I will wait for some members to watch the clip and comment on it. 

 

If he is wrong, post some information to back up your claim.