Australian Aged Pension

[KhunHeineken]

34 minutes ago, Nemises said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I just posted, "a significant cash deposit" would be an amount of money that shows one has maintained an economic interest in Australia. 

 

Can you name another part of the proposed changes that you see as a grey area? 

[Nemises]

22 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

As I just posted, "a significant cash deposit" would be an amount of money that shows one has maintained an economic interest in Australia. 

 

Can you name another part of the proposed changes that you see as a grey area? 

Nope, just No 4 on the list above. 
 

I originally posted that there would “probably” be grey areas. And surprise, surprise there was!

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Nemises said:

Nope, just No 4 on the list above. 

You mean (c) under No. 4. 

 

So, if there are no others, that makes the law quite simple. 

 

1 hour ago, Nemises said:

I originally posted that there would “probably” be grey areas. And surprise, surprise there was!

You used the words "grey areas" as in, plural, more than one.   And, surprise, surprise, there's only one. 

[Nemises]

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

You mean (c) under No. 4. 

 

So, if there are no others, that makes the law quite simple. 

 

You used the words "grey areas" as in, plural, more than one.   And, surprise, surprise, there's only one. 

 

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

You mean (c) under No. 4. 

 

So, if there are no others, that makes the law quite simple. 

 

You used the words "grey areas" as in, plural, more than one.   And, surprise, surprise, there's only one. 

I also used the word “probably”. 
 

Unlike you, who more emphatically said:

• “there was no grey area at all.”
- WRONG 🤣, and

• “all very simple”

- WRONG, AGAIN! 🤣🤣

 

 

[Lacessit]

8 hours ago, Nemises said:

 

I also used the word “probably”. 
 

Unlike you, who more emphatically said:

• “there was no grey area at all.”
- WRONG 🤣, and

• “all very simple”

- WRONG, AGAIN! 🤣🤣

 

 

Never argue with an idiot.

 

They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience.

[scorecard]

13 hours ago, Nemises said:

Nope, just No 4 on the list above. 
 

I originally posted that there would “probably” be grey areas. And surprise, surprise there was!

 

13 hours ago, Nemises said:

Nope, just No 4 on the list above. 
 

I originally posted that there would “probably” be grey areas. And surprise, surprise there was!

 

From above:  "..."a significant cash deposit" would be an amount of money that shows one has maintained an economic interest in Australia. "

 

 

I'm lost. What is this all about?  Is it now a requirement that OAP recipients abroad / any location actually have money in the bank in Australia? Or what?

 

And what is 'significant'? 

 

And how does Centrelink know the pensioner has any money / significant money in the bank in Australia?

 

And how does this connect to the basic assets and income limits? Especially where the pensioner originally declared (and still has) assets / income under the statutory limits?

 

And what is a 'grey area'? 

 

Please share. 

[Olmate]

8 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

 

From above:  "..."a significant cash deposit" would be an amount of money that shows one has maintained an economic interest in Australia. "

 

 

I'm lost. What is this all about?  Is it now a requirement that OAP recipients abroad / any location actually have money in the bank in Australia? Or what?

 

And what is 'significant'? 

 

And how does Centrelink know the pensioner has any money / significant money in the bank in Australia?

 

And how does this connect to the basic assets and income limits? Especially where the pensioner originally declared (and still has) assets / income under the statutory limits?

 

And what is a 'grey area'? 

 

Please share. 

I reckon it means all the OAP folk living from week to week, (apparentlythats the majority in Aust (((and here))), waiting the drip feed, are really not worthy nor entitled to their payment! Well according to KH😭

[KhunHeineken]

6 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Never argue with an idiot.

 

They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience.

Something you have proven very well in the USA thread. 

 

Geez, we even had Americans trolling on the Aussie thread, just because you were trolling on their thread.  Something I had never seen before on this forum. 

[KhunHeineken]

14 hours ago, Nemises said:

I also used the word “probably”. 

So, how "grey" is it? 

 

Clearly, $10 in a bank account isn't a "significant cash deposit." 

 

I've given my OPINION on it.  For expat retirees, it could be their Super.  For many it could be their life savings.  For some it could be the proceeds from the sale of a property.  For others it could simply be an investment. 

 

I conceded I do not know the dollar figure. 

 

This is the ONLY grey area you nominated, so only one. 

 

15 hours ago, Nemises said:

Unlike you, who more emphatically said:

• “there was no grey area at all.”

Once again, realistically, how grey is it though?

 

15 hours ago, Nemises said:

all very simple

Yes, a lot more simple than the current 90 year old laws, which are complex and subjective.

 

These outdated laws are the reason myself, and many other Australians, including pensioners, all around the world, have never paid a cent in non resident tax, despite deriving an income from Australia. 

 

All that will finish with the "bright line test" and the four "factor tests."  

 

It's clear that 183 days inside Australia, resident.  Thus, 183 days outside Australia, non resident.  45 days to 183 days, one must meet two out of four of the factor tests.  Less than 45 days is non resident.  The three consecutive years isn't really applicable to expats who have been living here for years.  There's the new laws in just a few sentences.  How is that "not simple?" 

[KhunHeineken]

5 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

 

From above:  "..."a significant cash deposit" would be an amount of money that shows one has maintained an economic interest in Australia. "

 

 

I'm lost. What is this all about?  Is it now a requirement that OAP recipients abroad / any location actually have money in the bank in Australia? Or what?

 

And what is 'significant'? 

 

And how does Centrelink know the pensioner has any money / significant money in the bank in Australia?

 

And how does this connect to the basic assets and income limits? Especially where the pensioner originally declared (and still has) assets / income under the statutory limits?

 

And what is a 'grey area'? 

 

Please share. 

In case you missed it, here it is again. 

 

From a previous post: 

 

"When the proposed changes are passed into law, if you are outside of Australia for 183 days, you will be deemed a non resident for tax purposes.  That's the "bright line" test.

 

If you are inside Australia between 45 days and 183 days, you have to meet two out of four factor tests.

 

The pension is deemed to be an income. 

 

Non resident tax is 30% from $0 to $135,000.

 

There are no exemptions in the proposed changes.  

 

There are no changes to the non resident tax brackets in the proposed changes.  Eg. the introduction of a tax free threshold to cover pensioners. 

 

There is no means testing in the proposed changes. 

 

The Australia / Thailand DTA does not cover the aged pension, it covers "service pensions." 

 

A member asked what are the four factor tests.

 

Here is a simplified version of them:

 

"The secondary test is a ‘Factor Test’ which applies to individuals who spend more than 45 days but less than 183 days in an income year. The secondary tests focus on four factors, two of which must be satisfied by that person to be deemed as resident for tax purposes. Factors include:

 

The Right to reside permanently in Australia (e.g. citizenship or permanent residency);

 

The ability to access accommodation in Australia (e.g. rights of ownership, leasehold interest, licenses);

 

Whether the individual’s family (spouse or any of their children under 18) are generally located in Australia;

 

The individual’s Australian economic connections (employment, carry on business, interests in Australia)."

 

 

You can find the expanded version in the government's consultation paper. 

 

https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-07/c2023-205344-cp.pdf

 

 

Most expat retirees, but particularly pensioners, would want to remain a resident of Australia for tax purposes in order to avail themselves of the tax free threshold.  If they are deemed to be a non resident for tax purposes, it's 30% tax from $0 to $135,000. 

 

Immigration, the ATO, and Centerlink are all government departments.  They can easily withhold 30% of one's pension once they are outside of Australia for 183 days.  They already do this with the pension supplements after 6 weeks. 

 

The easiest way I can see for an Aussie expat, pensioner or not, to remain an Australian resident, but still spend most of their time in Thailand, is to go back to Australia for 45 days every year, and be able to meet two out of the four factor tests. 

 

Certainly, one of the factor tests is easy, that being, "the right to reside."  Being Australian, with an Australian passport, meets this factor test.  Each member will have to see if they can one of the other three factor tests.  

 

The days of living overseas but still having the ATO assess you as a resident for tax purposes, the "long holiday" loophole, will close when these laws are passed, and no, Albo didn't scrap them.  In fact, Labor progressed them to the consultation stage, so the laws have the support of both major political parties.   

 

To summarize, it's 45 days in Australia and meet two out of four factor tests, or live in Thailand on 30% less income derived from Australia, and yes, the pension is deemed an income. 

[KhunHeineken]

5 hours ago, Olmate said:

I reckon it means all the OAP folk living from week to week, (apparentlythats the majority in Aust (((and here))), waiting the drip feed, are really not worthy nor entitled to their payment! Well according to KH😭

Rubbish.  I've never suggested such a thing. 

 

The current 90 year laws will be modernized, it's not if, just when, and then many loopholes will be closed. 

 

Many, including myself, have never paid a cent in non resident tax, and neither have pensioners. 

 

Living in Thailand full time, how can any of us possible argue we are a Australian resident for tax purposes after the new laws are passed?  

 

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

 

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

 

There are no exemptions in the proposed changes. 

 

Put the above together and it's 45 days in Australia each year, and meet two of four factor tests, or live of 30% less income derived from Australia. 

 

I really thought they would add a tax free threshold to the non resident tax brackets to cover pensioners living overseas.  Just a small threshold of say $30,000, but they didn't, so what does that tell you? 

[Nemises]

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

It's clear that 183 days inside Australia, resident.  Thus, 183 days outside Australia, non resident.  45 days to 183 days, one must meet two out of four of the factor tests.  Less than 45 days is non resident.  The three consecutive years isn't really applicable to expats who have been living here for years.  There's the new laws in just a few sentences.  How is that "not simple?" 

I never said that the 45/183 day rule was “not simple”. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 6/7/2025 at 10:56 AM, Nemises said:

I never said that the 45/183 day rule was “not simple”. 

So, the 45/183 day rule IS simple. 

 

As for a "significant cash deposit" it still means doing 45 days a year inside Australia a year, even if you do have a significant cash deposit, something that will pose difficulties for many expat retirees. 

 

For those who either can not or will not do the 45 days inside Australia a year, they will have to be prepared to live on 30% less income / pension derived from Australia. 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

On 6/7/2025 at 2:36 PM, KhunHeineken said:

It's clear that 183 days inside Australia, resident.  Thus, 183 days outside Australia, non resident.  45 days to 183 days, one must meet two out of four of the factor tests.  Less than 45 days is non resident.  The three consecutive years isn't really applicable to expats who have been living here for years.  There's the new laws in just a few sentences.  How is that "not simple?" 

I see you are still banging on about this BS you claimed ages ago - and it appears you are still wrong. Please correct me if you are not saying the below points I make.

 

To everyone else reading this - what KH has been saying is total BS.  It is not simple matter of less than 183 days are you are a non-resident for tax purposes, and therefore you have to pay income tax on your pension payments. 

There are 2 things that KH has wrong in the past and still seems to be fear-mongering again about it.

 

Number 1 - KH claims a person outside Australia 183+ days is a non-resident - Wrong.

They might be - but other things come into the decision by ATO. There are 4 Tests to establish Australian Residency for Tax Purposes and if you satisfy one of them for residency, then you are a tax resident.

The Resides Test

The Domicile Test

The 183 Days Test

The Government Superannuation Test.

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/coming-to-australia-or-going-overseas/your-tax-residency#Residencytests

 

Number 2 - KH claims tax is payable on money received as Age Pension if you are a non-resident.

The Age Pension payments are not taxed, but it is taxable income for the purposes of income tax calculations and for tax offset calculations etc.  The Pension used to be non-taxable income, but with more and more people working while also receiving the Pension, they changed the methodology.  So if you get the Pension and also earn $20,000 as income, the Pension amount received is the base amount and the $20K is added to that - so you basically pay income tax on $40K  (allowances and offsets etc come into it).

 

The point of the new method is to clarify that a person does not get the Pension for free AND another $17K tax-free threshold. When they made that change they introduced the SAPTO offset to ensure pensioners did not pay income taxes on their pension money. People receiving unemployment payments (and some others) do not get that benefit - and if they then earn a bucket of money during the year, they might have to pay tax on the dole payments they received. 

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/forms-and-instructions/individual-tax-return-2025-instructions/income-questions-1-12-individual-tax-return-2025/5-australian-government-allowances-and-payments-2025  (Part 5 of the Tax Return)

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/forms-and-instructions/individual-tax-return-2025-instructions/income-questions-1-12-individual-tax-return-2025/6-australian-government-pensions-and-allowances-2025  (Part 6 of the Tax Return)

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/forms-and-instructions/individual-tax-return-2025-instructions/tax-offset-questions-t1-t2-individual-tax-return-2025/t1-seniors-and-pensioners-tax-offset-2025  (SAPTO)

 

On a personal note it is my opinion that I am still a tax resident under the Domicile Test.  The reason for there being a domicile test as well as a residence test, is that some people travel overseas a lot and stay for long periods and dont have a 'home' as such in Australia. But because they have no legal right to stay in that country and could be sent 'home' at any time - they are not and cannot become a Resident and thus be a domicile in that other country.  Not that it matters to me because the Pension is not taxed anyway - but as a technical point I am a Citizen of Australia and I still consider myself a Resident of Australia for Tax Purposes - I intend to return to Australia in the near future (certainly before I am 80 or if I of wife get a bad illness).  I could not find anything 'legal' to establish that - but my read of the ATO rules (and I am good at that) is that I meet the Domicile Test.  Plus Google AI agrees 

No, a person cannot become a domiciled resident of a country simply by visiting on a 12-month tourist visa. A tourist visa is specifically for short-term visits and does not grant the holder the right to reside permanently or establish domicile. Domicile is generally established through physical presence, intent to remain indefinitely, and other legal factors.    

 

[KhunHeineken]

9 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

It is not simple matter of less than 183 days are you are a non-resident for tax purposes, and therefore you have to pay income tax on your pension payments. 

Perhaps, once the proposed changes are passed into law, YOU can explain to members how they can remain a resident of Australia for tax purposes after being outside of Australia for more than 183 days in the financial year. 

 

As for paying non resident tax on pension, I have said this MAY happen.  The reasons for this are:

 

1)  The pension is deemed to be an income - do you disagree?

 

2)  The first non resident tax bracket is 30% from $0 to $135,000 - do you disagree?

 

3)  There is no tax free threshold in the non resident tax brackets (see above) - do you disagree?

 

4)  The "bright line" test in the proposed changes is for 183 days inside / outside Australia - do you disagree? 

 

5)  Immigration records show one is outside of Australia and for how long - do you disagree? 

 

6)  There are no exemptions or means testing in the propose changes - do you disagree? 

 

7)  The "payer" of the aged pension, the Australian government, could also be the taxer, the ATO, the Australian government - do you disagree?

 

 

Put all the above together and you can see how the ATO can potentially tax expat retirees, including pensioners, based on their tax residency status.

 

Now, given many expat retirees / pensioners haven't been back to Australia for years, how can they possibly be residents of Australia for tax purposes?  Can you explain it to them? 

 

9 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Number 1 - KH claims a person outside Australia 183+ days is a non-resident - Wrong.

They might be -

You've contradicted yourself. 

 

Once again, please explain to members how an expat retiree, pensioner or self funded, remains a resident of Australia for tax purposes when they haven't been back to Australia in years? 

 

9 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Number 2 - KH claims tax is payable on money received as Age Pension if you are a non-resident.

The Age Pension payments are not taxed, but it is taxable income for the purposes of income tax calculations and for tax offset calculations etc.  The Pension used to be non-taxable income, but with more and more people working while also receiving the Pension, they changed the methodology.  So if you get the Pension and also earn $20,000 as income, the Pension amount received is the base amount and the $20K is added to that - so you basically pay income tax on $40K  (allowances and offsets etc come into it).

Once again, the first non resident tax bracket is 30% tax from $0 to $135,000.  Do you see a tax free threshold in the bracket?  No.

 

Is the pension deemed an income?  Yes. 

 

Funny how the more your say I am "wrong"  the more you prove the point I am making? 

 

The whole game changes as a non resident for tax purposes. 

 

9 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

The point of the new method is to clarify that a person does not get the Pension for free AND another $17K tax-free threshold. When they made that change they introduced the SAPTO offset to ensure pensioners did not pay income taxes on their pension money. People receiving unemployment payments (and some others) do not get that benefit - and if they then earn a bucket of money during the year, they might have to pay tax on the dole payments they received. 

Firstly, the tax free threshold for residents of Australia for tax purposes is 0% tax from $0 to 18,200.  Not $17,000. 

 

Please show me the tax free threshold for non residents for tax purposes.  Oh, that's right, it's all about tax resident status to get the tax free threshold, and expat retirees in Thailand, who haven't been back to Australia in years, are still a resident of Australia for tax purposes, according to YOU. 

 

9 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

On a personal note it is my opinion that I am still a tax resident under the Domicile Test.  The reason for there being a domicile test as well as a residence test, is that some people travel overseas a lot and stay for long periods and dont have a 'home' as such in Australia. But because they have no legal right to stay in that country and could be sent 'home' at any time - they are not and cannot become a Resident and thus be a domicile in that other country. 

Well, that's a new one.  Firstly, let's not mix up "Australian resident" with "Australian tax resident for tax purposes."  They are different things.  Thailand has a very high bench mark to gain permanent residency, so the majority of expats will never gain permanent residency in Thailand, but it does exist.  

 

So, after being in Thailand for 180 days, are you a tax resident of Thailand?  That's a yes or no question. 

 

9 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Not that it matters to me because the Pension is not taxed anyway - but as a technical point I am a Citizen of Australia and I still consider myself a Resident of Australia for Tax Purposes - I intend to return to Australia in the near future (certainly before I am 80 or if I of wife get a bad illness).  I could not find anything 'legal' to establish that - but my read of the ATO rules (and I am good at that) is that I meet the Domicile Test.  Plus Google AI agrees 

Firstly, citizenship has never been a point of debate on this sub-topic.  Most members reading this thread will have an Australian passport, so can easily meet one for the secondary four factor tests, being "right to reside." 

 

A question for you, if, say for example, you haven't been back to Australia in 8 years, but could be a lesser amount, under what criteria do YOU base your opinion that YOU still "consider myself as a resident of Australia for tax purposes?"  Whilst YOU may consider yourself as a resident of Australia for tax purposes, can you also post, using the previous time outside Australia, why the Australian government would / should also consider you a resident of Australia for tax purposes?  

 

I also have another question for you.  In relation to the members who go back to Australia for 2 years to achieve pension portability, if they were always a resident of Australia for tax purposes, as you claim, why do they need to "re-establish" residency by staying the 2 years????

 

9 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

No, a person cannot become a domiciled resident of a country simply by visiting on a 12-month tourist visa. A tourist visa is specifically for short-term visits and does not grant the holder the right to reside permanently or establish domicile. Domicile is generally established through physical presence, intent to remain indefinitely, and other legal factors.    

Firstly, it doesn't matter what visa class one is using to remain legal in a foreign country.  

 

Let's go back to Thailand's 180 days law.  That's accumulative, not consecutively.  One can go over Thailand's 180 days with a retirement visa / extension or multiple tourist visas.  

This makes me laugh because Thailand has a physical presence and time based model, yet Australia modernizing 90 year old laws to have a similar model and it's "scaremongering." 

 

You are wrong, again.  "Domicile"  IS NOT established through physical presence alone.  Read the interesting and recent case below.  Basically, an Aussie guy took a 5 year contract in Dubai through his Australian employer.  The ATO still considered him a resident of Australia for tax purposes, despite him spending most of the 5 years in Dubai. 

 

https://www.accountantsdaily.com.au/regulation/21033-tribunal-affirms-atos-view-in-tax-residency-case

 

The above article also touches on "intention."  The case is the reason why the proposed changes were drafted, to stop many reviews and appeals.  The physical presence and time based model will do away with a lot of argument around "intention."  It's "intention" that is subject and often difficult to prove, this, 45 / 183 days will stop most of this legal argument. 

 

The above case is interesting because, as I mention before, it's financially beneficial for expat retirees, pensioners or self funded, to remain a resident of Australia for tax purposes to avail themselves of the tax free threshold, but the case above shows the legal argument around "intention."  It even mentions the furniture he bought in Dubai.  In this case, he was found to be a resident for tax purposes, but it shows the things they look at to easily deem one to be a non resident for tax purposes.  Eg.  selling house in Australia, long lease or buying property in Thailand, buying a car in Thailand, bank accounts, long visa etc.  The proposed changes will do away with all of this.  There may be some future legal argument around the four secondary factor tests, but the 45 / 183 days will sort most of it out.  

 

Here's the the consultation paper.  It's not a long read, but the proposed changes are detailed on Page 4. 

 

https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-07/c2023-205344-cp.pdf

 

 

 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Perhaps, once the proposed changes are passed into law, YOU can explain to members how they can remain a resident of Australia for tax purposes after being outside of Australia for more than 183 days in the financial year. 

 

As for paying non resident tax on pension, I have said this MAY happen.  The reasons for this are:

 

1)  The pension is deemed to be an income - do you disagree?

 

2)  The first non resident tax bracket is 30% from $0 to $135,000 - do you disagree?

 

3)  There is no tax free threshold in the non resident tax brackets (see above) - do you disagree?

 

4)  The "bright line" test in the proposed changes is for 183 days inside / outside Australia - do you disagree? 

 

5)  Immigration records show one is outside of Australia and for how long - do you disagree? 

 

6)  There are no exemptions or means testing in the propose changes - do you disagree? 

 

7)  The "payer" of the aged pension, the Australian government, could also be the taxer, the ATO, the Australian government - do you disagree?

 

 

Put all the above together and you can see how the ATO can potentially tax expat retirees, including pensioners, based on their tax residency status.

 

Now, given many expat retirees / pensioners haven't been back to Australia for years, how can they possibly be residents of Australia for tax purposes?  Can you explain it to them? 

 

You've contradicted yourself. 

 

Once again, please explain to members how an expat retiree, pensioner or self funded, remains a resident of Australia for tax purposes when they haven't been back to Australia in years? 

 

Once again, the first non resident tax bracket is 30% tax from $0 to $135,000.  Do you see a tax free threshold in the bracket?  No.

 

Is the pension deemed an income?  Yes. 

 

Funny how the more your say I am "wrong"  the more you prove the point I am making? 

 

The whole game changes as a non resident for tax purposes. 

 

Firstly, the tax free threshold for residents of Australia for tax purposes is 0% tax from $0 to 18,200.  Not $17,000. 

 

Please show me the tax free threshold for non residents for tax purposes.  Oh, that's right, it's all about tax resident status to get the tax free threshold, and expat retirees in Thailand, who haven't been back to Australia in years, are still a resident of Australia for tax purposes, according to YOU. 

 

Well, that's a new one.  Firstly, let's not mix up "Australian resident" with "Australian tax resident for tax purposes."  They are different things.  Thailand has a very high bench mark to gain permanent residency, so the majority of expats will never gain permanent residency in Thailand, but it does exist.  

 

So, after being in Thailand for 180 days, are you a tax resident of Thailand?  That's a yes or no question. 

 

Firstly, citizenship has never been a point of debate on this sub-topic.  Most members reading this thread will have an Australian passport, so can easily meet one for the secondary four factor tests, being "right to reside." 

 

A question for you, if, say for example, you haven't been back to Australia in 8 years, but could be a lesser amount, under what criteria do YOU base your opinion that YOU still "consider myself as a resident of Australia for tax purposes?"  Whilst YOU may consider yourself as a resident of Australia for tax purposes, can you also post, using the previous time outside Australia, why the Australian government would / should also consider you a resident of Australia for tax purposes?  

 

I also have another question for you.  In relation to the members who go back to Australia for 2 years to achieve pension portability, if they were always a resident of Australia for tax purposes, as you claim, why do they need to "re-establish" residency by staying the 2 years????

 

Firstly, it doesn't matter what visa class one is using to remain legal in a foreign country.  

 

Let's go back to Thailand's 180 days law.  That's accumulative, not consecutively.  One can go over Thailand's 180 days with a retirement visa / extension or multiple tourist visas.  

This makes me laugh because Thailand has a physical presence and time based model, yet Australia modernizing 90 year old laws to have a similar model and it's "scaremongering." 

 

You are wrong, again.  "Domicile"  IS NOT established through physical presence alone.  Read the interesting and recent case below.  Basically, an Aussie guy took a 5 year contract in Dubai through his Australian employer.  The ATO still considered him a resident of Australia for tax purposes, despite him spending most of the 5 years in Dubai. 

 

https://www.accountantsdaily.com.au/regulation/21033-tribunal-affirms-atos-view-in-tax-residency-case

 

The above article also touches on "intention."  The case is the reason why the proposed changes were drafted, to stop many reviews and appeals.  The physical presence and time based model will do away with a lot of argument around "intention."  It's "intention" that is subject and often difficult to prove, this, 45 / 183 days will stop most of this legal argument. 

 

The above case is interesting because, as I mention before, it's financially beneficial for expat retirees, pensioners or self funded, to remain a resident of Australia for tax purposes to avail themselves of the tax free threshold, but the case above shows the legal argument around "intention."  It even mentions the furniture he bought in Dubai.  In this case, he was found to be a resident for tax purposes, but it shows the things they look at to easily deem one to be a non resident for tax purposes.  Eg.  selling house in Australia, long lease or buying property in Thailand, buying a car in Thailand, bank accounts, long visa etc.  The proposed changes will do away with all of this.  There may be some future legal argument around the four secondary factor tests, but the 45 / 183 days will sort most of it out.  

 

Here's the the consultation paper.  It's not a long read, but the proposed changes are detailed on Page 4. 

 

https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-07/c2023-205344-cp.pdf

OMG - Mate - you need some help.  I am serious.  There is no way I have the time in my life to read and try to comprehend what the hell you are talking about, and to then write a coherent reply to it all - so I will briefly state the following.  Please note - I am not really talking to you - I am providing answers for others to read - but I am talking to you at the finish

 

1.  The ATO has changed their rules regarding 'residency for tax purposes' - those links I provided detail it all. There are 4 Tests. Unlike Thailand that has only 1 test - 180+ days.

2.  All your fearmongering about pensions being taxed is based on your interpretation of the issues - IMO they are all wrong and the ATO will never tax age pensions.

3.  You are completely misreading my points about domicile and most of the other factors.

 

Mate - I suggest you need to drop this whole thing and let it all go. You have become extremely angry and argumentative which is a clear sign of severe stress. May I suggest you need to stay away from this and other forums for a few weeks and go for a few walks - take up a hobby - maybe try fishing.  This picture below is provided to show you that there is something wrong. Clearly you are extremely emotional and others are avoiding 'talking' to you - and that is why you are the last person to comment on so many issues - way too many - this is not healthy. No I am not being sarcastic - you have to reassess things or it will all blow up on you one day. 

 

 

I recommend that you just ignore me - I will not agree with your opinions ever - and I will not play your 'court case lawyer tactics' game. You may think you are right and that is fine - but your constant 'attack dog' approach towards anyone expressing an opposing opinion is not healthy.  There is a poster on AN who has been a member for a very very long time - he was the main Trump hating poster back in 2016 and was extremely active and negative all through his first POTUS period.  Since Trump was re-elected he has been far less negative and much less active. He still does not like Trump, but he has 'toned it all down'.  That is how it works - sometimes as old blokes we get too emotional and angry about something and go way too far.  I once read that the reason for that is because it was nature's way to remove the old males from the herd so to speak - they would provoke and get killed off by the younger ones.

 

Anyway - may I suggest that we agree to disagree and move on to other things. If the ATO does tax pension payments then you will be proven right and I will admit I was wrong. But if the ATO does not do that within say 2? years - will you do the same?? Maybe 3 years - being how long Labor might stay in power?

[Nemises]

Well said T&G! 

It’s unlikely he will accept your challenge as doomsayers rarely acknowledge when they’re wrong, as maintaining a sense of crisis helps sustain their narrative. 

 

 

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

OMG - Mate - you need some help.  I am serious.  There is no way I have the time in my life to read and try to comprehend what the hell you are talking about, and to then write a coherent reply to it all - so I will briefly state the following.  Please note - I am not really talking to you - I am providing answers for others to read - but I am talking to you at the finish

 

1.  The ATO has changed their rules regarding 'residency for tax purposes' - those links I provided detail it all. There are 4 Tests. Unlike Thailand that has only 1 test - 180+ days.

2.  All your fearmongering about pensions being taxed is based on your interpretation of the issues - IMO they are all wrong and the ATO will never tax age pensions.

3.  You are completely misreading my points about domicile and most of the other factors.

 

Mate - I suggest you need to drop this whole thing and let it all go. You have become extremely angry and argumentative which is a clear sign of severe stress. May I suggest you need to stay away from this and other forums for a few weeks and go for a few walks - take up a hobby - maybe try fishing.  This picture below is provided to show you that there is something wrong. Clearly you are extremely emotional and others are avoiding 'talking' to you - and that is why you are the last person to comment on so many issues - way too many - this is not healthy. No I am not being sarcastic - you have to reassess things or it will all blow up on you one day. 

 

 

I recommend that you just ignore me - I will not agree with your opinions ever - and I will not play your 'court case lawyer tactics' game. You may think you are right and that is fine - but your constant 'attack dog' approach towards anyone expressing an opposing opinion is not healthy.  There is a poster on AN who has been a member for a very very long time - he was the main Trump hating poster back in 2016 and was extremely active and negative all through his first POTUS period.  Since Trump was re-elected he has been far less negative and much less active. He still does not like Trump, but he has 'toned it all down'.  That is how it works - sometimes as old blokes we get too emotional and angry about something and go way too far.  I once read that the reason for that is because it was nature's way to remove the old males from the herd so to speak - they would provoke and get killed off by the younger ones.

 

Anyway - may I suggest that we agree to disagree and move on to other things. If the ATO does tax pension payments then you will be proven right and I will admit I was wrong. But if the ATO does not do that within say 2? years - will you do the same?? Maybe 3 years - being how long Labor might stay in power?

The poster you are responding to has more than 1000 posts on this thread, all centred on the same themes - residency, and taxation of pensions. The thread started in 2008.

 

He does not have an Age Pension.

 

IMO the best course of action is to ignore him, responding only gives him oxygen.

 

He is a sick person.

[Will27]

1 hour ago, Nemises said:

Well said T&G! 

It’s unlikely he will accept your challenge as doomsayers rarely acknowledge when they’re wrong, as maintaining a sense of crisis helps sustain their narrative. 

 

 

Seriously?

 

He will respond in a 1000 word reply which will basically rehash all of his previous rubbish which is residency, non-residency and Paul Hogan.

 

Best do what Lacessit does, ignore him.

[KhunHeineken]

3 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

OMG - Mate - you need some help. 

I suppose my accountant needs some help as well then. 

 

3 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

There is no way I have the time in my life to read and try to comprehend what the hell you are talking about,

Yet, you just replied. 

 

If you can't understand the impact the proposed changes to tax residency will have, why post about it at all?

 

4 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

1.  The ATO has changed their rules regarding 'residency for tax purposes' - those links I provided detail it all. There are 4 Tests. Unlike Thailand that has only 1 test - 180+ days.

Here they are again, and these HAVE NOT been passed yet. 

 

Proposed tax residency rules

 

Therefore, the Government in the 2020-2021 Federal Budget announced that it will replace the current individual tax residency rules with new primary and secondary tests to determine one’s tax residency.

 

The primarily test is the 183-day test, that is, if a person who is physically present in Australia for a period of 183 days or more in any income year, this person will be considered as a resident for Australian tax purposes.

 

The secondary test is a ‘Factor Test’ which applies to individuals who spend more than 45 days but less than 183 days in an income year. The secondary tests focus on four factors, two of which must be satisfied by that person to be deemed as resident for tax purposes.

 

Factors include:

 

The Right to reside permanently in Australia (e.g. citizenship or permanent residency);

 

The ability to access accommodation in Australia (e.g. rights of ownership, leasehold interest, licenses);

 

Whether the individual’s family (spouse or any of their children under 18) are generally located in Australia;

 

The individual’s Australian economic connections (employment, carry on business, interests in Australia).

 

The above is from an accounting firm from the first page of a Google search. 

 

https://hlb.com.au/tax-residency-changes-for-individuals/

 

You do realize the above are PROPOSED CHANGES and have not been passed into law yet, don't you? 

 

Now, see where it mentions the primary test is the 183 day test?  They have called it a "bright line test."  When these laws are passed, under this 183 day test, can you tell members how they can still remain a resident for tax purposes if outside of Australia for 183 days? 

 

Rather than personally attacking me, can you post some substance?  Can you post what you are basing your opinion on, in relation to the proposed changes, not the current laws?

 

The factor tests relate to being in Australia more than 45 days but less than 183 days.  You don't get to be outside of Australia for 183 days, and then use the four factor tests to claim you are still a resident of Australia for tax purposes, hence, primary test and secondary test.

 

4 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

All your fearmongering about pensions being taxed is based on your interpretation of the issues - IMO they are all wrong and the ATO will never tax age pensions.

So, do you agree with the 7 points I listed, or do you disagree with them?  I note you did agree with some within your post.

 

4 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

You are completely misreading my points about domicile and most of the other factors.

I know all about "domicile." I maintain a "domicile" in Australia.  (house)  Under the current 90 year old tax residency laws the ATO can't prove I do not have an "intention" to return to Australia to live.  That's the loophole many have been using, for decades.  

 

The 183 days removes this loophole.  Thailand has similar, so do other countries.  It's not a new thing.  Why do you think Australia will not move to a similar model?  

 

4 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

You have become extremely angry and argumentative which is a clear sign of severe stress.

Hardly.  

 

My ducks are in a row.  I can do the 45 days in Australia and meet two out of the four factor tests, should I have to, can you?

 

4 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

May I suggest you need to stay away from this and other forums for a few weeks and go for a few walks

May I suggest you stop posting about the current laws when we have clearly been discussing the proposed changes.  You are either behind the time, or do no comprehend the sub-topic. 

 

4 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

This picture below is provided to show you that there is something wrong.

Have you looked at the dates of the last posts on the old threads?  I don't post that much, or that often, but do admit I feel compelled to point out misinformation spread by posters such as yourself.  Have I broken any forum rules?  

 

Posters like yourself just keep positively re-enforcing such misinformation because the reality is too much to bare.  You should seek some professional help if these proposed changes cause you some distress. 

 

Just dismissing such an important subject as scaremongering does nothing towards informing members of these proposed changes.   They are real, and progressing through the system under both major political parties. 

 

4 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Clearly you are extremely emotional and others are avoiding 'talking' to you - and that is why you are the last person to comment on so many issues - way too many - this is not healthy. No I am not being sarcastic - you have to reassess things or it will all blow up on you one day. 

What a funny comment.  Thanks for the laugh.    

 

4 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I recommend that you just ignore me - I will not agree with your opinions ever - and I will not play your 'court case lawyer tactics' game.

I have never, and will never, put anyone on my ignore list.  I believe in freedom of speech and I'm prepared to read all other points of view.  However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. 

 

It's not playing out a court case.  You have the proposed changes.  They are not my opinion.  They are from the government.  How they will impact individuals living overseas is clearly a source of debate, but why are you discussing the current laws when members have been discussing the proposed changes?  Very strange. 

 

4 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

There is a poster on AN who has been a member for a very very long time - he was the main Trump hating poster back in 2016 and was extremely active and negative all through his first POTUS period.  Since Trump was re-elected he has been far less negative and much less active. He still does not like Trump, but he has 'toned it all down'.  That is how it works - sometimes as old blokes we get too emotional and angry about something and go way too far.  I once read that the reason for that is because it was nature's way to remove the old males from the herd so to speak - they would provoke and get killed off by the younger ones.

How is this relevant to this thread?  It's off topic.  

 

That said, I couldn't care less about your witch doctor or backyard psychologist rubbish.  Once again, you total misread the topic. 

 

4 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Anyway - may I suggest that we agree to disagree and move on to other things. If the ATO does tax pension payments then you will be proven right and I will admit I was wrong. But if the ATO does not do that within say 2? years - will you do the same?? Maybe 3 years - being how long Labor might stay in power?

Sure, I have no problem with that.  I have admitted I was wrong on this forum in the past. 

 

It's hard to be wrong about something that hasn't even been passed yet, isn't it? 

 

Currently, no one is right and no one is wrong because they have not been passed yet, but due to the current laws being 90 years old, and having a lot of loop holes, and the fact Labor took Liberals proposed changes and progressed them, this tells me it's only a matter of time before they are passed.  If you disagree, I have no problem reading why. 

 

Geez, I remember many members cheering when Albo got in and their posts being directed at me about how Albo would bin them.  Well, he didn't, he progressed them to the next stage.  What's that tell you?

 

Then, the DTA got rolled out and many directed their posts at me under the belief the DTA covered pensions, only to find out it only covers service pensions.  

 

Who knows, when they pass them they may add an exemption for pensions, or a small $25,000 tax free threshold to non resident tax brackets to cover pensioners.  

 

You see, there is a lot of emotion around it, but not really from me.  All I stand to lose is living in Thailand for 45 days a year.  I suppose you could say I lose some airfare money, and that would be correct, but I do get to see my kids.  The airfare is way less than the 30% tax in my case. 

 

The need to shoot the messenger comes from those with no where to stay in Australia for 45 days and / or can't even afford the airfare home.  I understand their precarious position, but how does shooting the messenger or burying their head in the sand help their plight?  I suggest these members start planning for best and worse case scenario, and everything in between, when these proposed changes are passed.  Wouldn't you think that prudent, rather than just saying the proposed changes "are just for guys like Paul Hogan?" 

 

Given the pension is deemed to be an income, I'm still interested in your advice to members on how they can remain an Australian resident for tax purposes when the new laws are passed, and they haven't been back to Australia in years. 

[KhunHeineken]

3 hours ago, Nemises said:

Well said T&G! 

It’s unlikely he will accept your challenge as doomsayers rarely acknowledge when they’re wrong, as maintaining a sense of crisis helps sustain their narrative. 

 

 

What challenge was that?

 

I do laugh at the positive re-enforcement on this thread.  It's the herd mentality.   

 

Shooting the messenger doesn't make tax go away.  Burying one's head in the sand doesn't make the tax go away.  

 

If, for example, a member posted, "If I have to do the 45 days in Australia to keep my full pension, I have arranged to stay with my sister.  She said it would be fine."  I would say "Good plan.  Good luck to ya."

 

However, when one says these laws "are only for guys like Paul Hogan" and "I'm still a resident of Australia because I still have a Medicare Card" then do you inform them to the contrary, or let them carry on under such false belief?  Serious question.   

[KhunHeineken]

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The poster you are responding to has more than 1000 posts on this thread, all centred on the same themes - residency, and taxation of pensions. The thread started in 2008.

You have nearly 40,000 posts compared to my near 6000 posts, and you have admitted to having more than one username, so the of posts for you is higher. 

 

On this thread, a large amount of your posts have been posts trolling me.  Members of this forum saw American members come to the Australian forum troll us because you were trolling them.  How bad would one have to be trolling for that to happen?  

 

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

He does not have an Age Pension.

Correct, and you are on a part pension. 

 

Even if pensions get a free pass under the new laws, what about your other income? 

 

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

IMO the best course of action is to ignore him

I agree.  I have requested people to put me on their ignore list.  It allows interested parties to discuss this serious issue without all the troll posts. 

 

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

He is a sick person.

Your usual personal attacks are wasted on me. 

[KhunHeineken]

2 hours ago, Will27 said:

Seriously?

 

He will respond in a 1000 word reply which will basically rehash all of his previous rubbish which is residency, non-residency and Paul Hogan.

 

Best do what Lacessit does, ignore him.

Interesting that the member totally deflected though, isn't it? 

 

I threw in a bit more "Paul Hogan" for you.  It was one of the funniest replies I have ever read on this whole website.  

 

Yes, just put me on your ignore list and do the forum a favor. 

[Nemises]

5 hours ago, Will27 said:

Seriously?

 

He will respond in a 1000 word reply which will basically rehash all of his previous rubbish which is residency, non-residency and Paul Hogan.

 

Best do what Lacessit does, ignore him.

Yes seriously. But I was referring to this particular challenge…

 

8 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

If the ATO does tax pension payments then you will be proven right and I will admit I was wrong. But if the ATO does not do that within say 2? years - will you do the same??

 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

3 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I suppose my accountant needs some help as well then. 

 

Yet, you just replied. 

 

If you can't understand the impact the proposed changes to tax residency will have, why post about it at all?

 

Here they are again, and these HAVE NOT been passed yet. 

 

Proposed tax residency rules

 

Therefore, the Government in the 2020-2021 Federal Budget announced that it will replace the current individual tax residency rules with new primary and secondary tests to determine one’s tax residency.

 

The primarily test is the 183-day test, that is, if a person who is physically present in Australia for a period of 183 days or more in any income year, this person will be considered as a resident for Australian tax purposes.

 

The secondary test is a ‘Factor Test’ which applies to individuals who spend more than 45 days but less than 183 days in an income year. The secondary tests focus on four factors, two of which must be satisfied by that person to be deemed as resident for tax purposes.

 

Factors include:

 

The Right to reside permanently in Australia (e.g. citizenship or permanent residency);

 

The ability to access accommodation in Australia (e.g. rights of ownership, leasehold interest, licenses);

 

Whether the individual’s family (spouse or any of their children under 18) are generally located in Australia;

 

The individual’s Australian economic connections (employment, carry on business, interests in Australia).

 

The above is from an accounting firm from the first page of a Google search. 

 

https://hlb.com.au/tax-residency-changes-for-individuals/

 

You do realize the above are PROPOSED CHANGES and have not been passed into law yet, don't you? 

 

Now, see where it mentions the primary test is the 183 day test?  They have called it a "bright line test."  When these laws are passed, under this 183 day test, can you tell members how they can still remain a resident for tax purposes if outside of Australia for 183 days? 

 

Rather than personally attacking me, can you post some substance?  Can you post what you are basing your opinion on, in relation to the proposed changes, not the current laws?

 

The factor tests relate to being in Australia more than 45 days but less than 183 days.  You don't get to be outside of Australia for 183 days, and then use the four factor tests to claim you are still a resident of Australia for tax purposes, hence, primary test and secondary test.

 

So, do you agree with the 7 points I listed, or do you disagree with them?  I note you did agree with some within your post.

 

I know all about "domicile." I maintain a "domicile" in Australia.  (house)  Under the current 90 year old tax residency laws the ATO can't prove I do not have an "intention" to return to Australia to live.  That's the loophole many have been using, for decades.  

 

The 183 days removes this loophole.  Thailand has similar, so do other countries.  It's not a new thing.  Why do you think Australia will not move to a similar model?  

 

Hardly.  

 

My ducks are in a row.  I can do the 45 days in Australia and meet two out of the four factor tests, should I have to, can you?

 

May I suggest you stop posting about the current laws when we have clearly been discussing the proposed changes.  You are either behind the time, or do no comprehend the sub-topic. 

 

Have you looked at the dates of the last posts on the old threads?  I don't post that much, or that often, but do admit I feel compelled to point out misinformation spread by posters such as yourself.  Have I broken any forum rules?  

 

Posters like yourself just keep positively re-enforcing such misinformation because the reality is too much to bare.  You should seek some professional help if these proposed changes cause you some distress. 

 

Just dismissing such an important subject as scaremongering does nothing towards informing members of these proposed changes.   They are real, and progressing through the system under both major political parties. 

 

What a funny comment.  Thanks for the laugh.    

 

I have never, and will never, put anyone on my ignore list.  I believe in freedom of speech and I'm prepared to read all other points of view.  However, that doesn't mean I have to agree with them. 

 

It's not playing out a court case.  You have the proposed changes.  They are not my opinion.  They are from the government.  How they will impact individuals living overseas is clearly a source of debate, but why are you discussing the current laws when members have been discussing the proposed changes?  Very strange. 

 

How is this relevant to this thread?  It's off topic.  

 

That said, I couldn't care less about your witch doctor or backyard psychologist rubbish.  Once again, you total misread the topic. 

 

Sure, I have no problem with that.  I have admitted I was wrong on this forum in the past. 

 

It's hard to be wrong about something that hasn't even been passed yet, isn't it? 

 

Currently, no one is right and no one is wrong because they have not been passed yet, but due to the current laws being 90 years old, and having a lot of loop holes, and the fact Labor took Liberals proposed changes and progressed them, this tells me it's only a matter of time before they are passed.  If you disagree, I have no problem reading why. 

 

Geez, I remember many members cheering when Albo got in and their posts being directed at me about how Albo would bin them.  Well, he didn't, he progressed them to the next stage.  What's that tell you?

 

Then, the DTA got rolled out and many directed their posts at me under the belief the DTA covered pensions, only to find out it only covers service pensions.  

 

Who knows, when they pass them they may add an exemption for pensions, or a small $25,000 tax free threshold to non resident tax brackets to cover pensioners.  

 

You see, there is a lot of emotion around it, but not really from me.  All I stand to lose is living in Thailand for 45 days a year.  I suppose you could say I lose some airfare money, and that would be correct, but I do get to see my kids.  The airfare is way less than the 30% tax in my case. 

 

The need to shoot the messenger comes from those with no where to stay in Australia for 45 days and / or can't even afford the airfare home.  I understand their precarious position, but how does shooting the messenger or burying their head in the sand help their plight?  I suggest these members start planning for best and worse case scenario, and everything in between, when these proposed changes are passed.  Wouldn't you think that prudent, rather than just saying the proposed changes "are just for guys like Paul Hogan?" 

 

Given the pension is deemed to be an income, I'm still interested in your advice to members on how they can remain an Australian resident for tax purposes when the new laws are passed, and they haven't been back to Australia in years. 

This guy is absolutely crazy and I have done what he asked and blocked him.  There are none so blind .............. 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

7 hours ago, Nemises said:

Well said T&G! 

It’s unlikely he will accept your challenge as doomsayers rarely acknowledge when they’re wrong, as maintaining a sense of crisis helps sustain their narrative. 

 

He is a nutter mate - and he has totally destroyed the Aussie forum - he dominates every issue and refuses to shut up. Blocked him. 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

5 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The poster you are responding to has more than 1000 posts on this thread, all centred on the same themes - residency, and taxation of pensions. The thread started in 2008.

He does not have an Age Pension.

IMO the best course of action is to ignore him, responding only gives him oxygen.

He is a sick person.

I agree 100% and have done what you suggested mate. Unbelievable. 

[TroubleandGrumpy]

5 hours ago, Will27 said:

Seriously?

 

He will respond in a 1000 word reply which will basically rehash all of his previous rubbish which is residency, non-residency and Paul Hogan.

 

Best do what Lacessit does, ignore him.

He did - and I did not even start to read it. And as you suggest I have blocked him.