5 minutes ago, Artisi said:

You are right and it's a complex matter for people working and travelling, however as this is a forum mainly for expats living in Thailand and who are probably here fulltime, there is no argument, if you are out of the country for more than 183 days in any year, you will be classed as a non-resident for tax purposes - end of story irrespective of how much you cry about it, ignore it, or think differently - - end of story. 

 

As I've said previously, I doesn't affect me now - but I'm dead against it for the average pensioner who lives overseas. 

I take your point that for long term Thai expats it is fairly clear cut. But the argument being made seemed to relate specifically to the 183 day rule and that Centrelink could simply work out who has been outside Australia for 183 days and cut their pension to withhold tax. I don't think that will ever happen as pensioners have a range of different situations where such a decision would be unfair and unworkable. 

One day they could look at a different way of catching longer terms non-residents but there seems to be nothing specific being discussed. The 183 day rule appears to be primarily discussed in the context of catching residents who want to be non-residents.    

7 minutes ago, chalawaan said:

The first posts on this thread are from 2008.

Most of those posters names are never seen on current threads, and their post counts are extremely low.

 

I think every one of them may have long since passed.

 

May they all rest in peace. 

 

Australia's pension rules continue to perplex most expats. 

That's a strange take.

Maybe they just got tired of TVF.

1 hour ago, chalawaan said:

The first posts on this thread are from 2008.

Most of those posters names are never seen on current threads, and their post counts are extremely low.

 

I think every one of them may have long since passed.

 

May they all rest in peace. 

 

Australia's pension rules continue to perplex most expats. 

Still some around from then but few of them post here now.

 

With 400 posts of War & Peace proportion, from the same person on exactly the same issue over recent times, maybe the thread has lost most of its appeal.

 

 

57 minutes ago, Will27 said:

That's a strange take.

Maybe they just got tired of TVF.

Sure is. Im not perplexed.Work for 55yrs, rest is plain sailing.????

12 hours ago, Will27 said:

That's a strange take.

Maybe they just got tired of TVF.

One gets the OAP at age 65, back then. 15 years on from 2008, said people are 80. Average male life expectancy for Australians is 81, so it's not surprising some would drop off the twig. Particularly if they are propping up a bar stool in Thailand.

 

On 6/11/2023 at 4:01 AM, 4MyEgo said:

I would like to think that the ATO would go after the loopholes of millionaires and other large corporations vs going after the little battlers who worked all of their lives.

 

So take a deep breathe and like I said, when they do come after the little battler, then come on down and beat your chest, but until then, ZIP, it ti do dah, Zip it tee day, my oh my have a wonderful day ????

 

Yawn. 

 

They are not "going after the little battlers" in relation to the proposed changes.  It's a tax that Aussie expats who derive an "income" from Australia, and yes, a pension is deemed an income, should have been paying for decades. 

 

The proposed changes allow the ATO to finally collect this tax from many who have not been paying it, both wealthy, and battlers, and in the case of pensioners, simply reduce their pension the fortnight after they have been outside of Australia for 183 days.  Basically, non resident tax does not discriminate. 

 

If / when the proposed changes are passed, there will be no chest beating by myself.  The proposed changes are there for you to read, and the assistant treasurer of the current Labor government has said it is in the government's "in tray" so it didn't die with the ousting of the former Liberal government. 

 

The non resident tax brackets are there for you to read. 

 

The legislation that a pension is deemed "income" is there for you to read. 

 

Many links to the above have been posted, several times, by myself, and others. 

 

Connect the dots and you will see the picture. 

15 hours ago, Artisi said:

however as this is a forum mainly for expats living in Thailand and who are probably here fulltime, there is no argument, if you are out of the country for more than 183 days in any year, you will be classed as a non-resident for tax purposes - end of story irrespective of how much you cry about it, ignore it, or think differently - - end of story. 

Correct.

 

The proposed changes do away with pages and pages and pages of 90 year old laws that had so many loopholes and gray area that in 2023, they are no longer fit for purpose. 

 

Again, the 183 days is not a new tax.  The 183 days just allows the collection of tax from expats. 

 

15 hours ago, Artisi said:

As I've said previously, I doesn't affect me now - but I'm dead against it for the average pensioner who lives overseas. 

The best that can be hoped for is a new non resident tax bracket that includes a tax free threshold. Say $0 to $35,000 at 0% tax, or, pensions are exempt.  To date, neither of these appear anywhere in the proposed changes. 

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

I take your point that for long term Thai expats it is fairly clear cut. But the argument being made seemed to relate specifically to the 183 day rule and that Centrelink could simply work out who has been outside Australia for 183 days and cut their pension to withhold tax. I don't think that will ever happen as pensioners have a range of different situations where such a decision would be unfair and unworkable. 

I would be interested in how you think, at law, long term Thai expats will be able to stand outside the law, other than your opinion of "fairness." 

 

As for "unworkable" computer data bases do the work, and I believe a system is already in place for pensioners who are outside of Australia for 6 weeks, but I am happy to be corrected on this. 

 

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

One day they could look at a different way of catching longer terms non-residents but there seems to be nothing specific being discussed.

Are "long term Thai expats" not "longer terms non-residents?" 

 

This is the point of the proposed changes.  To take away the "intention" of the expat, which is difficult to prove, and replace it with a time based criteria, which can not be disputed. 

The OP was locked for post removal cleanup.  Bickering and Baiting exchanges have been removed. Stop now.

 

Additionally, If the question you ask does not get answered move on and quit regurgitating the same material over and over.

 

As a final warning if the same post keeps being re-posted over and over again it will be removed and a suspension issued. 

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

I would be interested in how you think, at law, long term Thai expats will be able to stand outside the law, other than your opinion of "fairness." 

 

As for "unworkable" computer data bases do the work, and I believe a system is already in place for pensioners who are outside of Australia for 6 weeks, but I am happy to be corrected on this. 

 

Are "long term Thai expats" not "longer terms non-residents?" 

 

This is the point of the proposed changes.  To take away the "intention" of the expat, which is difficult to prove, and replace it with a time based criteria, which can not be disputed. 

Based on other comments I'll give a brief response. It's not that Centrelink systems could not work out who is outside the country for 183 days though my experiences with government systems indicate that the information is available, but it might be a big job to fully coordinate, and automate such information.

The focus of my point is, in my opinion, the suggestion that the 183 day rule could be the mechanism to identify expats in Thailand as non residents is unlikely as it is not a workable hard and fast solution to sensibly differentiate between residents and non residents for reasons previously provided.

Someone who has been here for years is clearly a non resident of Australia. Whether they bring in some other way to address this is issue possible but I don't see any plans to do so.

I appreciate you feel differently and we can agree to disagree.

 

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

Based on other comments I'll give a brief response. It's not that Centrelink systems could not work out who is outside the country for 183 days though my experiences with government systems indicate that the information is available, but it might be a big job to fully coordinate, and automate such information.

The focus of my point is, in my opinion, the suggestion that the 183 day rule could be the mechanism to identify expats in Thailand as non residents is unlikely as it is not a workable hard and fast solution to sensibly differentiate between residents and non residents for reasons previously provided.

Someone who has been here for years is clearly a non resident of Australia. Whether they bring in some other way to address this is issue possible but I don't see any plans to do so.

I appreciate you feel differently and we can agree to disagree.

 

Out of courtesy, I replied to your post, but it was removed.  (I am not questioning moderation)

 

On that basis, I am reluctant to reply to your post again.

Today's Sydney Morning Herald:

 

Christmas is coming early for many senior citizens, with significant changes to the pension from July 1. It’s an interesting change; the pension rates themselves are not changing, but the thresholds that determine how much pension is paid have been adjusted for inflation.

 

The result is that many part-pensioners will now move to a full pension, and some people who are ineligible for a pension – because they are over the assets test cut-off point – will be eligible to start claiming a part-pension and all the concessions that go with it.

 

The big news is that every couple who are part-pensioners now should get a $50-a-week increase in their pension, while singles will get $35 a week. These benefits are available only to part-pensioners because they are due to a change in the taper rates – not to an increase in the amount of pension payable.

The assets test cut-off points will change too. The lower level at which the pension starts to reduce has gone up from $419,000 per couple ($280,000 for singles) to 451,500 and $301,750, respectively. The upper level at which eligibility for a pension cuts off moves from $954,000 for a homeowner couple to $986,500, and for singles the numbers go from $634,750 to $656,500.

 

The new numbers also increase the amount pensioners can earn before their pension starts to reduce under the income test. For a couple, the income test cut-off point rises from $336 a fortnight to $360 a fortnight – for singles it increases from $190 a fortnight to $204 a fortnight.

 

Deeming rates remain at generous levels: between 0.25 per cent and 2.25 per cent. The government promised a year ago that these would be frozen until July 1, 2024, but thresholds have been increased slightly in line with inflation, which will have a small benefit to all income-tested pensioners.

An important thing to note is the way the tests intersect.

 

Centrelink tests you on both the income test and the assets test, and then applies the one that gives you the least pension. But the tests tend to be out of kilter, which can lead to some anomalous results. For example, if you’re asset-tested, deeming is not relevant – it’s only used for the income test.

Furthermore, the rule that a pensioner couple will start to lose their pension once income reaches $360 a fortnight does not affect an assets-tested pensioner. Think about Jack and Jill, who own their home and have $600,000 in total assessable assets, of which $550,000 are financial assets and subject to deeming. The couple is subject to the assets test, and their pension will rise from $530 a fortnight to $580 a fortnight each after June 30.

 

Because they are assets tested, they can earn $36,000 a year with no adverse effect on their pension. Under the proposed adjusted deeming rules, their $550,000 in financial assets would be deemed to be earning $10,000 a year, which gives them space to earn an additional $26,000 a year with no effect on their pension.

 

Dated 8/6/23.

 

https://www.minterellison.com/articles/ato-finalises-tr-20231-on-residency-for-individuals

 

Some interesting examples on the ATO website. 

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?docid=TXR/TR20231/NAT/ATO/00001

28 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

Dated 8/6/23.

 

https://www.minterellison.com/articles/ato-finalises-tr-20231-on-residency-for-individuals

 

Some interesting examples on the ATO website. 

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/law/view/document?docid=TXR/TR20231/NAT/ATO/00001

It should be obvious from the links posted the single 183 day rule is not set in stone, and that other factors such as family connections and possessions/assets in Australia come into play.

29 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

It should be obvious from the links posted the single 183 day rule is not set in stone, and that other factors such as family connections and possessions/assets in Australia come into play.

It does appear that way, yet, the proposed changes have not been passed.

 

I've maintained a residence in Australia, for the very purpose of placing myself in the gray area of the current legislation.  

 

How many expat retirees still have a property in Australia, community ties etc?  When was the last time they visited Australia? 

 

In my opinion, under the old laws, and the new proposed laws, most expat retirees in Thailand would be non residents for tax purposes. 

8 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

It does appear that way, yet, the proposed changes have not been passed.

 

I've maintained a residence in Australia, for the very purpose of placing myself in the gray area of the current legislation.  

 

How many expat retirees still have a property in Australia, community ties etc?  When was the last time they visited Australia? 

 

In my opinion, under the old laws, and the new proposed laws, most expat retirees in Thailand would be non residents for tax purposes. 

Virtue signalling and Schadenfreude?

 

But with respect, haven't you posted this information before?

1 minute ago, KhunHeineken said:

It does appear that way, yet, the proposed changes have not been passed.

 

I've maintained a residence in Australia, for the very purpose of placing myself in the gray area of the current legislation.  

 

How many expat retirees still have a property in Australia, community ties etc?  When was the last time they visited Australia? 

 

In my opinion, under the old laws, and the new proposed laws, most expat retirees in Thailand would be non residents for tax purposes. 

Until the proposed changes have passed, it's business as usual. Unless I am missing something, the changes do not remove the gray areas.

 

I still have a property interest ( loan secured by caveat ), family connections, and investments in Australia. I have mostly lived in Thailand for the last ten years.

 

Even accepting your opinion, it then becomes a question of whether the ATO thinks it is worthwhile pursuing pensioners for fairly insignificant returns on the investment of time.

 

Judging by what the Treasurer has already flagged in the May budget, the ATO has bigger fish to fry.

 

 

11 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

It does appear that way, yet, the proposed changes have not been passed.

 

I've maintained a residence in Australia, for the very purpose of placing myself in the gray area of the current legislation.  

 

How many expat retirees still have a property in Australia, community ties etc?  When was the last time they visited Australia? 

 

In my opinion, under the old laws, and the new proposed laws, most expat retirees in Thailand would be non residents for tax purposes. 

All over bar the "KH" shouting!! Thanks for the memories.

7 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

Virtue signalling and Schadenfreude?

Hardly.

 

7 minutes ago, LosLobo said:

But with respect, haven't you posted this information before?

No.

 

The link is dated 8/6/23 and provided TR 2023/1, which I then found on the ATO website. 

8 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Until the proposed changes have passed, it's business as usual. Unless I am missing something, the changes do not remove the gray areas.

How so?

 

What's the point of the proposed changes if they change nothing? 

 

In your opinion, what do the proposed changes actually change then? 

 

10 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I still have a property interest ( loan secured by caveat ), family connections, and investments in Australia. I have mostly lived in Thailand for the last ten years.

 

Even accepting your opinion, it then becomes a question of whether the ATO thinks it is worthwhile pursuing pensioners for fairly insignificant returns on the investment of time.

You are not a on a full pension though, are you?

 

Do you think the returns on your investments will get a free pass from non resident tax, a tax that you should already be paying?

 

11 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Judging by what the Treasurer has already flagged in the May budget, the ATO has bigger fish to fry.

They will be looking to fry all manner of fish for every dollar, not just the big fish. 

9 minutes ago, Olmate said:

All over bar the "KH" shouting!! Thanks for the memories.

So, it's all just disappeared, has it? 

20 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

How so?

 

What's the point of the proposed changes if they change nothing? 

 

In your opinion, what do the proposed changes actually change then? 

 

You are not a on a full pension though, are you?

 

Do you think the returns on your investments will get a free pass from non resident tax, a tax that you should already be paying?

 

They will be looking to fry all manner of fish for every dollar, not just the big fish. 

Can't you read the material you have posted yourself?

 

The Commissioner has also made a number of changes to the position reflected in the draft ruling to address public feedback:

• in relation to the 'ordinary concepts test' the Commissioner has moved from all factors and circumstances being relevant, to the test being informed by the nature, duration and quality of a person's physical presence in Australia and their intention to treat Australia as home;
• recognition of flexible working – with business or employment ties overseas being of less significance if the business or employment can be, and are, performed from anywhere in the world;
• the Commissioner's view that non-residents may return to Australia occasionally for events like Christmas has been expanded to recognise cultural events, special celebrations and annual leave; and
• the Commissioner will apply the marginal income rates applicable to residents to a person who was a resident for at least one day during the income year.

The ruling also includes an additional five examples that were not included in the draft ruling to assist taxpayers determine their residency status. The ruling also usefully maintains the two year "rule of thumb" to assist in determining when a length of overseas stay is substantial for the purpose of considering whether a taxpayer's permanent place of abode is overseas.

Overall, while the new ruling incorporates the recent Federal Court decisions, the application of the statutory rules remain uncertain. A significant contributor to this uncertainty is the fact that the domicile test and the 183-day test, which are the clearer tests from the statute, still turn on whether the Commissioner is 'satisfied' of certain points.

 

In all that bureaucratese, if you can show me where the 183 day rule is the sole determinant of tax residency status, I will bare my bum in Federation Square.

OTOH, if you can't, I demand you do the same.

The back and forth bickering in this OP needs to stop.

41 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Hardly.

 

No.

 

The link is dated 8/6/23 and provided TR 2023/1, which I then found on the ATO website. 

Yet, in the post I responded to, there were no links.

 

As posts above note, in relation to the previous suggestion of the possible implementation of a hard and fast 183 day rule e.g. Centrelink simply withholding tax after 183 days,  this clarifies and confirms that each case is based on it's particular circumstances.

Therefore based on this that won't happen.

Example 11 shows someone outside Australia for an extended period but they are still deemed a resident. Example 12 is similar to my example above showing for a second time that you can be outside Australia for more than 6 months and be a resident. Depends on the facts. So no worries in that regard.

 

Pension Calculator for new changes!

 

Age Pension calculator (July 2023 update) (superguide.com.au)

21 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Overall, while the new ruling incorporates the recent Federal Court decisions, the application of the statutory rules remain uncertain. A significant contributor to this uncertainty is the fact that the domicile test and the 183-day test, which are the clearer tests from the statute, still turn on whether the Commissioner is 'satisfied' of certain points.

 

"application of the statutory rules remain uncertain" Any comment on this? 

 

The new laws haven't been passed yet. 

22 hours ago, Lacessit said:

In all that bureaucratese, if you can show me where the 183 day rule is the sole determinant of tax residency status, I will bare my bum in Federation Square.

OTOH, if you can't, I demand you do the same.

Once again, many expat retirees have been living in Thailand, perpetually, and have not visited Australia in years.  How are they possibly going to argue they are residents for tax purposes? 

 

Whilst the domicile test may or may not over rule the 183 day "bright line test" in the proposed changes, and if it does, that's a positive for me and you, as we have maintained a domicile in Australia, what about the thousands of other expats in Thailand who have not? 

 

Remember, it's a tax they should already be paying. 

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

As posts above note, in relation to the previous suggestion of the possible implementation of a hard and fast 183 day rule e.g. Centrelink simply withholding tax after 183 days,  this clarifies and confirms that each case is based on it's particular circumstances.

Therefore based on this that won't happen.

Example 11 shows someone outside Australia for an extended period but they are still deemed a resident. Example 12 is similar to my example above showing for a second time that you can be outside Australia for more than 6 months and be a resident. Depends on the facts. So no worries in that regard.

 

See my reply to another member. 

 

An expat who maintains a domicile in Australia may be in a better position than an expat who has not, but with thousands of expats who have not visited Australia in years, domicile or not, how can they possibly argue they are still a resident for tax purposes, in order to escape paying a tax that they should have been paying for years?  

 

51 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

"application of the statutory rules remain uncertain" Any comment on this? 

 

The new laws haven't been passed yet. 

Once again, many expat retirees have been living in Thailand, perpetually, and have not visited Australia in years.  How are they possibly going to argue they are residents for tax purposes? 

 

Whilst the domicile test may or may not over rule the 183 day "bright line test" in the proposed changes, and if it does, that's a positive for me and you, as we have maintained a domicile in Australia, what about the thousands of other expats in Thailand who have not? 

 

Remember, it's a tax they should already be paying. 

 

Please stop. You are continuing to repeat the same issues over and over again.  You have made your point.  Continue to repost the same arguments will end up having them removed and a potential suspension earned.

I've been following this resident tax subject on this forum but there's plenty about it on youtube as well.