Australian Aged Pension

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 8:34 AM, norbra said:

There seems to be a lot of misconception with ATO definitions.

Foreign non resident is a foreign national on a bridging or similar visa.

A foreign resident is a foreign national maybe married to an Aussie.

Australian Expats living overseas for more than 180 in a single country are considered Tax residents of that country,ATO not interested in aged pension tax as levied by that country due to DTT.

 

 

Thank you for your post. 

 

I will address it in a general forum post. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 9:05 AM, norbra said:

Here is a straw to clutch.

Rule 42 section 12 "Special"Pensions are not assessable income

Similarly, tanks again for the post. 

 

It really is refreshing to see information put forward, not interpretations and opinions. 

 

Likewise, I will be addressing your link shortly in a general post. 

[norbra]

While I am comfortable,as a Thai tax resident, with ATO's advise that for those with Thai tax residency the Centrelink Aged Pension is ASSESSABLE for tax purposes by Thai revenue department.

The Thai RD advise that "special pensions" Code 42-12 are exempt from tax, I have searched far and wide but cannot find definitions of this "special pension",any further information would be helpful in my endeavours to get a grasp on what might be relevant to all.

 

Re DTT section 19 this  has no relevance to Centrelink Aged Pension,period.

It is all about government SERVICE pensions

[KhunHeineken]

@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. 

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 9:12 AM, Lacessit said:

Perhaps our resident prophet of doom will finally shut his trap, although I doubt it.

 

Thanks for posting something of fact and official, which is NOT a discussion paper.

Refer to a post replying to you in the general forum, and once again, it was "Consultation Paper" not a discussion paper.

 

What I find funny is, you were one of the ones that said Albo and Labor would never put the proposed changes to parliament because Labor cares more for pensioners, yet, Labor commissioned the "Consultation Paper" in July 2023. 

 

Here's the link.

 

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

 

You will see it clearly says, "Consultation Paper" and is indeed a fact. 

 

Talk about egg on your face. 

[norbra]

4 minutes 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. 

 

Forget section 19 it has nothing to do with the aged pension period.

[KhunHeineken]

5 minutes ago, norbra said:

Forget section 19 it has nothing to do with the aged pension period.

A broad statement like that isn't worth much.  Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?  Enlighten me. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 10:01 AM, HighPriority said:

To be fair, no one of any opinion had published this. 

The conversation was eventually going to lead us to the double taxation treaty. 

 

It's funny how one minute some members are arguing the pension isn't an income, and the pension isn't taxable, and the non resident tax rates aren't applicable, and then support a link which goes against their previous argument because for that link to be relevant to them, they would have to accept the pension is deemed an income, the pension is taxable etc etc.  Too funny.  

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 11:05 AM, Lacessit said:

The resident prophet of doom kept publishing links to the discussion paper.

More misinformation from you.  It was a Consultation Paper, not a discussion paper.  You have the link.  It clearly says, "Consultation Paper." 

 

On 2/3/2024 at 11:05 AM, Lacessit said:

In this case, I think once should be enough.

I await your reply to my post in the general forum. 

[norbra]

11 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

A broad statement like that isn't worth much.  Can you explain how you came to that conclusion?  Enlighten me. 

Section 19 is all about government SERVICE pensions ,Those receiving these pensions should be  aware that  Australian tax is applied prior to distribution

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 11:21 AM, Artisi said:

I'm really having problems understanding all the crap that's constantly being regurgitated to such a simple condition. 

The current law is quite clear, if you're deemed to be a non-resident the Australian tax on your pension is 32.5% starting at $1 - currently nobody in their right mind will put up their hand to say "I'm a non resident" and it's very simple to circumvent the law. 

There is currently a proposed move to close the loop-holes by defining what is  a non-resident, ie., if you're out of the country for more than 183 days in any 12 month period you will be taxed in accordance with the current law, how this will be controlled / reported / enforced is the only unknown in this discussion. 

Will it comes about - who knows. 

 

A member has posted a link to the current tax treaty Australia has with Thailand which states this:

 

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.

 

Article 19 states this:

 

Article 19

Government service

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

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

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

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

3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to remuneration or a pension in respect of services rendered in connection with any trade or business carried on by one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of one of the States or a local authority of one of the States. In such a case, the provisions of Article 15, 16 or 18, as the case may be shall apply.
 

Now, it's a credible link, and it's there in black and white, and the celebrations from other members lead to the invigorated personal attacks and trolling on me.  However, a link stemming from Treasury's own website suggests the treaty allows Thailand to tax the pension first for what percentage they want, and Australia must give a "credit" for this tax paid and then tax up to what I would suggest be the 32.5%.  (links provided)

 

Basically, the member put forward the link to say the tax treaty with Thailand cuts out non resident liability to the ATO back in Australia.   This could be true, and I have said I will research more, as I hope other members will also, rather than just personally attack me for posting a link that is conflicting to what they really need to believe because of financial gain. 

 

For me, Article 18 being subject to the provisions of Article 19 does raise some questions. 

 

Feel free to post your opinion on it. 

 

 

 

[Lacessit]

7 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

A member has posted a link to the current tax treaty Australia has with Thailand which states this:

 

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.

 

Article 19 states this:

 

Article 19

Government service

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

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

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

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

3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to remuneration or a pension in respect of services rendered in connection with any trade or business carried on by one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of one of the States or a local authority of one of the States. In such a case, the provisions of Article 15, 16 or 18, as the case may be shall apply.
 

Now, it's a credible link, and it's there in black and white, and the celebrations from other members lead to the invigorated personal attacks and trolling on me.  However, a link stemming from Treasury's own website suggests the treaty allows Thailand to tax the pension first for what percentage they want, and Australia must give a "credit" for this tax paid and then tax up to what I would suggest be the 32.5%.  (links provided)

 

Basically, the member put forward the link to say the tax treaty with Thailand cuts out non resident liability to the ATO back in Australia.   This could be true, and I have said I will research more, as I hope other members will also, rather than just personally attack me for posting a link that is conflicting to what they really need to believe because of financial gain. 

 

For me, Article 18 being subject to the provisions of Article 19 does raise some questions. 

 

Feel free to post your opinion on it. 

 

 

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 11:31 AM, Lacessit said:

For those living in Thailand, being a non-resident is no longer an issue, according to a double tax agreement.

The link I posted shows more research and discussion is needed on your comment. 

 

On 2/3/2024 at 11:31 AM, Lacessit said:

No 32.5% tax applies, which is 30% after July 2024.

Can you post a link show a change to non resident tax brackets?

 

I know Alvo announced a change to resident tax brackets, but I did not read any such announcement about a change to non resident tax brackets.  Are you posting "porkies" again? 

 

On 2/3/2024 at 11:31 AM, Lacessit said:

I suggest you read norbra's post again, perhaps you did not understand its significance.

norbra's post quoted a "Jim Quinn" from the ATO who has supplied information that conflicts with the "Blake" link and "Caro" link.

 

I'll ask you the same question, why do you think Jim is correct, and Blake and Caro are incorrect?    Can you explain why you give weight to Jim's information, and disregard Blake and Caro's information? 

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 11:47 AM, Lacessit said:

Hey there KH, you have been yammering on about links for some time. It seems the cat has got your tongue for a while.

 

Here's a link for you, enjoy.

 

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

 

 

Hey Lacessit.  Are you enjoying the links I posted in the general forum? 

 

I would be interested in your opinion on the "Subject to the provisions of Article 19" part of your link.  

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 11:53 AM, LosLobo said:

Articule 19 of Norbra's email seems to be for Govt Pensions, Articule 18 seems to be for Aged Pensions.

Without the context of the question which promoted Norbra's email more confusion is added to the mix.

Article 18 is subject to the provisions of Article 19. 

 

That means they may as well be the same Article.  Of course, this is only my opinion, and debatable, but I am interested in other members interpretation of the document. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 11:57 AM, Lacessit said:

Are you confused now? If so, about what?

Probably confused by your early celebration and victory dance, not over me, but the ATO. 

[Lacessit]

2 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

The link I posted shows more research and discussion is needed on your comment. 

 

Can you post a link show a change to non resident tax brackets?

 

I know Alvo announced a change to resident tax brackets, but I did not read any such announcement about a change to non resident tax brackets.  Are you posting "porkies" again? 

 

norbra's post quoted a "Jim Quinn" from the ATO who has supplied information that conflicts with the "Blake" link and "Caro" link.

 

I'll ask you the same question, why do you think Jim is correct, and Blake and Caro are incorrect?    Can you explain why you give weight to Jim's information, and disregard Blake and Caro's information? 

 

"Therefore, under the double tax agreement between Australia and Thailand, pensions, and annuities, ( other than pensions for government service ) are taxable only in the country of residence".

I can be taxed in Australia if I am deemed to be resident there by the ATO. I can't be taxed in Australia if I am being taxed in Thailand. I can explain it to you, I can't understand it for you.

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 12:08 PM, norbra said:

Only for you I would guess,as the response from the ATO in their closing paragraph mentioned Aged pension,  also government (service)pensions excluded as they have been taxed in Australia.

If you maintain Jim from the ATO is correct, can you state why Blake and Caro are incorrect? 

 

There's conflicting information, which is fine when it comes to complex tax issues, but can you explain your reasoning for relying on Jim's information, whilst disregarding Blake and Caro's information? 

[norbra]

22 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

A member has posted a link to the current tax treaty Australia has with Thailand which states this:

 

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.

 

Article 19 states this:

 

Article 19

Government service

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

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

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

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

3. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall not apply to remuneration or a pension in respect of services rendered in connection with any trade or business carried on by one of the Contracting States or a political subdivision of one of the States or a local authority of one of the States. In such a case, the provisions of Article 15, 16 or 18, as the case may be shall apply.
 

Now, it's a credible link, and it's there in black and white, and the celebrations from other members lead to the invigorated personal attacks and trolling on me.  However, a link stemming from Treasury's own website suggests the treaty allows Thailand to tax the pension first for what percentage they want, and Australia must give a "credit" for this tax paid and then tax up to what I would suggest be the 32.5%.  (links provided)

 

Basically, the member put forward the link to say the tax treaty with Thailand cuts out non resident liability to the ATO back in Australia.   This could be true, and I have said I will research more, as I hope other members will also, rather than just personally attack me for posting a link that is conflicting to what they really need to believe because of financial gain. 

 

For me, Article 18 being subject to the provisions of Article 19 does raise some questions. 

 

Feel free to post your opinion on it. 

 

 

 

Again I will point out that Centrelink Aged Pension has no association with article 19,which is all about Government "Service" pensions for those employed by the government in various fields

[Lacessit]

12 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Hey Lacessit.  Are you enjoying the links I posted in the general forum? 

 

I would be interested in your opinion on the "Subject to the provisions of Article 19" part of your link.  

I'm not bothering to read links you have posted multiple times - erroneously.

 

Article 19 deals with pensions in Government service. Article 18 deals with Centrelink pensions and annuities. I don't know what it does in the case of superannuants.

Article 19 only has relevance to Article 18 in respect of government pensions.

[norbra]

3 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I'm not bothering to read links you have posted multiple times - erroneously.

 

Article 19 deals with pensions in Government service. Article 18 deals with Centrelink pensions and annuities. I don't know what it does in the case of superannuants.

Article 19 only has relevance to Article 18 in respect of government pensions.

Jees how long has it taken to exclude irrelevant 19 from this thread

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 12:23 PM, LosLobo said:

'Only for you'?

I would suggest that this discussion may be existential for some as expats in Thailand and possibly not the place for ad hominem remarks.

My goal is to share information and perspectives and sort through the array conflicting viewpoints to achieve a consensus.

To add to your perspective, I would like to share this, though it is for Service Pensions and 20 years old.

ATO ID 2003/154 | Legal database

Well said.  At least we have progressed past, "I still have a Medicare Card so I am still a resident." 

 

I also found the same webpage. 

 

This stood out for me.

 

"Article 18 of the Thai Agreement provides that, subject to Article 19, a pension paid to a resident of Thailand is only taxable in Thailand.

 

Paragraph (2) of Article 19 of the Thai Agreement provides that a pension paid by Australia in respect of services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions shall only be taxable in Australia. However, a pension is taxable only in Thailand if the person is a resident of, and a citizen or national of Thailand. 'Services rendered in the discharge of governmental functions' are principally of an employment nature and the pension must relate to that employment. This includes, for example, ComSuper pension payments to a person who was employed in the Australian Public Service."

 

"discharge of government functions are principally of an employment nature and the pension must relate to that employment" - this indicates to me that's not the aged pension.  Of course, I could be wrong.  It's new ground and I will continue my research. 

 

[Lacessit]

3 minutes ago, norbra said:

Jees how long has it taken to exclude irrelevant 19 from this thread

I expect the concept of residence and non-residence will have to be explained next.

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 12:27 PM, HighPriority said:

Let me rephrase myself, you didn’t get off your ginger and find the link, dunno why you’re gloating. 

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." 

[norbra]

2 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

I expect the concept of residence and non-residence will have to be explained next.

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.

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 12:42 PM, LosLobo said:

Yes, I am confused by the amount of conflicting information coming from the ATO.

Same. 

 

Either Jim is correct and Blake and Caro are incorrect, or Blake and Caro are correct and Jim is incorrect.  The plot thickens. 

 

On 2/3/2024 at 12:42 PM, LosLobo said:

As Thai banks now require the Thai version of a tax file number (TIN) to open bank accounts, compliance will become compulsory.

I would suggest this may also be retrospective.  Existing account holders will be informed they have "X" amount of months / years to obtain and link the number to their account, or their account will be frozen until they do.  I am yet to look into this, but I would be surprised if existing account holders got a free pass. 

 

We saw similar with Thai sim cards years ago.  Register your number with ID, or it will be cut off the network. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 1:21 PM, Lacessit said:

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.

Any suggestions for those pensioners living fortnight to fortnight? 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 1:26 PM, Lacessit said:

Because the guy I am referring to has posted over 600 times on this thread, and he has been wrong all along.

Really?  If that's the case, why did it take you 600 of his posts before proving him wrong?  I mean, how wrong is that?  

 

On 2/3/2024 at 1:26 PM, Lacessit said:

IIRC, I had you on ignore. I do make the mistake of responding to d!ckheads occasionally.

As we do responding to you. 

[Lacessit]

5 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

Any suggestions for those pensioners living fortnight to fortnight? 

Marry a Thai, then you will pay about 5000 baht pa in taxes.

Plenty of Thai volunteers. I once had one offer to live with me for 4000 baht/month. Mind you, no oil painting.

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/3/2024 at 2:17 PM, Lacessit said:

I am confident there will be some creative accounting in play.

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.