Australian Aged Pension

[Lacessit]

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

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

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

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

 

The poster you are responding to is refusing to admit he was wrong, and is not apologizing for the distress he has caused. His voluminous posts over the last couple of days are aimed at muddying the waters, and distracting from that basic fact.

In hindsight, he is displaying several characteristics of a sociopath. No empathy, no remorse. Manipulative. Gaslighting.

I am no longer responding to him, as that deprives him of oxygen.

[KhunHeineken]

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

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

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

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

 

If I was to post 10 credible links that conflict with Jim's information, would you start to consider Jim may be incorrect?  If not, what about 20 links that conflict with Jim's information?  Would you then have some doubts about Jim's information?  If not, post how many links that disagree with Jim's information would it take for you to start to question whether Jim is correct, or incorrect.  Serious question.

 

Despite the hundreds of links that conflict with Jim's information, his link is being held out by some as the final word in the matter.  Well, I am keeping an open mind and researching a little more.  

 

As I and a couple of other members have said, conflicting information is coming out of the ATO about this issue. 

 

Some members are now seeking tax refuge in the double tax agreement between Australia and Thailand, and how it will work in relation to their residency status and pension.  I encourage you to also watch the video clip above and to post your thoughts about it.  

 

In relation to the 183 days, it was crystal clear.  Stay in Australia for 183 days and you are a resident for tax purposes.  No ifs, no buts, 100% tax resident. 

 

Stay in Australia for 45 days or more, but less than 183 days, you must meet two of the criteria in the factor test.  In my opinion, they are very easy to meet, but some may have difficultly meeting a second criteria in the factor test, not to mention the cost of airfares, accommodation, cost of living etc.

 

Stay under 45 days in Australia and it appears you are a non resident for tax purposes.

 

Expats had made submissions to government that the 45 days was too short.  Labor said they were looking at tweaking the 45 days. (link previously provided)  More than 45 days is good for a typical working expat, but not very good for retirees looking to do 6 weeks in Australia to maintain their tax residency status and escape non resident tax rates, and avail themselves of the tax free threshold.  

 

The government may increase the 45 days to 90 days, which is inline with other countries.  I can't see many expat retirees doing 3 months in Australia every year.  

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

14 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

The poster you are responding to is refusing to admit he was wrong, and is not apologizing for the distress he has caused. His voluminous posts over the last couple of days are aimed at muddying the waters, and distracting from that basic fact.

In hindsight, he is displaying several characteristics of a sociopath. No empathy, no remorse. Manipulative. Gaslighting.

I am no longer responding to him, as that deprives him of oxygen.

I guess the information in the youtube clip didn't fit your narrative.  

 

Why don't you make some serious comments about it?  Pick it apart.  Call the guy wrong.  Post a conflicting youtube clip.  Etc etc.

 

How does personally attacking me change the information and legislation? 

[KhunHeineken]

For those doubting the information in the first clip, here's another clip corroberating the first clip.  This one is Australian.  Only a short 2 minute clip.   

 

 

[Lacessit]

Who should we believe? An official communication from the ATO, citing the relevant clause of a Double Taxation Agreement ?

Or two people on a YouTube video, advertising their services?

[KhunHeineken]

11 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Who should we believe? An official communication from the ATO, citing the relevant clause of a Double Taxation Agreement ?

Or two people on a YouTube video, advertising their services?

I posted this yesterday, well before posting the youtube clips.  You totally disregarded it.  It comes from the Treasury website. 

 

"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."

[rhodie]

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

Who should we believe? An official communication from the ATO, citing the relevant clause of a Double Taxation Agreement ?

Or two people on a YouTube video, advertising their services?

If we all ignore him because his information is never right, he may just go away. 

[4MyEgo]

On 2/4/2024 at 8:46 PM, KhunHeineken said:

I posted the proposed changes on here as a heads up to pensioners because I knew the pension was deemed an income, and I knew the pension was taxable, and I knew the non resident tax brackets were from dollar zero. 

 

Yawn.

 

Prior to replying to a post on Article 18, I emailed the accountant that I used to use when I was paying tax as a foreign resident for certain income derived in Australia, which I have since been able to change that so I don't pay foreign resident tax on it. We won't go into that because it's complicated.

 

The above said, the email from a different accountant came back as my accountant has since retired. I have removed my details and his in the email, but it confirms what I am saying about Age Pensioners not paying non resident tax in Australia.

 

Thank you for contacting us.

As we mention on our website, by virtue of financial regulations we are extremely limited in terms of how we can respond to specific questions outside paid professional advice, and that we mention that age pension inquiries should be made directly to Centrelink or, perhaps in this case, the ATO. Unfortunately, we have neither the ability nor the resources to provide access to free advice.

All I would mention in general response to inquiry is that pensions are typically taxable in the country of residency - therefore I would normally expect, and this does not constitute advice upon which you may rely, that Thailand would have taxing rights in relation to your Australian age pension. I would also refer you to Article 18 of the double tax agreement between Australia and Thailand.

I hope this is of some assistance.

 

Believe what you want, but that has Shawn it up for me even more, suffice to say, I am right, Age Pensioners as non residents don't pay tax to the Australian Government, however, Thailand under the DTA can make Age Pensioners (non residents) pay tax, but since they haven't since the inception of the DTA, regardless of their new tax code, can't see them taxing Age Pensioners of Australia, but they can.

 

As I haven't read anything further on your replies, e.g. I have a lot of catching up to do, I hazzard a guess you still haven't said you were WRONG.

 

 

[4MyEgo]

20 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

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. 

 

I am hopefully that as others have said, that the penny will finally drop, i.e. Article 18 relates to Age Pensions, forget about Article 19, it relates to those who worked for the government and received government pensions etc, regardless if it says 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.  

[4MyEgo]

18 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Seriously......

 

Did you post any link that stated that it was from the legislation ?

 

What I posted is LAW and it appears that you cannot in layman's term decipher it, Article 18 is so straight forward, yet you can't accept it, i.e. that it is LAW.

 

https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/what-is-the-difference-between-policy-act-and-legislation-in-australia#:~:text=A law passed by the,Laws are often called legislation. 

 

As for credits, I m not an accountant, but I would presume for arguments sake, as a non resident, if I purchased a share in a company in Australia, and that company paid me the dividend (unfranked), i.e. didn't take out the tax, then Thailand would take it's slice, say 15% and Australia the remaining slice of say 15%, I say 15% because shares in Australia that pay a dividend (fully franked) take out 30% tax before they pay you the dividend, and give that 30% to the tax man. Whether we as non residents who own shares in Australia are supposed to pay that extra 2.5% on fully franked dividends, I don't know, as my accountant never asked.

 

So that leads me to the age pensions as non resident, nothing for Australia, only Thailand, i.e. if it wants to tax us under the DTA, I will say it again, there is nothing mentioned in the DTA about credits, and if that doesn't satisfy your ego, then I can't help you any further.

 

As a famous American actor of the past once said, Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

[4MyEgo]

8 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I posted this yesterday, well before posting the youtube clips.  You totally disregarded it.  It comes from the Treasury website. 

 

"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."

 

I hope to put this to bed as my last ever reply to your posts on the Age Pension not being tax for non residents by Australia, I have highlighted it in bold from your Treasury link and have copied and pasted it below, accept it or don't, personally I have given up on waiting for you to say you were WRONG. 

 

Papua New Guinea and Thailand

 

The agreements with these two countries reflect the current tax agreements entered into with other countries.

 

For example, income from land will be taxable in the country where the land is situated and business profits may only be taxed in the source country if the entity has a permanent establishment in the country.

 

Dividends, interest and royalties maybe taxed by either country but there are limits on the tax charged by the source country, while pensions will generally only be taxable in the country of residence.

 

The measures to avoid double taxation will be based on each country allowing a credit for tax paid in the other country. The provision designed to assist schemes designed to attract investment to these countries will be included in both agreements. Anti-avoidance measures will be concentrated on the exchange of Information between tax officials in Australia and the country concerned. However, no country will be obliged to provide information that could not be obtained under the laws of the country to which the information is to be supplied or to disclose information that would be contrary to public policy.

 

NOTE: Above where it says Dividends, interest and royalties maybe taxed by either country, but there are limits on the tax charged by the source country.

 

I am a non resident for tax purposes, Dividends, and interest from banks in Australia are paid to Australia, Thailand gets nothing, suffice to say, this is what I was trying to tell you in an above post about credits, i.e. if the Dividend is (unfranked), e.g. tax not taken out, Thailand can take a slice, example, 15% and Australia the other 15%, or even 17.5% if they wanted to apply the non resident tax applicable and they would be within their rights.

 

I only own shares that pay a (fully franked) Dividend, i.e. the 30% tax is already taken out when I am paid the dividend. Now if I was to buy (unfranked) shares, then Thailand could tax me on the sale of those shares and Australia the balance.

 

Not to get off track here, the above highlighted states: while pensions will generally only be taxable in the country of residence.

 

Accept it, or not, up to you, everyone else here knows what's going on, and I don't expect you to admit that you understand what is going on now, because you would have to admit that you were WRONG all along because you failed to understand, and losing face in Thailand, Buddha forbid that.

 

This is my LAST reply to HK because I am sure everyone including self has had enough of his and of course my posts.

 

To end, I believe that I have prevailed to be right, i.e. what I have said all along, there is no tax payable by non resident Age Pensioners living in Thailand to the Australian Government, only to the Thai Government if they say cough up.

 

Thanks to Norbra for his very valuable contributions with the Ministerial text which lead us to the DTA and Article 18 which put a nail in the coffin, regardless if HK wanted to accept it.

 

 

[Lacessit]

10 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

I hope to put this to bed as my last ever reply to your posts on the Age Pension not being tax for non residents by Australia, I have highlighted it in bold from your Treasury link and have copied and pasted it below, accept it or don't, personally I have given up on waiting for you to say you were WRONG. 

 

Papua New Guinea and Thailand

 

The agreements with these two countries reflect the current tax agreements entered into with other countries.

 

For example, income from land will be taxable in the country where the land is situated and business profits may only be taxed in the source country if the entity has a permanent establishment in the country.

 

Dividends, interest and royalties maybe taxed by either country but there are limits on the tax charged by the source country, while pensions will generally only be taxable in the country of residence.

 

The measures to avoid double taxation will be based on each country allowing a credit for tax paid in the other country. The provision designed to assist schemes designed to attract investment to these countries will be included in both agreements. Anti-avoidance measures will be concentrated on the exchange of Information between tax officials in Australia and the country concerned. However, no country will be obliged to provide information that could not be obtained under the laws of the country to which the information is to be supplied or to disclose information that would be contrary to public policy.

 

NOTE: Above where it says Dividends, interest and royalties maybe taxed by either country, but there are limits on the tax charged by the source country.

 

I am a non resident for tax purposes, Dividends, and interest from banks in Australia are paid to Australia, Thailand gets nothing, suffice to say, this is what I was trying to tell you in an above post about credits, i.e. if the Dividend is (unfranked), e.g. tax not taken out, Thailand can take a slice, example, 15% and Australia the other 15%, or even 17.5% if they wanted to apply the non resident tax applicable and they would be within their rights.

 

I only own shares that pay a (fully franked) Dividend, i.e. the 30% tax is already taken out when I am paid the dividend. Now if I was to buy (unfranked) shares, then Thailand could tax me on the sale of those shares and Australia the balance.

 

Not to get off track here, the above highlighted states: while pensions will generally only be taxable in the country of residence.

 

Accept it, or not, up to you, everyone else here knows what's going on, and I don't expect you to admit that you understand what is going on now, because you would have to admit that you were WRONG all along because you failed to understand, and losing face in Thailand, Buddha forbid that.

 

This is my LAST reply to HK because I am sure everyone including self has had enough of his and of course my posts.

 

To end, I believe that I have prevailed to be right, i.e. what I have said all along, there is no tax payable by non resident Age Pensioners living in Thailand to the Australian Government, only to the Thai Government if they say cough up.

 

Thanks to Norbra for his very valuable contributions with the Ministerial text which lead us to the DTA and Article 18 which put a nail in the coffin, regardless if HK wanted to accept it.

 

 

No-one needs to pay more than token tax in Thailand, there are various strategies available.

As Kerry Packer famously said, anyone who doesn't minimize their tax needs their head read.

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/5/2024 at 4:38 AM, rhodie said:

If we all ignore him because his information is never right, he may just go away. 

Which is pretty much what some members are hoping for in relation to the proposed changes. 

 

If we ignore them, they'll go away. 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/5/2024 at 10:25 AM, 4MyEgo said:

 

Yawn.

 

Prior to replying to a post on Article 18, I emailed the accountant that I used to use when I was paying tax as a foreign resident for certain income derived in Australia, which I have since been able to change that so I don't pay foreign resident tax on it. We won't go into that because it's complicated.

 

The above said, the email from a different accountant came back as my accountant has since retired. I have removed my details and his in the email, but it confirms what I am saying about Age Pensioners not paying non resident tax in Australia.

 

Thank you for contacting us.

As we mention on our website, by virtue of financial regulations we are extremely limited in terms of how we can respond to specific questions outside paid professional advice, and that we mention that age pension inquiries should be made directly to Centrelink or, perhaps in this case, the ATO. Unfortunately, we have neither the ability nor the resources to provide access to free advice.

All I would mention in general response to inquiry is that pensions are typically taxable in the country of residency - therefore I would normally expect, and this does not constitute advice upon which you may rely, that Thailand would have taxing rights in relation to your Australian age pension. I would also refer you to Article 18 of the double tax agreement between Australia and Thailand.

I hope this is of some assistance.

 

Believe what you want, but that has Shawn it up for me even more, suffice to say, I am right, Age Pensioners as non residents don't pay tax to the Australian Government, however, Thailand under the DTA can make Age Pensioners (non residents) pay tax, but since they haven't since the inception of the DTA, regardless of their new tax code, can't see them taxing Age Pensioners of Australia, but they can.

 

As I haven't read anything further on your replies, e.g. I have a lot of catching up to do, I hazzard a guess you still haven't said you were WRONG.

 

 

You still don't get it. 

 

You have put forward the Double Tax Agreement Australia has with Thailand and them declared that it meant Australians receiving a pension from Australia, but who are tax residents of Thailand, will only pay tax in Thailand, and not in Australia, or both countries. 

 

The guy in the video, the video which you haven't even commented on, explains that the word DOUBLE in the term Double Taxation Treaty relates to the money not being taxed "double" but each country can still tax the money, just not twice.  

 

It is clear that as residents of Thailand for tax purposes, that makes most of us non residents of Australia for tax purposes, that gives Thailand primary taxation rights, but like the guy in the video explains, that doesn't mean you get to tell Australia that you don't have to pay them their 32.5% non resident tax because you are a resident of Thailand for tax purposes and Thailand's tax rate is is 10%.  

 

No, as the guy in the video explained, Thailand takes their 10% first, then Australia takes their 22.5%.  As he said, you pay the higher of the two, but you do not get taxed twice, or double.

 

You seem to think "double" means more than one country.  That's not the meaning of the word "double" in the Double Tax Treaty legislation. 

 

Now, I am still looking into Article 18 and Article 19, particularly as Article 18 is under the provision of Article 19.  I have not claimed I am correct, but I have not claimed I am wrong at this stage, ether.  When I am satisfied with my research, I will announce my position, as me being either correct, or incorrect.  

 

In any case, I have posted links showing Australia is planning on changing its tax treaties with all countries in the near future, with a couple already being changed, also with the proposed changes to residency around the corner as well, we don't know what it could look like in the future.     

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/5/2024 at 10:54 AM, 4MyEgo said:

I am hopefully that as others have said, that the penny will finally drop, i.e. Article 18 relates to Age Pensions, forget about Article 19,

How can you forget about Article 19 when Article 18 says, "Subject to the provisions of Article 19?" 

 

Does this not mean to you, there is some relation, some connection, some correlation, some reliance, that Article 18 has on Article 19?  

 

Why don't you give us your "interpretation" of the "provisions" instead of saying "forget about Article 19" when Article 18 is subject to provision listed in Article 19? 

 

You just can't "forget about Article 19." 

 

On 2/5/2024 at 10:54 AM, 4MyEgo said:

a pension paid to a resident of Thailand is only taxable in Thailand.  

So, like the guy in the video addressed, and assuming you are correct for a moment, why is it this is in the double taxation treaty when you are saying it set out to exclude a country, in this case Australia, from being able to tax the income, particularly when Australia is the source country?

 

As I said, the whole idea of a double tax treaty is so the money doesn't get taxed twice, or double, not to say either Thailand gets to tax you and Australia doesn't, or Australia gets to tax you and Thailand doesn't.   

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/5/2024 at 11:28 AM, 4MyEgo said:

 

Seriously......

 

Did you post any link that stated that it was from the legislation ?

 

What I posted is LAW and it appears that you cannot in layman's term decipher it, Article 18 is so straight forward, yet you can't accept it, i.e. that it is LAW.

 

https://peo.gov.au/understand-our-parliament/your-questions-on-notice/questions/what-is-the-difference-between-policy-act-and-legislation-in-australia#:~:text=A law passed by the,Laws are often called legislation. 

 

As for credits, I m not an accountant, but I would presume for arguments sake, as a non resident, if I purchased a share in a company in Australia, and that company paid me the dividend (unfranked), i.e. didn't take out the tax, then Thailand would take it's slice, say 15% and Australia the remaining slice of say 15%, I say 15% because shares in Australia that pay a dividend (fully franked) take out 30% tax before they pay you the dividend, and give that 30% to the tax man. Whether we as non residents who own shares in Australia are supposed to pay that extra 2.5% on fully franked dividends, I don't know, as my accountant never asked.

 

So that leads me to the age pensions as non resident, nothing for Australia, only Thailand, i.e. if it wants to tax us under the DTA, I will say it again, there is nothing mentioned in the DTA about credits, and if that doesn't satisfy your ego, then I can't help you any further.

 

As a famous American actor of the past once said, Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn.

What you really have posted is your "interpretation" of the law. 

 

You read it then claim a not some humble victory over me, even begging me to "come out to play."  When I did reply to your posts, and with links, you totally disregarded them.  Do you think it's wise to gather all the information first, I do.  

 

This came from the Treasury website on Tax Treaties. IIt's even under the Thailand heading.   I have posted the link/s before. 

 

"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;"

 

Can you see why I am reluctant concede that pensions will only be taxed by Thailand?  I 100% agree that, as residents of Thailand for tax purposes, Thailand gets primary taxing rights, but that doesn't mean Australia goes and whistles and misses out.  You have to remember, whilst the pension is a modest "income" as the guy in the video explain, the rich can't hide behind this.  They have to pay the remainder of tax in the source country.  Imaging if I owned 20 houses in Australia but was living in Thailand.  I don't get to pat Thai tax on all that rent, and ad Australia gets zero.   

 

Can you post your interpretation of the above? 

 

Does the above not clearly mention the word "credit" as does your own link from Siam Legal.  No, the "credit" is not just for shares, it's for the tax of each country, notice I said EACH because each country gets to tax you, just not the money getting taxed "double." 

[Lacessit]

One is deemed to be resident in Australia for tax purposes, or deemed to be resident in Thailand for tax purposes. One cannot be resident in both, that's the equivalent of Schrodinger's cat.

If a pensioner is deemed resident in Australia, they pay no tax due to the various tax thresholds and allowances.

If a pensioner is deemed resident in Thailand, they pay tax there according to how smart they are in arranging minimization. They pay no tax in Australia because they are part of a DTA, official as per Article 18.

How <deleted> thick does anyone have to be , to fail to understand these facts?

[KhunHeineken]

 

 

On 2/5/2024 at 12:07 PM, 4MyEgo said:

I hope to put this to bed as my last ever reply to your posts on the Age Pension not being tax for non residents by Australia, I have highlighted it in bold from your Treasury link and have copied and pasted it below, accept it or don't, personally I have given up on waiting for you to say you were WRONG. 

You can put whatever you want to bed for yourself, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't mean I have accept your interpretation, because that's all it is, your interpretation. 

 

I am doing more research, but will say should my research prove you to be correct, I will gladly concede. 

 

On 2/5/2024 at 12:07 PM, 4MyEgo said:

I am a non resident for tax purposes, Dividends, and interest from banks in Australia are paid to Australia, Thailand gets nothing, suffice to say, this is what I was trying to tell you in an above post about credits, i.e. if the Dividend is (unfranked), e.g. tax not taken out, Thailand can take a slice, example, 15% and Australia the other 15%, or even 17.5% if they wanted to apply the non resident tax applicable and they would be within their rights.

I have also explain this to you.  Now you agree. 

 

You are a resident of Thailand for tax purposes.  Therefore, Thailand gets primary taxing rights.  The highest rate of tax prevails amongst the two countries with the treaty.  If it's taxed in Australia, Thailand gives a credit, if it's taxed in Thailand, Australia gives a credit, but they will both equal to the amount of the highest tax rate of either country, so you don't get out of paying one baht or one cent of tax, just because you live in Thailand.  Do you agree?  

 

Now,  "while pensions will generally only be taxable in the country of residence."

 

Don't you love the word, "generally."  Do you think "generally" might be worth looking into a bit, just a bit?  

 

On 2/5/2024 at 12:07 PM, 4MyEgo said:

Accept it, or not, up to you, everyone else here knows what's going on, and I don't expect you to admit that you understand what is going on now, because you would have to admit that you were WRONG all along because you failed to understand, and losing face in Thailand, Buddha forbid that.

 

This is my LAST reply to HK because I am sure everyone including self has had enough of his and of course my posts.

 

To end, I believe that I have prevailed to be right, i.e. what I have said all along, there is no tax payable by non resident Age Pensioners living in Thailand to the Australian Government, only to the Thai Government if they say cough up.

 

Thanks to Norbra for his very valuable contributions with the Ministerial text which lead us to the DTA and Article 18 which put a nail in the coffin, regardless if HK wanted to accept it.

Like I said before, I think you may be celebrating a little too early, but I will see where my research takes me and I will gladly concede if you are correct. 

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

On 2/5/2024 at 12:21 PM, Lacessit said:

No-one needs to pay more than token tax in Thailand, there are various strategies available.

As Kerry Packer famously said, anyone who doesn't minimize their tax needs their head read.

So that's it then, Thailand is the new tax haven for Aussies. 

 

They'll nick name Thailand "Token Tax Thailand"  (TTT) 

 

We'll have wealth Aussies becoming residents of Thailand to escape paying tax back in Australia.  

[KhunHeineken]

46 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

One is deemed to be resident in Australia for tax purposes, or deemed to be resident in Thailand for tax purposes. One cannot be resident in both,

I'm still a resident of Australia for tax purposes, despite not living there for some years, but looking towards the passing of the proposed changes, say I did 45 days in Australia and meet two for the factor tests, which I easily can, that makes me a resident of Australia for tax purposes, does it not?

 

Then say I also do over 180 days in Thailand, that makes me a tax resident of Thailand, does it not? 

 

Care to comment on this? 

 

One can also be a double non resident for tax purposes, and I posted about this some time ago, if one was prepared to move around. 

 

46 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If a pensioner is deemed resident in Australia, they pay no tax due to the various tax thresholds and allowances.

I agree.

 

46 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

If a pensioner is deemed resident in Thailand, they pay tax there according to how smart they are in arranging minimization. They pay no tax in Australia because they are part of a DTA, official as per Article 18.

Once again, a double tax agreement ensures the money is not taxed twice, or "double."  A double tax treaty isn't about having two countries tax you, or "double" the countries tax you.

 

The highest tax rate between the two countries prevails, and credits are given by both countries towards the tax taken by each country.

 

As for Article 18 that's "subject to the provisions of Article 19" I don't agree with another member who simple says, "Forget about Article 19."   

 

This is the same member who beats his chest saying, the link is "the law, the law, the law" but "forget about Article19" of THE LAW. 

[4MyEgo]

23 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

As for Article 18 that's "subject to the provisions of Article 19" I don't agree with another member who simple says, "Forget about Article 19."   

 

This is the same member who beats his chest saying, the link is "the law, the law, the law" but "forget about Article19" of THE LAW. 

 

I said I wasn't going to reply, BUT, you still don't get it, Article 19 relates to Government Pensions, i.e. people who worked for the government, not Age Pensioners, hence the reason I told you to forget about Article 19.

 

But hey, you believe what you want to believe, they are both law and they both apply to each respective pension, in layman's terms, once again, Article 18 for Age Pensions, taxable only in Thailand, Article 19 for Government Pensions, i.e. those that worked for the Government and received a Government Pension, but you know all this don't you, and still can't admit that your WRONG.

 

The above said, it's ok, we ALL know you are, except for you, must be lonely at the top of your heap.

 

23 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I am doing more research, but will say should my research prove you to be correct, I will gladly concede. 

 

You don't say, we are all waiting for you to concede, all I can say is I'm glad your not a politician, because even those ba-stards know when to concede.

[4MyEgo]

On 2/7/2024 at 9:29 PM, KhunHeineken said:

Can you see why I am reluctant concede that pensions will only be taxed by Thailand? 

 

Because you won't accept what Article 18 of the Double Taxation Agreement states and that you will have to concede that you were wrong. I have highlighted it in simple terms because you just don't seem to get it, it's like telling someone that there is a difference with there, their and they're, or where, were and wear, they all sound the same, but don't know how to read them and apply them to the correct sentence.

 

All you have to do is accept is Section 1. highlighted in bold under Article 18, Heading: Pensions and annuities, 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

2. The term "annuity" means a stated sum payable periodically at stated times during life or during a specified or ascertainable period of time under an obligation to make the payments in return for adequate and full consideration in money or money's worth.

 

 

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.

[4MyEgo]

23 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Now,  "while pensions will generally only be taxable in the country of residence."

 

Where is the word generally in the legislation ?

 

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.

 

23 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Don't you love the word, "generally."  Do you think "generally" might be worth looking into a bit, just a bit?  

 

?

 

23 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

You are a resident of Thailand for tax purposes.  Therefore, Thailand gets primary taxing rights.  The highest rate of tax prevails amongst the two countries with the treaty.  If it's taxed in Australia, Thailand gives a credit, if it's taxed in Thailand, Australia gives a credit, but they will both equal to the amount of the highest tax rate of either country, so you don't get out of paying one baht or one cent of tax, just because you live in Thailand.  Do you agree?  

 

Oh come on m8, this has nothing to do with the Age Pension, you are totally confused and have no idea what you are talking about, Article 18 is as straight forward as it gets on the "Age Pension", yet you go on about credits, which doesn't apply to the "Age Pension", only on other sourced incomes, we ALL know that, except you.

 

Give it a break seriously.......

 

[Mike Lister]

I'm not involved in this discussion but I do want to respond to one point I read and that is a person can be tax resident in more than one country, at the same time, simply because 180 x 2 = < 365.

 

https://www.gfp.institute/post/what-to-do-if-you-satisfy-more-than-one-countrys-tax-residency-test

[4MyEgo]

41 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

I'm not involved in this discussion but I do want to respond to one point I read and that is a person can be tax resident in more than one country, at the same time, simply because 180 x 2 = < 365.

 

Thanks for that, but I wouldn't know how to address that one, all I know is in Australia, you are either a tax resident of Australia or a tax resident of Thailand, and if you are a tax resident of Thailand by choice, you would be deemed a Non Resident by Australia and you will pay tax on the income you earn with no threshold applicable, e.g. $32.5c in every $ earned as a non resident.

 

It gets confusing, but if you are deemed a resident by Thailand because you stay in Thailand for 180 days, or more, you can still be a resident of Australia for tax purposes, so in part you are technically correct I suppose.

 

Australians are taxable on their worldwide income, but can elect to remain residents of Australia for tax purposes, subject to fulfilling certain criteria's. 

 

Now with Thailand having a DTA with Australia, it allows Thailand to tax Australians for example as residents living in Thailand for more that 180 days, as they would be deemed by the Thai government as "a resident" of Thailand for tax purposes, e.g. it's automatic, yes, anyone living in Thailand for 180 days, is deemed a resident of Thailand for tax purposes, and if an Australian has elected to remain an  Australian Resident for tax purposes with Australia, they will receive a credit on the tax amount that they have been taxed on in Thailand.

 

The above has nothing to do with the Age Pension, that is what I and others have been trying to get through a particular members head. 

 

Another way to look at it for example, is that I choose to remain a resident of Australia for tax purposes, i.e. I have a home back in Oz, a car, family, etc etc and will return one day, maybe in 1 year, maybe in 10 years.

 

I choose to teach English in Thailand as I want a change as it all became a bit to boring for me back in Oz, and my family have been breaking my balls to get married etc etc, that, and I want to travel around Thailand and maybe some neighboring countries during my time overseas.

 

So I stay in Thailand for over 180 days a year, therefore I am a tax resident of Thailand and pay tax in Thailand, and at the same time, I am a tax resident back in Australia for tax purposes, as that is what I have elected to be, so when I lodge my tax return, I let them know that Thailand has already (for example) taxed me on my wages, and the Australia Taxation Office will credit me that tax taken by the Thai government, and make the necessary tax adjustments against the tax I have to pay to Australia, and will also provide me with a tax threshold of $18,200 before they make the adjustments.

 

The above said, if I elected to be a non resident, e.g. no family, house, car in Oz, breaking free, as I have done, then I am a non resident for tax purposes and will pay $32.5c in the $ if I make an income, no threshold, no credits.

 

Nothing to do with the "Age Pension".

 

With Australia, it's one or the other, you can't be resident in two countries as far as I know, that said they would allow Thailand to deem you as a resident for tax purposes though through no fault of your own because you chose to be here for more than 180 days and will therefore sort it when they get their slice of your pie, that is how I interpret it, but I could be wrong, seldom I should say......LoL. 

 

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

I said I wasn't going to reply, BUT, you still don't get it, Article 19 relates to Government Pensions, i.e. people who worked for the government, not Age Pensioners, hence the reason I told you to forget about Article 19.

How can you "forget about Article 19" when Article 18 is "subject to the provisions of Article 19?" 

 

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

But hey, you believe what you want to believe, they are both law and they both apply to each respective pension, in layman's terms, once again, Article 18 for Age Pensions, taxable only in Thailand, Article 19 for Government Pensions, i.e. those that worked for the Government and received a Government Pension, but you know all this don't you, and still can't admit that your WRONG.

 

The above said, it's ok, we ALL know you are, except for you, must be lonely at the top of your heap.

You have contradicted yourself, yet again.

 

"they are both law and both apply to each respective pension" yet, "forget about Article 19.  WTF?

 

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

You don't say, we are all waiting for you to concede, all I can say is I'm glad your not a politician, because even those ba-stards know when to concede.

You are taking all of this very personally.  No need for it. 

[Lacessit]

51 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

I'm not involved in this discussion but I do want to respond to one point I read and that is a person can be tax resident in more than one country, at the same time, simply because 180 x 2 = < 365.

 

https://www.gfp.institute/post/what-to-do-if-you-satisfy-more-than-one-countrys-tax-residency-test

IMO if someone actually was tax resident in two countries at once, they were fast asleep and snoring in arithmetic class. Why would anyone want to make their life that complicated?

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

Because you won't accept what Article 18 of the Double Taxation Agreement states and that you will have to concede that you were wrong. I have highlighted it in simple terms because you just don't seem to get it, it's like telling someone that there is a difference with there, their and they're, or where, were and wear, they all sound the same, but don't know how to read them and apply them to the correct sentence.

 

All you have to do is accept is Section 1. highlighted in bold under Article 18, Heading: Pensions and annuities, 

 

One can't simple accept Article 18 when Article 18 states "Subject the provisions of Article 19."  

 

You said, "forget about Article 19."  You simply can't, when Article 18 s subject to the provisions of Article 19.

 

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

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.

 

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

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.

I would be very interested in your "interpretation" of the "provisions" in Article 19.

 

I see you have highlighted Section 2, but disregarded Section 1 and Subsections (a) and (b)   Can you tell me what, exactly, at law, the provisions of Article 19 are that Article 18 relies upon? 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Mike Lister said:

I'm not involved in this discussion but I do want to respond to one point I read and that is a person can be tax resident in more than one country, at the same time, simply because 180 x 2 = < 365.

 

https://www.gfp.institute/post/what-to-do-if-you-satisfy-more-than-one-countrys-tax-residency-test

They can also be a double non resident of two countries, as the guy in the video points out.

 

I have posted how to do this, but many would not like to be outside of Thailand for so long.   

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

Where is the word generally in the legislation ?

You posted it.

 

These are your words: 

 

"Not to get off track here, the above highlighted states: while pensions will generally only be taxable in the country of residence."

 

Are they your words, or not? 

 

Are you now denying you wrote them? 

 

 

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

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.

 

Once again, I would be interested in your "interpretation" of the "provisions" in Article 19.

 

No need to hightlight Article 19, you have already done that a dozen time, but can you discuss your interpretation of the provisions in Article 19?

 

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

Oh come on m8, this has nothing to do with the Age Pension, you are totally confused and have no idea what you are talking about, Article 18 is as straight forward as it gets on the "Age Pension", yet you go on about credits, which doesn't apply to the "Age Pension", only on other sourced incomes, we ALL know that, except you.

Aren't you putting it forward to be all about the aged pension?  After all, it is the pension thread.

 

You still don't get it.  The "credits" are given to the either the primary taxing country or the source country for taxes already paid. 

 

I not you refuse to comment on the youtube video I post where the guy explains all of this very well.  I would be interested in your comments on it.