Ominous Sign For Americans Re: Proof Of Income

[jackdawson]

the good news is i walked out of chaeng wattana w/ a one year non-o extension for purposes of retirement .

sweet ! another year in paradise !

all i gave them was the notarized letter u get from the embassy for $50 stating what ur monthly income is .

the ominous news is that the officer who put my package together for her boss sitting beside her to approve asked me if, in addition to the letter, i had proof of my income (like a statement) . i said "no." she said, "next year, bring it."

hmmm...

[InterestedObserver]

Unless you lied under oath at the US Embassy, how is that an ominous sign? Please explain.

[lopburi3]

Interesting but really see nothing as an 'Ominous Sign For Americans' in that request and expect most persons, American or not, have such paperwork.

[Jingthing]

I don't think you can make any great conclusions from that one incident. Officers always have the option to ask for more supporting documentation on a case by case basis. It could be she didn't like your face!

[Tafia]

We have to Provide Evidence at the British Embassy before we get a letter.

I believe asking for the provision of proof on a sworn document has always been an option for Immigration,

but as already stated if you haven't lied there is little to worry about.

Edited February 22, 2011 by Tafia

[Colabamumbai]

I took a photocopy of a bank statement showing the equivalent of 65,000 Bhat for retirement visa, being deposited into a foreign account, as well as the embassy affidavit. Just transferred money from one account to another. That is what you may have to do next year, but who knows if they will follow up on that. I should also mention this was Korat Immigration, where they will not even let you do a 90 day address report by mail and they are 25 kilometres outside of Korat. They demand 90 day reports in person. So every office has different rules as do the individuals working there.

[mamypoko]

Unless you lied under oath at the US Embassy, how is that an ominous sign? Please explain.

Perfectly acceptable to have that letter stating offshoremonthly income…Perhaps OP was suggesting that next year we will be forced topark 400k in a Thai bank come next year.

[Digitalbanana]

Unless you lied under oath at the US Embassy, how is that an ominous sign? Please explain.

Perfectly acceptable to have that letter stating offshoremonthly income…Perhaps OP was suggesting that next year we will be forced topark 400k in a Thai bank come next year.

I didn't read it like that but proof of monthly income, like the OP said, "in addition to the letter, i had proof of my income (like a statement)"

[Mario2008]

It seems immigration wanted additional proof that one really has the claimed income. It is not that uncommon that immigration wants to see some additional proof.

What is interesting is that he was told to bring it next year, but it is only 1 report and doesn't mean there will be a change of policy regarding proof of income.

[Lancelot]

When I received my Retirement visa, I had the required 800,000 baht in the bank.

When I went for my first renewal, I opted for the "Income Letter" from the US Embassy (Thanks TV for info!) I had supporting documentation, bank/brokerage statements and presented them to the officer issuing my letter. He looked at me like <deleted>? I quickly recovered and said, Hmmm, never mind, now about my letter..."

I would agree that most retirees are legit and can provide bank statements to justify the visa

Edited February 23, 2011 by Lancelot

[Lite Beer]

Just to avoid confusion we are talking about Extensions of Stay. Not a Visa.

[happyrobert]

OP - have you ever considered a career in writing news headlines?

[jazzbo]

The procedure for the true certification of any legal document including financial documents by the US State Department must originate in the USA and is onerous at best ... The Thai Immigration officials all know that the US Income Affidavit for extension of stay purposes is not based upon any actual review of financial documents by the Embassy officials and is merely a statement under oath.

The US Consular official will oftentimes ask you -- before signing your document -- whether you are aware that the Thai Immigration official has the right to ask for documents that would corroborate your statement of monthly income.

[Robby nz]

Dont know if it affects anyone here but I recently inquired from the NZ embassy as to how they went about certifying income, below is their answer:

The process is: You make a statutory declaration at the embassy, declaring what your income is. You should provide some supporting evidence of this. We put a 'seen at embassy' stamp on the supporting documents, such as copies of bank statements (i.e. we don't certify it as correct).

Generally people combine their different income sources to give the total income - i.e. interest earned plus superannuation.

I assume immigration will accept the bank statements or whatever as proof of income.

[gk10002000]

I took a photocopy of a bank statement showing the equivalent of 65,000 Bhat for retirement visa, being deposited into a foreign account, as well as the embassy affidavit. Just transferred money from one account to another. That is what you may have to do next year, but who knows if they will follow up on that. I should also mention this was Korat Immigration, where they will not even let you do a 90 day address report by mail and they are 25 kilometres outside of Korat. They demand 90 day reports in person. So every office has different rules as do the individuals working there.

Just transferring 65k baht doesn't show income. The intent of the Thai income rules is to know that there is "new" money coming into your portfolio or bank accounts monthly from somewhere. just being able to "deficit spend" or transfer 65k baht into an account monthly does not, in my opinion pass the income requirement intent or written law

[HarryWho]

If you have the notarized US embassy income verifcation letter, and IMM asks you for proof of income....

Are there any guidelines for the 65K baht monthy income regarding what qualifies as income?

Can you show stock sales and dividends from the current calendar year as proof that you have the required income?

Thanks.

[Mario2008]

No, there are no guidelines on what counts as income. But it is money you acquire, not money you already have. So money in the bank not income, neither is property. But interest or rent you receive would count as income.

[lopburi3]

Many people support there retirement with such sales of stock/dividends and do not believe using such for immigration proof of funds would be disallowed at all. This is what must US IRA funds are from. Retirement income is savings for most people.

[jazzbo]

redux from my post on a similar topic -- I received the document from IMM office AUG 2009:

The document I received from Thai Immigration (in Thai with their English translation) dated 3 December 2008 says:

In case of having monthly income... Applicant must provide evidence of a monthly income with a minimum of 65,000 baht ... This evidence must include a Letter (issued by your Embassy of citizenship) ... Income could be pension, interest, investment payoff, etc.

[Jingthing]

How to define investment payoff? That is so vague.

[jazzbo]

They write things in that vague style so one IMM Officer can say 'YES!' and the IMM officer at the next desk in the same office with equal credence can say 'NO!'

[Jingthing]

They write things in that vague style so one IMM Officer can say 'YES!' and the IMM officer at the next desk in the same office with equal credence can say 'NO!'

Depending on how well they slept last night or in the good old days, the quality of the whiskey you brought?

Anyway, sometimes that vagueness can be a blessing.

[JimGant]

Immigration -- if you think about it -- is only interested in whether or not you have a positive cash flow that averages out to 65k a month. Whether this is "income" (earned, unearned, gross, net, whatever) or a drawdown of a loan from Aunt Martha, shouldn't matter. And, in fact, the latter example wouldn't require you to cross your fingers when you swear to the US income affidavit (where income is never mentioned):

I also affirm that I receive US$ _________________ every month from the United States Government and/or other sources

Thus, Aunt Martha's "other sources" cash flow should qualify (and, if received in one lump sum, I would assume its monthly amortization amount would qualify for the "every month" requirement).

That the US and Australia (and some others, I assume) don't check your paper trail isn't too far removed from those embassies that *do* check -- but that don't verify. And Great Britain -- and most others that check paperwork -- allow gross income, so that, yes, you officially receive over 65k/month. However, after taxes -- and that alimony that allows for that young Thai sweety -- you're actually broke. [Note that when you swear to your monthly cash flow at the US and Aussie embassies, using gross receipts also doesn't require finger crossing.]

I doubt Immigration wants to take over the job of income verification from the embassies. But if they really think they're getting snookered, they might -- and they'll certainly not want to look at hundreds of different "income" pieces of paper -- even if translated into Thai from 50 different languages.

Nope, the simplest way to check for the positive cash flow desired by Immigration is to check your cash flows into your bank account. Certified, of course.

Hopefully, that's not where we're headed for...

[lopburi3]

There is no such requirement for cash flow - the requirement is to prove you can afford to live for the year of the extension of stay. You do that with proof of income of show of money in an account. You do not have to prove use of any of that money. In face some people just keep the amount on deposit and use ATM card for living. And many people can live well on less than 65/40k per month - others will spend much more. Nobody is trying to set a must pay minimum.

[JimGant]

There is no such requirement for cash flow - the requirement is to prove you can afford to live for the year of the extension of stay. You do that with proof of income....

The bottom line that Immigration is trying to find is whether or not your monthly cash flow -- before Thai-related expenses -- is a positive 65k or more. Net income would come the closest to such a positive cash flow. But gross income certainly would not -- per my example.

Nobody is trying to set a must pay minimum

Of course not. My 'positive cash flow' relates only to money coming in the front door -- not money going out the back door for Thai living expenses. And of course this is what Immigration is interested in -- how many dollars you receive monthly, with no strings attached.

I use the term 'cash flow' to differentiate from 'income,' which can have several meanings, all of which don't cover the term 'cash flow.' And, again, swearing to "gross income, or having your embassy actually count your gross income, is not exactly what Immigration is looking for.

[jackdawson]

OP - have you ever considered a career in writing news headlines?

noted ; consider it considered

[Jingthing]

I don't have a pension as yet but if I did, I would definitely claim the GROSS amount as income. Don't most people? I thought that was standard. When asked what's your income, it's typical to quote gross.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[JimGant]

I don't have a pension as yet but if I did, I would definitely claim the GROSS amount as income. Don't most people? I thought that was standard. When asked what's your income, it's typical to quote gross.

Sure, particularly if the gross figure will get you over the 65k threshold, while your disposable (net)income figure might not.

However, since Immigration wants to know if you have enough to get by on, you think they might be more interested in your disposable income?

That's why I think we'll eventually be seeing Immigration replacing the income statement, at least partially, with 'show us your bank statements.'

[Jingthing]

Personally, I think you're wrong. I think the system will stay based on income.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Jingthing

[JimGant]

Personally, I think you're wrong. I think the system will stay based on income.

And I hope you're right. But, when you start seeing evidence that bank books are more and more being asked for, for folks going the purely income method, you have to ask 'where is this leading?'. And when you realize a bank book gives a purer picture of one's cash flow situation over a somewhat dubious income statement, it's not too hard to see the situation with Immigration. It may remain informal for awhile, with no stated minimums -- just a look-see at the passbook. But I suspect this will eventually be solidified, with minimums for both income and bank balance, i.e., the combo method will now replace the purely income route.

Again, I hope I'm wrong -- I'm completely comfortable going the strictly income route. And, so far, it looks like only Bangkok is getting serious about asking everyone for passbooks. Are they trend-setters -- or rogue?

However, it's probably bigger than Bangkok Immigration. I'm sure the Thailand Hospital Association has asked, 'Why has Immigration allowed so many poor farangs, who can't pay their bills, to long-stay in Thailand? Answer: 'We're obviously not correctly assessing their ability to pay.'

So, if a new system flushes-out some who can't legitimately meet the threshold, c'est la vie. That's certainly a little self-serving, since I have no problem meeting the income threshold. But, at the same time, I don't believe the threshold is unfair.