Visa for Real (Long stay) Tourists...

[impulse]

In legal terms, live does not mean being alive in a place but rather that that place is your domicile or home. As the piece you did not underline points out, non residents (people who may spend longer that 180 days but do not live (reside) in Thailand) are not subject to tax on outside income.

That is what my lawyer explained to me some years back but I guess it could have changed.

Perhaps you're correct. But I'd want to be a lot more certain if Immigration and the Revenue Department ever get computers that talk to each other...

I can't imagine just how sad those resulting threads would be.

[Pattaya46]

In legal terms, live does not mean being alive in a place but rather that that place is your domicile or home.

Maybe, but I don't know where you saw the word "live" in articles Impulse quoted ?

For what it worth, my country (France) apply "Resident means any person residing in the country for at least 183 days in the calendar year"

I got a (French) tax control; I showed them my passport; they counted the number of days in Thailand; and as it was way over 183 they said "Not concerned. Let's look at next year. Not concerned. Let's look at..."

[notmyself]

In legal terms, live does not mean being alive in a place but rather that that place is your domicile or home.

Maybe, but I don't know where you saw the word "live" in articles Impulse quoted ?

I added it as part of the legal definition of reside which I hope was not inappropriate.

[moe666]

... but at the moment their is no clear indication from immigration on what the restriction may be for them.

For those wanting to be here long stay and have the money the five year Elite visa that costs 500k baht would be a good option.

The moment they give a clear indication is the moment I'll relax. Whatever the answer is, whether long term genuine (i.e. non-working) tourists will be limited to a single entry, a double entry or entirely unaffected by the crackdown, I'll be happy with any clear answer that allows me to make plans for the future. The best case scenario for me would be if it was announced that long term tourists could continue to visit for as long as they please on tourist visas, provided they can prove that they can support themselves on money that comes in from overseas.

As for the Elite card, it would be nice to have one but the cost is far, far beyond prohibitive for the average person. For my partner and I to continue our six months per year stays in Thailand on the Elite card we'd have to pay $31,000 for five stress-free years of visas. That would wipe out my savings are force me to return to work, which is exactly what I'd like to avoid

at what point in time is a tourist no longer a tourist but someone who is living in a country on tourist visas

[notmyself]

In legal terms, live does not mean being alive in a place but rather that that place is your domicile or home. As the piece you did not underline points out, non residents (people who may spend longer that 180 days but do not live (reside) in Thailand) are not subject to tax on outside income.

That is what my lawyer explained to me some years back but I guess it could have changed.

Perhaps you're correct. But I'd want to be a lot more certain if Immigration and the Revenue Department ever get computers that talk to each other...

I can't imagine just how sad those resulting threads would be.

When I decided to spend extended holidays (over 6 months) in Thailand I had a look at laws regarding the bringing in of funds from overseas as I would have no income due to not working. I read something which may have been what you posted and it seemed to me that I would be in a position of non resident. Rather than just taking my own understanding of what the law is I asked a lawyer what it meant. Without offering any opinion of how I read it he explained and it was the same as my reading of it.

Regarding immigration and Revenue...

It is my understanding that one cannot live in Thailand on a tourist visa anyway. If taxes were due then it would mean one could live in Thailand on a Tourist visa. Also, this could be off topic but I wonder what the law is regarding bringing in a pension/s from abroad.

[Sortapundit]

All just a question of terminology. A tourist (should) be engaged in activities associated with touring such as visiting temples and various locations. Think of a gap year student who dons a backpack and travels around seeing the world or even just a country. Someone on holiday may not be engaged in such activities yet are covered under a tourist visa. With the four month example, if the person pops to their local border to activate a new entry and then returns then I doubt it can be seen as an activity associated with tourism, or touring.

I called Liverpool RTC last Wednesday or Thursday to make a general enquiry regarding much of the above scenario and they confirmed it. I also enquired about proof of funds and the lady said that the signed declaration is still presently enough but that it was expected to change. Sadly, she had no idea what the change would be so far as to how much in funds and what would constitute proof. Also, no issue regarding making full use of a triple entry which she said would last around 8 1/2 months.

However, that being said... It is what happens on the ground that really matters.

It would be problematic to define a tourist by such restrictive activities as 'visiting temples' and other such traditional tourist activities. I feel like I've seen every church, mosque, temple and synagogue between Notre Dame and Angkor Wat in the last few years of travelling, and if I was forced to visit another one (especially since I don't believe in a higher power) I'd go postal. If pressed by an immigration officer to present photos of me standing in front of a temple as proof that I'm a genuine tourist I'd be a very grumpy boy.

When I was a kid on holiday with my family I'd spend my days pestering my parents to get off their asses and take us somewhere fun, but all they wanted to do was sit by the pool and 'enjoy the weather'. At that age I couldn't understand why they'd choose to sit in the sun over go-karting (though the fact that they had four kids to care for 24/7 should have been a hint). Today that's all I want to do while on holiday. I want to sit by the pool through the day, then have a nice meal and a few drinks in a welcoming bar before heading to bed. I don't want to go ziplining or ride a banana boat, and especially not for the purpose of fulfilling an immigration officer's expectations of what a genuine tourist should do.

In any case, it looks like this is the end of my six month a year leisurely stays in the Kingdom. Whether the situation settles down or not this has been a reminder that my tenure here as a genuine non-working tourist is all but secure, so after I return from my August in Mongolia I'll be giving up the lease on my apartment and cutting back my visits to a few months a year. The missus wants to buy a tuk tuk and tour the region, and this seems as good a time as any to be a little more nomadic

[Sortapundit]

at what point in time is a tourist no longer a tourist but someone who is living in a country on tourist visas

That's the $64,000 question, and one that concerns nomadic, non-working layabouts like me.

[DrTuner]

In legal terms, live does not mean being alive in a place but rather that that place is your domicile or home. As the piece you did not underline points out, non residents (people who may spend longer that 180 days but do not live (reside) in Thailand) are not subject to tax on outside income.

That is what my lawyer explained to me some years back but I guess it could have changed.

Perhaps you're correct. But I'd want to be a lot more certain if Immigration and the Revenue Department ever get computers that talk to each other...

I can't imagine just how sad those resulting threads would be.

When I decided to spend extended holidays (over 6 months) in Thailand I had a look at laws regarding the bringing in of funds from overseas as I would have no income due to not working. I read something which may have been what you posted and it seemed to me that I would be in a position of non resident. Rather than just taking my own understanding of what the law is I asked a lawyer what it meant. Without offering any opinion of how I read it he explained and it was the same as my reading of it.

Regarding immigration and Revenue...

It is my understanding that one cannot live in Thailand on a tourist visa anyway. If taxes were due then it would mean one could live in Thailand on a Tourist visa. Also, this could be off topic but I wonder what the law is regarding bringing in a pension/s from abroad.

Did you take a look at the double taxation agreements ?

http://www.rd.go.th/publish/766.0.html

They do define what a "resident" is. F.Ex Finland's agreement:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term “resident of a Contracting State” means any

person who, under the laws of that State, is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile,

residence, place of incorporation or any other criterion of a similar nature.

And Revenue Department of Thailand states you are liable to tax as "Resident means any person residing in Thailand for a period or periods aggregating more than 180 days in any tax (calendar) year"

For the case of Finns, this is then quite clear. Check your own country's agreement, if there is one.

[notmyself]

All just a question of terminology. A tourist (should) be engaged in activities associated with touring such as visiting temples and various locations. Think of a gap year student who dons a backpack and travels around seeing the world or even just a country. Someone on holiday may not be engaged in such activities yet are covered under a tourist visa. With the four month example, if the person pops to their local border to activate a new entry and then returns then I doubt it can be seen as an activity associated with tourism, or touring.

I called Liverpool RTC last Wednesday or Thursday to make a general enquiry regarding much of the above scenario and they confirmed it. I also enquired about proof of funds and the lady said that the signed declaration is still presently enough but that it was expected to change. Sadly, she had no idea what the change would be so far as to how much in funds and what would constitute proof. Also, no issue regarding making full use of a triple entry which she said would last around 8 1/2 months.

However, that being said... It is what happens on the ground that really matters.

It would be problematic to define a tourist by such restrictive activities as 'visiting temples' and other such traditional tourist activities. I feel like I've seen every church, mosque, temple and synagogue between Notre Dame and Angkor Wat in the last few years of travelling, and if I was forced to visit another one (especially since I don't believe in a higher power) I'd go postal. If pressed by an immigration officer to present photos of me standing in front of a temple as proof that I'm a genuine tourist I'd be a very grumpy boy.

When I was a kid on holiday with my family I'd spend my days pestering my parents to get off their asses and take us somewhere fun, but all they wanted to do was sit by the pool and 'enjoy the weather'. At that age I couldn't understand why they'd choose to sit in the sun over go-karting (though the fact that they had four kids to care for 24/7 should have been a hint). Today that's all I want to do while on holiday. I want to sit by the pool through the day, then have a nice meal and a few drinks in a welcoming bar before heading to bed. I don't want to go ziplining or ride a banana boat, and especially not for the purpose of fulfilling an immigration officer's expectations of what a genuine tourist should do.

In any case, it looks like this is the end of my six month a year leisurely stays in the Kingdom. Whether the situation settles down or not this has been a reminder that my tenure here as a genuine non-working tourist is all but secure, so after I return from my August in Mongolia I'll be giving up the lease on my apartment and cutting back my visits to a few months a year. The missus wants to buy a tuk tuk and tour the region, and this seems as good a time as any to be a little more nomadic

I'm sure it will calm down and focus on people using back to back tourist visas meaning those who leave the kingdom for the sole purpose of obtaining another tourist visa before returning. The niece of a friend is in Thailand and SE Asia at the moment visiting various countries and has entered Thailand on 4 occasions during the last 6 weeks on visa exempt entries. She has had no problems and has been asked for no bookings or proof of funds. Her and her partner would certainly fall under the definition of tourists.

The tuk tuk sounds like a great idea and I hope you have a blast doing it.

[notmyself]

They do define what a "resident" is. F.Ex Finland's agreement:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term resident of a Contracting State means any

person who, under the laws of that State, is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile,

residence, place of incorporation or any other criterion of a similar nature.

And Revenue Department of Thailand states you are liable to tax as "Resident means any person residing in Thailand for a period or periods aggregating more than 180 days in any tax (calendar) year"

For the case of Finns, this is then quite clear. Check your own country's agreement, if there is one.

UK is very similar though it does include 'domicile' which would therefore define 'reside'.

May pay to see a lawyer again after I return as the information I have is 4 1/2 years old ish though it seems cut and dry to me. Looking at another angle would show that Thailand could be legally not your home as well as legally your home which would make no sense.

[Sortapundit]

I'm sure it will calm down and focus on people using back to back tourist visas meaning those who leave the kingdom for the sole purpose of obtaining another tourist visa before returning. The niece of a friend is in Thailand and SE Asia at the moment visiting various countries and has entered Thailand on 4 occasions during the last 6 weeks on visa exempt entries. She has had no problems and has been asked for no bookings or proof of funds. Her and her partner would certainly fall under the definition of tourists.

The tuk tuk sounds like a great idea and I hope you have a blast doing it.

I hope it settles, as I'd still like to spend a lot of time in Thailand without worrying if we'll have problems each time we arrive.

The tuk tuk tour would, I'm sure, be fantastic, but I'm pushing her in the direction of a tour of India. I drove north to south by tuk tuk a few years ago and it was the most fun I've ever had

[ScottMallon]

Did they mention anything about ED visas? Will they start testing people at Thai language schools and other types of education that we can legally apply for?

Yes, they do plan to scrutinize those applying for ED visas more closely in the near future. I have a video about this going up shortly. Another area they are looking at that I never thought about is medical tourists. Some are milking their illnesses for as long as possible to stay here.