Dependant Wife Annual Extension Renewal & Funding Requirement

[tomdfc]

My wife and I are retired Brits, living here on our first annual extension of our Non-O Retirement visas. The annual extension stamps in our passports are not quite identical.

In my case, the stamp clearly states in bold red the word "Retirement" and refers to clause 2.22 (of the relevant Police Order) which is specifically for a retiree.

In my wife's case, the word "Retirement" does not appear and instead there is a Thai script word (which we read literally as "family member"). And the clause referenced is 2.20 (being for a family member of an alien permitted to stay, ie. myself).

This all makes sense, reflecting the fact that I am deemed to be the main retiree and my wife is the dependant. And as such, last year, only I was asked for proof of the 800k funding.

For sake of certainty I simply want to reconfirm that this is still the case, that the dependant will not now (because of a rule change, for example) have to show a second, inseparate increment of 800k.

(With apologies for being pedantic but the consequences of getting it wrong are high.) Thank you.

[ubonjoe]

Nothing has changed. You are the only one that needs to show the financial proof.

[KhunBENQ]

Did you coordinate with the other thread just popping up

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/847558-800k-is-for-per-coupon-application/

[Mousehound]

Following on: I understand that a couple on a retirement visa - such as stated above are under the man's visa and the wife is a dependant spouse. I am led to believe that the first 90 day reporting would need to be in person - does that mean both have to attend? Also, on subsequent 90 day reporting if done by mail, would separate reporting for the husband and wife be required? As OP I am referring to a non-Thai couple.

[ubonjoe]

Following on: I understand that a couple on a retirement visa - such as stated above are under the man's visa and the wife is a dependant spouse. I am led to believe that the first 90 day reporting would need to be in person - does that mean both have to attend? Also, on subsequent 90 day reporting if done by mail, would separate reporting for the husband and wife be required? As OP I am referring to a non-Thai couple.

The first report needs to done in person. One of them could do the reports for both of them if both reports are due at the same time. They would each need a completed TM47 form.

They could mail the reports together if they are due at the same time.

[Mousehound]

Following on: I understand that a couple on a retirement visa - such as stated above are under the man's visa and the wife is a dependant spouse. I am led to believe that the first 90 day reporting would need to be in person - does that mean both have to attend? Also, on subsequent 90 day reporting if done by mail, would separate reporting for the husband and wife be required? As OP I am referring to a non-Thai couple.

The first report needs to done in person. One of them could do the reports for both of them if both reports are due at the same time. They would each need a completed TM47 form.

They could mail the reports together if they are due at the same time.

Thanks Ubonjoe - as always succinct and informative.

[sendintheclowns]

Did you coordinate with the other thread just popping up

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/847558-800k-is-for-per-coupon-application/

Khun BENQ's suggestion is smart advice. These various forums are an excellent way to keep abreast of Immigration issues.

[NancyL]

I am not a big fan of wives being "carried" as a dependent on their husband's visas. I've seen several situations where the husband dies and the wife is told by Immigration she has to leave the country to make arrangements for a new visa -- at a time when she is busy making funeral arrangements, trying to figure out how to access joint bank accounts, having relatives come into the country, etc. If at all possible, each person should have their own retirement visa or the younger, healthier person should be the one owning the 800,000 baht bank account and the older, less healthy person should be the one carried as a dependent on the other's visa, if it's not possible financially for both people to have 800,000 baht bank accounts (if that's the way the visa is justified financially.)

In other words, there is no reason why the wife (over age 50) can't have the retirement visa and the husband can be considered the dependent, if the couple only has one 800,000 baht bank account. That way, it's in the wife's name and she will have ready access to it.

This prevents the nightmares I've seen where the husband has the 800,000 baht bank account, dies, the wife can't access the money immediately, has no way to justify her own visa, yet is told she has to go to Laos and arrange for a new visa. All she can go is get a tourist visa, come back and wrestle with the bank trying to get the Final Will situation straighten out in time to get ahold of the funds, only to return to Laos and apply for an non-imm O visa, etc, etc on the path toward a retirement extension. Makes no sense if the husband is significantly older and less healthy than the wife. Why even open the account in his name? What were they thinking of?

Edited August 12, 2015 by NancyL

[Suradit69]

I am not a big fan of wives being "carried" as a dependent on their husband's visas. I've seen several situations where the husband dies and the wife is told by Immigration she has to leave the country to make arrangements for a new visa -- at a time when she is busy making funeral arrangements, trying to figure out how to access joint bank accounts, having relatives come into the country, etc. If at all possible, each person should have their own retirement visa or the younger, healthier person should be the one owning the 800,000 baht bank account and the older, less healthy person should be the one carried as a dependent on the other's visa, if it's not possible financially for both people to have 800,000 baht bank accounts (if that's the way the visa is justified financially.)

In other words, there is no reason why the wife (over age 50) can't have the retirement visa and the husband can be considered the dependent, if the couple only has one 800,000 baht bank account. That way, it's in the wife's name and she will have ready access to it.

This prevents the nightmares I've seen where the husband has the 800,000 baht bank account, dies, the wife can't access the money immediately, has no way to justify her own visa, yet is told she has to go to Laos and arrange for a new visa. All she can go is get a tourist visa, come back and wrestle with the bank trying to get the Final Will situation straighten out in time to get ahold of the funds, only to return to Laos and apply for an non-imm O visa, etc, etc on the path toward a retirement extension. Makes no sense if the husband is significantly older and less healthy than the wife. Why even open the account in his name? What were they thinking of?

"I am not a big fan of wives being "carried" as a dependent on their husband's visas. I've seen several situations where the husband dies and the wife is told by Immigration she has to leave the country to make arrangements for a new visa "

Presumably you're speaking of the husband's extension of stay rather than a visa.

Would the dependent's extension be immediately cancelled or would it simply not be renewable on the same basis? Is immigrations immediately informed when a person on a retirement extension dies and would they actually order the surviving spouse to immediately leave the country?

And, assuming there was a will designating the bank account of the deceased was left to the survivor, wouldn't he/she be able to transfer the Baht 800,000 to an account in his/her own name and then apply for a change to a retirement extension without leaving the country?

I'm not saying all this is possible, just asking if leaving the country would be necessary immediately and if the husband is automatically assumed to be the one to die first? Wouldn't the same dilemma arise if the retirement extension was in the wife's name and she died first?

I can see where having two independent retirement extensions tied to two separate accounts each holding Baht 800,000 might be more convenient, but assuming they both remain fully funded at Baht 800,000 at all times in anticipation of such an emergency, it would mean tying up a considerable amount of money.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Suradit69

[NancyL]

Yes, I'm talking about the husband's extension of stay -- not a visa.

The dependent's extension is cancelled -- at least in Chiang Mai. As I said, it could be different in other provinces. Men married to Thai wives have the same problem if they have an extension based on marriage and their Thai wife dies. The marriage is over and the basis for the extension is over.

And even with a clear-cut Final Will, the widow can't claim the 800,000 baht and have it turned over to her in one day. Nope. Here in Chiang Mai, at Bangkok Bank (very popular with expats), there is a form to complete, and a "guaranteer" must be produced. Someone of good character, known to the bank, with an account well in excess of 800,000 baht at the bank who will guarantee that they knew the intentions of the husband and that a mia noi or Thai children or someone else isn't going to come forward and contest the Final Will. Then all the documents are sent down to the bank's main office and a few weeks later the funds are released to the widow.

(And guess what, every so often there is some drama like that! An amazing number of guys here in expat-expat marriages seem to have a little action on the side)

And how does Immigration know when someone dies. Come on. They know everything we do. The widow may not be told immediately, but she'll find out later that she's on overstay.

And, yes, it's not always the husband who dies first. If it's a real hardship for a couple to maintain two 800,000 baht accounts, maybe they should look at "sharing" the account with a little creative travel where one of them takes a little overseas holiday without the other so they can stagger the times of their annual retirement extension renewels.

Edited August 12, 2015 by NancyL

[mikebike]

In other words, there is no reason why the wife (over age 50) can't have the retirement visa and the husband can be considered the dependent, if the couple only has one 800,000 baht bank account. That way, it's in the wife's name and she will have ready access to it.

This prevents the nightmares I've seen where the husband has the 800,000 baht bank account, dies, the wife can't access the money immediately, has no way to justify her own visa, yet is told she has to go to Laos and arrange for a new visa. All she can go is get a tourist visa, come back and wrestle with the bank trying to get the Final Will situation straighten out in time to get ahold of the funds, only to return to Laos and apply for an non-imm O visa, etc, etc on the path toward a retirement extension. Makes no sense if the husband is significantly older and less healthy than the wife. Why even open the account in his name? What were they thinking of?

I may be missing something, but I don't see how your 'solution' insulates the husband from having exactly the same issues as the wife if he is the dependant and she passes away... Same same, no?

My wife and I are in this situation. Our bank accounts are joint, in our home country (we use an affidavit for income, we do not keep 800,000 in the bank here) so cash flow would not stop no matter which of us passes. Also if either of us passes its a quick cremation here then back home for interment and commiseration with family and friends. The worst case scenario is a 7 to 10 day overstay and 3,500 to 5,000 baht overstay fine on the way out. Then the surviving spouse can decide, surrounded by loved ones, what they want to do next. Seems simple enough and works for us...

[ubonjoe]

The dependent's extension is cancelled -- at least in Chiang Mai. As I said, it could be different in other provinces. Men married to Thai wives have the same problem if they have an extension based on marriage and their Thai wife dies. The marriage is over and the basis for the extension is over.

An extension based upon marriage to a Thai does not end if the spouse passes away. It remains valid until it expires. It is a different immigration policy for them.

See this immigration form that should be signed when applying for an extension. acknow_con2stay.pdf

[NancyL]

In other words, there is no reason why the wife (over age 50) can't have the retirement visa and the husband can be considered the dependent, if the couple only has one 800,000 baht bank account. That way, it's in the wife's name and she will have ready access to it.

This prevents the nightmares I've seen where the husband has the 800,000 baht bank account, dies, the wife can't access the money immediately, has no way to justify her own visa, yet is told she has to go to Laos and arrange for a new visa. All she can go is get a tourist visa, come back and wrestle with the bank trying to get the Final Will situation straighten out in time to get ahold of the funds, only to return to Laos and apply for an non-imm O visa, etc, etc on the path toward a retirement extension. Makes no sense if the husband is significantly older and less healthy than the wife. Why even open the account in his name? What were they thinking of?

I may be missing something, but I don't see how your 'solution' insulates the husband from having exactly the same issues as the wife if he is the dependant and she passes away... Same same, no?

Right, the husband would have the same problem if he were the dependent and the wife passed away and was the owner of the 800,000 baht bank account. That's why you want to choose the younger, healthier person to be the owner of the bank account and if the owner becomes ill with a condition that is likely to be terminal, don't be shy about moving the funds while the account owner is still alive and hanging on. I can't tell you how many times I've suggested that, only to have the wife (or her friends) insist they "can't think about money at a time like this"