Can just go to ATO online and change to non resident for tax purposes. Easily done. Australia is not the USA. Also can inform your financial institution you are not a US citizen or a tax resident. Easy Peasy. I have not filed a tax return in Australian since 1989 as my last return stated I was leaving Australia permanently. ATO did check if I had become a legal resident elsewhere which was normal part of verifying my status.
People have been disagreeing over this since digital nomadism/remote working became a thing 15-20 years ago. Iāve benefited from the ambiguity myself in the past, but I think things still arenāt clear enough for a definitive statement like this to be valid.
Yeahā¦ thatās one of the problems with the current interpretation, but I also donāt think thatās at all how weāre treated by banks or tax authorities here. As far as Iām concerned, I donāt become tax resident anywhere else during those first 183 days of the year, but the default interpretation here seems to be that Iām tax resident in the UK (until we can change that).
Keeping with the idea that SatTV-B is being paid for work physically done in Taiwan by SatTV-A, I think this would depend on some complicated interpretations of the Income Tax Act and whatever else for these āsplit personsā, which might depend on the nature of the work (isnāt it that work done in Taiwan by non-residents should still have tax withheld (Article 2 of the Income Tax Act)?). Anyway, I donāt think itās as clear cut as thisā¦
That is so, but not being a tax resident Donāt mean your not liable to pay any tax due but it means your not protected by DTA.
I only have to pay tax on dividends or interest payments in Australia. They are deducted when issued as I am non resident. Other wise I can trade Australian shares from my Australian account and as a non resident any gains are tax free. Not so for tax residents in Australia.
Institutions in Taiwan cannot assume that. In factā¦ when I talked to @fifieldt in person he told me he was told that it is because America advised them to do it that wayā¦ which actually makes sense for American laws.
Itās not clear cut and Taiwan laws have this problem as do other non common law countries. Ever wonder why Hong Kong as Singapore are able to become business hubs but other Asian economies couldnāt?
This is something else though, IMO. Monarchs and their special rules aside, yes, sure, it would be challenging for a third country to demonstrate a connection (I havenāt said otherwise). But that doesnāt mean that no connection exists.
If the purpose here was just to get paid in a way that Taiwan is unlikely to be able to track, it would be simple enough for SatTV just to get paid to the overseas account and not declare it to the tax office. I could do that too, but it doesnāt make it a legal solution of course.
So your still liable for the tax due
This tax is not due
No, they shouldnāt, but as you know they regularly do for the >99% of foreign citizens residing in Taiwan who donāt have the knowledge or patience to spend 2 hours arguing about it with every single bankā¦
Yes and those taxes are paid by the dividend issuer or the financial institution when paid to me. So I donāt have to do anything, taxes are already deducted.
If I had a client send money to my Australian account from overseas then there would be no taxes to be paid in Australia as income not earned or sourced in Australia.
Even then. After all the arguingā¦ they do it anyway.
Did you hear of the case where a Canadian born in Italy sued a bank for setting up FATCA without his knowledge or permission?
No, I didnāt. Where was that?
You still paid it, itās just that it was taken automatically.
If thatās the law then their is nothing due, you only liable for taxes due.
On 7 February 2022, the judicial tribunal of Grenoble stated that the bank could not contest the clientās place of birth after being provided with the necessary documentation, and it couldnāt either demonstrate the sum held in the clientās account exceeded $50,000 (Ā£37,000, ā¬44,000) ā the minimum sum necessary for Fatca reporting.
As a result, the law firm said, the court found BRA failed to comply with its legal obligations, including:
Not taking the necessary precautions to ensure the accuracy of the personal data processed regarding the client;
Using the personal data for wrongful purposes since it was shared with a third party when it shouldnāt have been; and,
As BRA claimed it could not ensure the erasure of the Fatca registration, it should have been even more careful regarding the initial registration conditions given that, as a legal entity bound by a duty of vigilance, it would have been aware of the claimantās right to erasure, protected under French and EU law.
The bank has now been ordered to pay the client ā¬15,000 in damages, ā¬5,000 in costs and a daily fine of ā¬1,500 starting from 60 days after the decision, if BRA fails to take the necessary steps to ensure the total erasure of the Fatca declarations until 2017 from the US tax authoritiesā records.
Thatās interesting. I wonder if CRS allows for a similar approachā¦
Taiwanese banks must have submitted quite a few of these false reports/personal data breaches since CRS was implemented.
Hmm. 
As a non resident of Australia there are no income taxes dues for any income earned outside of Australia even if it paid to an Australian account from overseas. Such is life.
Itās good to be a non resident of Australia.
It does. What I wonder is how Taiwan privacy laws are set up.
Iām not a legal expert
Maybe we could pool together some resources and start a case?
It seems like between the Regulations About CRS with a Long Name I Can Never Be Bothered Typing and the Personal Data Protection Act there should be something there to complain about. Might have to look into that some moreā¦
I suppose the real challenge at the moment would be getting the competent authorities (FSC, MOF, or Personal Data Protection Commission, whoever it is) to take the side of foreigners against banks doing what the MOF has told them to do. We havenāt had much luck with that so far.
OK So yes I am a citizen here and elsewhere. So HSBC Taiwan once I showed them my overseas accounts listing my not being tax resident overseas and being a Taiwan tax resident did not require me to complete the CRS forms.
Should be the same for anyone resident here and yes I see the threads on that.
The difference here is that as foreign citizens weāre assumed to be tax resident elsewhere anyway. As Iāve said before, I donāt think itās necessary to volunteer information about accounts in other countries and I never have and donāt want to, but the not being Taiwanese is the sticking point, not the addresses listed on other bank accounts in other countries.
Absolutely. When I first got an accountant here I was shocked at the things he was telling me one could do. So I paid money to get a second opinion elsewhere from a well regarded tax advisor. He said āyeah your accountant sounds good and knows what heās talking about, Iād stick with him.ā