Prev Page 3 of 3 1 2 3 Please log in to reply 61 replies to this topic

[ludditeman]

WarpSpeed, on 2012-02-09 22:42:53, said:

ludditeman, on 2012-02-08 18:54:56, said:

You are a very generous man, buying your wife a house with no strings attached. I prefer to rent.

41 years of marriage deserves some trust don't you think?

You would think so, and I did trust someone I was married to for 32 years, but I was subsequently proven wrong.
What is it the investment people tell us, "previous performance is no indication of future returns".

norrona, on 2012-02-09 15:38:20, said:

are you one of those people that when they see a person threatening suicide on top of a building stand at the bottom shouting 'jump-do it'

Off topic but I will reply.
I'm one of those people that walks away because blood is hard to clean off clothing.

Edited by ludditeman, 2012-02-10 17:34:02.

[Mr Red]

You know ludditeman, I really do feel sorry that you are so bitter and mistrustful of people and find it difficult to believe people can be happy and just like to have normal conversations without biting criticism. But then that is the primary reason I have not posted much to TV over the several years I have been a member.

[ludditeman]

Mr Red, on 2012-02-10 17:36:37, said:

You know ludditeman, I really do feel sorry that you are so bitter and mistrustful of people and find it difficult to believe people can be happy and just like to have normal conversations without biting criticism. But then that is the primary reason I have not posted much to TV over the several years I have been a member.

Not so much biting criticism, more a warning to be careful and not take everything at face value.
I enjoy life here tremendously, have made many good friends while here, and have a beautiful wife and baby.
I have also seen some more trusting than me, lose everything, or in the process of losing everything.

You can live here happily, but you really must be careful.

Statistically (as a man)
The person most likely to steal from you is not a mugger, burgler or bank robber.
But your wife (50% of marriages end in divorce), she will even steal your home and children.

Edited by ludditeman, 2012-02-10 17:55:31.

[necronx99]

ludditeman, on 2012-02-10 17:48:22, said:

Mr Red, on 2012-02-10 17:36:37, said:

You know ludditeman, I really do feel sorry that you are so bitter and mistrustful of people and find it difficult to believe people can be happy and just like to have normal conversations without biting criticism. But then that is the primary reason I have not posted much to TV over the several years I have been a member.

Not so much biting criticism, more a warning to be careful and not take everything at face value.
I enjoy life here tremendously, have made many good friends while here, and have a beautiful wife and baby.
I have also seen some more trusting than me, lose everything, or in the process of losing everything.

You can live here happily, but you really must be careful.

Statistically (as a man)
The person most likely to steal from you is not a mugger, burgler or bank robber.
But your wife (50% of marriages end in divorce), she will even steal your home and children.

You idiot. He has been married 41 yrs.

[WarpSpeed]

ludditeman, on 2012-02-10 17:31:27, said:

WarpSpeed, on 2012-02-09 22:42:53, said:

ludditeman, on 2012-02-08 18:54:56, said:

You are a very generous man, buying your wife a house with no strings attached. I prefer to rent.

41 years of marriage deserves some trust don't you think?

You would think so, and I did trust someone I was married to for 32 years, but I was subsequently proven wrong.
What is it the investment people tell us, "previous performance is no indication of future returns".

norrona, on 2012-02-09 15:38:20, said:

are you one of those people that when they see a person threatening suicide on top of a building stand at the bottom shouting 'jump-do it'

Off topic but I will reply.
I'm one of those people that walks away because blood is hard to clean off clothing.

Bit jaded eh? That type of cynicism can be applied in any situation and to anyone but at some point if you can't trust your mate well then you can't trust anyone..

[MJo]

It is pretty sad, if you look closely or just look in the first place you see many members that been burned in the west and seem to find it very hard to let it go.

Anyhoo we are way off topic so welcome to OP and good luck with the retirement.

[CaptHaddock]

flying, on 2012-02-09 07:52:27, said:

CaptHaddock, on 2012-02-09 06:28:55, said:

Red,

I hope that you have effectively severed your ties to the state where you lived so that you are not liable for state income taxes.  As you probably know tax domicile rules vary from state to state and are not based on a common sense idea of where you live.  For instance, you will want to surrender your US driver's license as soon as possible.

I had never heard that about a US drivers license...Could you expand on what the implications are?

In many states tax domicile rules hinge on the "intent to return."  So, that any evidence that can be construed as implying an intent to return may be grounds for the state to assert tax liability.  Although I haven't encountered a specific example where the driver's license itself decided the issue, I did read in case writeups of tax domicile audits performed by New York state that encouraged extreme caution.  The case in question concerned a NY couple who bought an apartment in Florida and spent the winters there, but retained their apartment in NY (which alone does not establish tax domicile.)  Although the did not spend more than the specified 180 days per year in NY state, in the telephone interview that was part of the audit the wife referred to returning to NY as "going home."  The audit was decided against them.

Neither have I heard a case where voting established tax domicile, but I am wary of it because how would you defend the position that you are a resident for voting purposes, but not for taxation?  Keep in mind that the states are starved for cash currently and may become more aggressive in collecting taxes.

[CaptHaddock]

TallGuyJohninBKK, on 2012-02-09 07:55:12, said:

CaptHaddock, on 2012-02-09 06:28:55, said:

Red,

I hope that you have effectively severed your ties to the state where you lived so that you are not liable for state income taxes.  As you probably know tax domicile rules vary from state to state and are not based on a common sense idea of where you live.  For instance, you will want to surrender your US driver's license as soon as possible.

Captain, I believe you're right about different states having different interpretations/rules of what makes one (in their view) subject to that state's income tax...

But I'm not sure the notion of giving up one's driver's license is a necessary move. I'm most familiar with California, which is one of the more aggressive states in regards to seeking out income tax payers...

But in that state, as long as you're not living there and not doing business or owning property there or having some active (not passive) income source, then I think having a DL there is pretty irrelevant from an income tax standpoint.

TallGuy,

Here is a document from the State of California listing criteria to establish tax domicile,
http://www.google.co...9v-FwMRyDjm2FUw

including:

In the Appeal of Stephen D. Bragg 2003-SBE-002, May 28, 2003, the Board of Equalization
included the following list of factors which, while not exhaustive, inform taxpayers of the
type and nature of connections the Board of Equalization and the Franchise Tax Board find
informative when determining residency:

The state wherein the taxpayer maintains a driver's license.
The state wherein the taxpayer maintains voter registration and the taxpayer's voting
participation history.

The state wherein the taxpayer obtains professional services, such as doctors, dentists,
accountants, and attorneys.

In my opinion, it is not worth the risk.  It is important to severe all ties to the state in which you lived.  If you come from VA, even that will not be enough.

[CaptHaddock]

Mr Red, on 2012-02-09 15:12:28, said:

CaptHaddock, on 2012-02-09 06:28:55, said:

Red,

I hope that you have effectively severed your ties to the state where you lived so that you are not liable for state income taxes.  As you probably know tax domicile rules vary from state to state and are not based on a common sense idea of where you live.  For instance, you will want to surrender your US driver's license as soon as possible.

My US state of record in Florida, which has no income tax, so fine there. We own a condo there and that is serving as our official US residence. Why would I ever want to give up my US drivers license? I want to maintain two official residences -- one here and one in Florida.

As long as your NY house is in Florida or another no-income tax state, you don't have any problem.  Most Americans however live in states that do tax income and avoiding income tax liability after moving abroad is not entirely based on common sense.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Captain, your post deserved a full list of the CA criteria that the 2009 document you linked to provides:

Quote

In the Appeal of Stephen D. Bragg 2003-SBE-002, May 28, 2003, the Board of Equalization included the following list of factors which, while not exhaustive, inform taxpayers of the type and nature of connections the Board of Equalization and the Franchise Tax Board find informative when determining residency:

 The location of all of the taxpayer's residential real property, and the approximate sizes and values of each of the residences.
 The state wherein the taxpayer's spouse and children reside.
 The state wherein the taxpayer's children attend school.
 The state wherein the taxpayer claims the homeowner's property tax exemption on a residence.
 The taxpayer's telephone records (i.e., the origination point of taxpayer's telephone calls).
 The number of days the taxpayer spends in California versus the number of days the taxpayer spends in other states, and the general purpose of such days (i.e., vacation, business, etc.).
 The location where the taxpayer files his tax returns, both federal and state, and the state of residence claimed by the taxpayer on such returns.
 The location of the taxpayer's bank and savings accounts.
 The origination point of the taxpayer's checking account transactions and credit card transactions.
 The state wherein the taxpayer maintains memberships in social, religious, and professional organizations.
 The state wherein the taxpayer registers his automobiles.
 The state wherein the taxpayer maintains a driver's license.
 The state wherein the taxpayer maintains voter registration and the taxpayer's voting participation history.
 The state wherein the taxpayer obtains professional services, such as doctors, dentists, accountants, and attorneys.
 The state wherein the taxpayer is employed.
 The state wherein the taxpayer maintains or owns business interests.
 The state wherein the taxpayer holds a professional license or licenses.
 The state wherein the taxpayer owns investment real property.
 The indications in affidavits from various individuals discussing the taxpayer's residency.

It is particularly relevant to determine whether the taxpayer substantially severed his or her California connections upon departure and took steps to establish significant connections with the new place of abode. It is also necessary to determine whether the connections in California were maintained in readiness for his or her return. See the Appeal of Richard L. and Kathleen K. Hardman, supra.

Whether a person was in California for other than a temporary or transitory purpose must be determined by examining all of the facts. Mere formalisms such as changing voting registration to another state or statements to the effect that the taxpayer intended to be a resident of another state are not controlling. See the Appeal of Tyrus R. Cobb, 1959-SBE-014, March 26, 1959.

Note that retention of some contacts such as bank accounts and a driver's license may only be a reflection of the taxpayer's past and may not be inconsistent with an absence for other than temporary or transitory purposes. See the Appeal of Richard L. and Kathleen K. Hardman, supra.

Note the above pgh that I've highlighted.... It pretty well suggests that just keeping a CA drivers license, absent other connections, is not going to pose a CA tax problem.

When you consider the entirety of the above list of criteria, I'd say most people legitimately living in Thailand full-time aren't going to have a problem, assuming they're not running a business or having property ownerships in state.

Edited by TallGuyJohninBKK, 2012-02-12 08:38:33.

[CaptHaddock]

Quote

Note the above pgh that I've highlighted.... It pretty well suggests that just keeping a CA drivers license, absent other connections, is not going to pose a CA tax problem.

When you consider the entirety of the above list of criteria, I'd say most people legitimately living in Thailand full-time aren't going to have a problem, assuming they're not running a business or having property ownerships in state.

My preference and my recommendation would be to eliminate the grounds for a tax domicile challenge as much as possible.  That's not to say that the risk would be particularly high if you only kept the license, but then the benefit of keeping a CA license in Thailand looks like zero to me as well.  Everyone is entitled to his own risk/reward preference, of course.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

AFAIK, having and using a U.S. state-issued driver's license here is both an accepted form of ID as well as conferring some driving rights.

Although I've had an international driving permit every year, whenever I've gone to rent a car in Thailand, the thing the rental people want to see and copy is always my CA driver's license card. (I don't have, and haven't ever applied for, a Thai driver's license, as I don't own or typically drive a car here). But my CA driver's license has always sufficed for Thai car rental purposes.