oznomad

The devil is in the detail. Yes, 'qualified to be a tax resident', as opposed to 'are a tax resident'. To take it a step further, if you want to be tax resident in Thailand, you cant just say to your home country, look, 180 days in Thailand. I am not tax resident in XXXXX any more. That will not float, in the majority of countries.

Not really.

Can someone who knows please clarify 'extension of stay based on retirement' please? It has been my belief that it meant either changing my OA to an O, having the 800k/65k covered, and renewing each year, or starting with an O and renewing each year. Reading the latest kerfuffle with insurance, I am not so sure my beliefs were correct. Yes, I have searched TVF, but the search results bore no worthy fruit. Can I extend my OA, without changing to O and doing the 800/65k? Thanks.

I wonder if the people at Immigration may not be aware of some of the issues that arise from the incoming compulsory insurance for OA visas. Under the heading 'if you dont ask, you dont get', lets list off the problems that we, the users, see. This is a constructive list that hopefully will be read by, or forwarded to, the decision makers. It's not a moan session, a place to ask questions, or to write your life story. Please post the issues you see with the compulsory insurance, in a brief manner. I will start. 1. OA visa holders often already have insurance that more than covers the requirements of 400k / 40k. In my case, that is long term travel insurance, supplied by my credit card. Earlier this year, I had a 500,000 baht medical claim on it, without a problem. For me, the compulsory insurance is just money spent for absolutely no reason.