Where do you have your ABP pension taxed?
Actually, that's a stupid question. After all, you have no choice. Where your ABP pension is taxed is regulated in the Treaty for the avoidance of double taxation concluded between the Netherlands and Thailand (hereinafter: Treaty). And yet I find out every time that this question is really not that stupid. Otherwise I cannot explain why I regularly come across tax lawyers and tax consultancy firms with new clients who, when it comes to determining where an ABP pension is taxed, go horribly wrong. With the greatest of ease, they classify an ABP pension that is not taxable in the Netherlands as taxable in the Netherlands. With a reasonable ABP pension, such an incorrect assessment can easily cost you about 5 to 6 thousand euros per year in undue income tax.
If you then deduct the Personal Income Tax that may be owed from this, you will quickly end up with a loss of around 3,5 to 4,5 thousand euros per year. And that was precisely not the intention when you thought you were hiring a specialist for a lot of money, who then turns out not to be a specialist but an expensively paid quack!
I am not writing this article as an indictment against the colleagues concerned. After all, they themselves have to know how they want to work and are therefore responsible for it. I therefore deliberately refrain from mentioning names and associated specific cases of advisers performing poorly on this point. I do advise them, if they happen to read Thailandblog, not to equate 'ABP' with 'government' in the future.
This article is merely intended as a warning to those who may experience the same thing, i.e. recipients of a non-government pension from the ABP. For those who fall into the hands and become victims of such advisers, I think it is a pity, while they usually have to pay the top price for the provision of their services. I therefore call on everyone who enjoys an ABP pension: be on your guard and carefully read this article, because no one, except the Dutch State, benefits from paying thousands of euros per year unnecessarily in tax in the Netherlands !
The legal framework
I will first outline the legal framework as set out in Articles 18 and 19 of the Treaty and insofar as relevant. Then we will be rid of that and we can move on to a more substantive treatment of this issue and then talk in terms of more or less ordinary people.
“Article 18. Pensions and annuities
- 1 Subject to the provisions of paragraph 19 of this Article and paragraph XNUMX of Article XNUMX, pensions and other similar remuneration in respect of past employment paid to a resident of one of the States, and annuities paid to such resident, shall only be taxable in that State.
Article 19. Government Functions
- 1 Remuneration, including pensions, paid by or out of funds established by one of the States or a political subdivision or local authority thereof to an individual in respect of services rendered to that State or subdivision or local authority body thereof in the exercise of governmental functions may be taxed in that State.
- 2 However, the provisions of Articles 15, 16 or 18 shall apply to remuneration or pensions in respect of services rendered in connection with a for-profit business carried on by one of the States or a political subdivision or local authority thereof. ”
In short, this means that a pension obtained from the Netherlands is in principle taxed in Thailand (Article 18(1) of the Treaty).
This is different if this pension is obtained from government employment held in the past. In that case, the Netherlands may levy (Article 19(1)). In the first case we speak of a pension under private law. In the second case we speak of a pension under public law.
However, if it is a profit-oriented public company, the pension benefit, as a pension under private law, is again taxed in Thailand (Article 19(2) in conjunction with Article 18(1) of the Treaty).
Actually not that difficult you would say, but in practice that seems to turn out completely differently and often with disastrous consequences!
The ABP and its participants
- The ABP was originally the pension fund for government and education.
- All educational institutions are required to be affiliated with the ABP.
- In addition, many privatized or privatized original government institutions are affiliated with the ABP.
- This also applies to many private institutions, which, as the former so-called B-3 institutions, are closely related to the government.
From 2010, private employers can also voluntarily join ABP for the pension provision of their employees under certain conditions. Organizations that have made use of this option include: Nuon, Essent, Connexxion, Ziggo and Veolia.
The ABP therefore houses a wide variety of organizations that fall under the government (taxed in the Netherlands after emigration to Thailand) and non-government (not taxed in the Netherlands after emigration to Thailand) sectors.
Public and special education
We all know the difference between public and private schools. For example, a public primary school falls under the authority of the municipal council (is government) while a special primary school, as an association or foundation, has its own board and is usually based on a certain religious belief (is private)
In addition, a teacher of a public primary school is employed by a 'local body governed by public law' (municipality). Although his initial unilateral appointment by the municipal council was converted into a private-law employment contract with the entry into force of the Legal Status of Civil Servants in Education Act on January 1, 2020, he still enjoys the status of a civil servant. As a result, this teacher builds up a government pension with ABP, which remains taxed in the Netherlands after emigration to Thailand.
However, this does not apply to a teacher of special primary education. This teacher has an employment contract to be concluded with the employee by the (private) association or foundation and therefore does not enjoy the status of a civil servant. In that case, he will not accrue any government pension and this pension will not be taxed in the Netherlands upon emigration.
This works from primary schools to universities. Consider, for example, the Rijks Universiteit Groningen (is government) and VU University Amsterdam (is private).
In addition, you may also have to deal with a so-called hybrid pension within the education sector, which is partly accrued within the government sector and no longer falls within this sector after privatisation. In that case, you must divide the ABP pension in proportion to the number of years of service.
Government companies
A special group is formed by profit-oriented public companies. Whether there is actually a profit or perhaps a loss in any given year is irrelevant.
We all probably remember the former provincial electricity companies, such as the PEB in Friesland at the time. They did not perform any task legally assigned to the government and can therefore be equated with an 'ordinary' company, ie under private law.
In the distant past, almost every municipality had its own 'gas factory/gas company'. You then bought coins at the office of the gas factory and you then had access to gas again.
As well-known examples from the present time, this category includes the transport companies of the municipalities of Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Employees of these municipal companies also do not perform a task legally assigned to the government and for that reason would already not fall under the scope of Article 19(1) of the Treaty, ie obtained from a government employment relationship. Nevertheless, it has been decided to express this clearly in Article 19, paragraph 2, of the Convention, which means that Article 18, paragraph 1, of the Convention applies to them and, after emigration, they therefore enjoy a residence in Thailand. tax pension from the ABP.
Organizational forms such as branches of service, which occur frequently in provinces and municipalities, and joint regulations, which you often find between municipalities, are not taken into account, in view of their great diversity and lesser importance.
Semi-government institutions
In addition, many former employees of semi-government institutions receive a pension from ABP that cannot be qualified as a government pension. After emigration, their pension is therefore not taxed in the Netherlands.
As examples I mention the former Bouwfonds Nederlandse Gemeenten (nowadays 'Bouwfonds' and no longer in the hands of municipalities), Bank (for) Dutch Municipalities (BNG) and the Nederlandse Waterschapsbank (NWB), until recently the UWV and the organizations from which the UWV originated and the Center for Work and Income (CWI), which merged in 2009 with the UWV and the SVB
As of January 1, 2020, employees of the UWV and the SVB, among others, will enjoy the status of civil servants under the new Civil Servants Act and will accrue a government pension from this date. When they retire, they then have to deal with a hybrid pension (partly private and partly government).
An important tool in determining whether a public-law pension exists
In addition to the usual government tasks performed within the national government, provinces, municipalities or water boards, the following downloadable overview of public law independent administrative bodies with their own legal personality established by or pursuant to law (a total of 57) and the overview of public law independent administrative bodies as part of the State of the Netherlands (20 in total), many more leads to assess whether there is a government employment relationship and therefore a pension under public law from the ABP.
Independent administrative bodies have a limited task in the field of implementation, advice or control. They are not under the administrative-hierarchical authority of a minister.
As examples of an independent administrative body under public law with its own legal personality, I would mention:
- Authority personal data;
- Central Administration Office (CAK);
- Central Bureau for Driving Skills (CBR);
- Statistics Netherlands (CBS);
- Social Insurance Bank (SVB);
- Employee Insurance Agency (UWV).
For a complete overview of these independent administrative bodies under public law, see: https://www.inspectie-oe.nl/toezichtvelden/overheidsinformatie/geinspecteerde-instellingen/publiekrechtelijke-zelfstandige-bestuursorganen
As a result of the Normalization of the Legal Status of Civil Servants Act (Wnra), employees of the SVB and the UWV, among others, fall under the scope of the new Civil Servants Act as of 1 January 2020. As already stated, they will enjoy a pension under public law from this date and will have to deal with a hybrid pension after retirement.
The importance of the service time overview of the ABP
If I have to file an income tax return for a client, where I see that this client (also) receives a pension benefit from the ABP, the first thing I do is to request the service time overview from the ABP. You can quickly deduce from this whether or not someone has a government job. In addition, my knowledge of administrative law, also known as administrative law and regulating the relationship between government and citizens, comes in handy.
The fact that not every consultant does this or has this knowledge has recently become apparent to me once again. In a short time, through an article I posted and through readers' questions and answers in Thailand blog, a number of cases were reviewed, which showed that the tax advisors in question had wrongly qualified an ABP pension as a government pension and therefore also taxed in the Netherlands after emigration. Incidentally, this is an annual occurrence. Usually this involves:
- former special education teachers;
- ABP participants who have worked for a profit-oriented public enterprise (Article 19(2) of the Treaty);
- ABP participants who have worked for a semi-government organization.
Whether this is a matter of laziness or ignorance of these advisers is of course difficult for me to judge. Incidentally, laziness and ignorance are very close together in this case. After all, laziness quickly leads to ignorance.
Closing comments
Do you (also) receive a pension benefit from the ABP and are you unsure whether this pension is being taxed correctly, please feel free to contact me at: [email protected]. Perhaps you too can save thousands of euros per year, as I often encounter with customers. And if it concerns several years, from 2016 you can still submit a request to the inspector for an official revision of the final assessments received for those years. A few years ago, for one of my clients, this already involved a refund of around € 30.000 in unduly paid income tax. And now the same thing happens again. If you then bring in such an amount as savings in Thailand and can live off it all year round, you no longer have to pay Personal Income Tax because the deposit of savings will then be repeated from year to year.
Lammert de Haan, tax specialist (specialized in international tax law and social insurance).
More information
Thank you for this contribution that can be of service to many people. Nobody likes to pay taxes, but paying too much is really a bridge too far!
Thanks for your explanation…. 🙂
Dear Lambert,
Thank you for the clear explanation.
Not seeing the forest for all the trees regarding taxes and the ABP.
I have now finally understood that there is nothing in it for me. I have always been a civil servant in the various departments. I never understood why one person was taxed and the other not the ABP pension in the Netherlands. And because of all the messages, there was always doubt. I will read the posts about the ABP pension and Dutch taxes on this blog with less interest or ignore them.
whoops
You're welcome, Janderk.
You now understand that there is nothing in it for you, now that you have a government pension. But actually I still don't understand. But that is on a different level.
I do not understand why you should treat the private pension of a former employee of Philips, who has devoted his entire working life to big business, namely the shareholders of Philips, differently from the government pension of a former employee. building and housing supervision officer of a municipality, who has devoted his entire working life to the community by ensuring that you could be sure that the house you were building met all safety requirements.
A properly assessed building plan seems to me to be worth more than a Philips shaver.
Ergo: why should you tax the ABP pension of a former public education teacher in the Netherlands, while the ABP pension of a former special education teacher is taxed in Thailand after emigration? Both forms of education are ultimately funded by the government.
I therefore consider this division to be the biggest blunder in Dutch tax legislation/treaty law!
And if you then live in Thailand, you 'may' pay considerably more income tax on your government pension than would be the case if you were still living in the Netherlands. Thailand then has no taxation rights. So you cannot use the Thai tax facilities, such as the various exemptions, reductions and the tax-free allowance.
While only the Netherlands has the right to tax with you, you also fall by the wayside with regard to Dutch tax facilities, such as tax credits and deductions.
You are simply the cash cow of the State of the Netherlands. While you live high and dry somewhere in Thailand, you contribute relatively more to the costs of strengthening the sea dykes than someone who lives in the Netherlands. For him or her, these activities are of the utmost importance to be more or less assured of keeping his feet dry.
Thailand also has its water problems. But because you already amply contribute to that of the Netherlands, you do not have to make an additional contribution in Thailand. Thailand itself is responsible for that.
And that is how the Netherlands has divided the affairs 'neatly': the benefits but not the burdens! Or is this not so neat?
Good morning Lambert,
I agree with you completely. I don't understand that difference either. Make a difference WHATSOEVER!!!!! hahaha. The same applies to your state pension. You also pay wage tax in the Netherlands for this. Retirees are already being hit hard. Why not give them that little advantage in the last part of their lives.
Greetings
Fred Ayutthaya
Perhaps it is due to the fact that most of the ABP pension (2/3) in government relations is paid from the state treasury and thus tax money from citizens, which is not the case with other employers.
namely the government employer 17,97% and you 7,93%.
Bye khun Moo.
That does not explain the difference in treatment of an ABP pension of a former public teacher and a former special education teacher. Both forms of education are funded by the government from general resources/taxes.
In addition, there is no Sinterklaas for the government. To continue with my earlier examples, a municipality sells building permits and Philips shavers.
The consumer pays the price for purchasing a shaver from Philips. In addition, the same consumer pays the price for purchasing collective goods and services from the government in the form of taxes and for purchasing individual goods and services in the form of fees.
The 'consumer' is always the end point.
Since a teacher of special education does not have an employment contract with the government, I would not see why he should be treated as an ABP government official for tax purposes.
For many, a pension has become so unaffordable.
A survey by asset manager BlackRock shows that 52% of the Dutch do not accrue a supplementary pension in addition to the AOW.
a lot to read but therefore very clear for everyone I think. Kudos !!
Hi Lammert,
totally agree.
And, given the procedure I won with regard to how the place of residence is determined, - and that is on the basis of Thai law and not by what the Dutch inspector demands and makes of it, -
then many people will be extra happy.
I also see that things often go wrong with protective assessments from the Dutch tax authorities with regard to, for example, annuity payments from the Netherlands.
That is also a point of attention.
Dear Lambert.
I already have ABP pension (partly from the government) since 2015, but I am not registered with the Thai tax authorities. Can I still request an ex officio review?
Hi Frits,
I understand that you enjoy a hybrid pension from ABP: part government and part non-government. The government part remains taxed in the Netherlands after emigration. Thailand may levy on the non-government part insofar as you have actually contributed that part to Thailand in the year of enjoying it.
Based on the service time overview of the ABP (which can be downloaded via 'My ABP'), you must then make a division into 'government part' and the 'private part'.
You can still file an income tax return or submit a request for an official reduction of the definitive assessments already established from 2016. If you have never had to file a return or have had a provisional assessment for years, then you simply file a return and otherwise you have to submit a request for an ex officio reduction of the final assessments already established.
You write that you are not registered with the Thai tax authorities. In other words: in Thailand you do not file a declaration. I can't judge whether this should have happened. However, this fact does not mean that the right to tax your private ABP pension will return to the Netherlands. .
Dear Lambert.
However, I think I'm too late now. After all, I cannot submit a “Statement of tax liability in the country of residence” over the past 5 years….?
That doesn't matter, Frits. When filing a tax return or submitting a request for an official review of final assessments that have already been imposed, you do not need to submit a 'Statement of tax liability in the country of residence'.
My private pension and my ABP pension are not taxed in the Netherlands.
I have been working in Thailand since 2006 and pay my wage tax and therefore also have a Thai tax number.
I applied for and received an exemption from taxes for my pension.
Chris,
that is correct insofar as you mean that the Netherlands may not deduct anything from those pensions, that the benefits agency may no longer deduct anything in the Netherlands and that they must be declared in Thailand.
You don't seem to have read Lammert's explanation….
Dear Cornelius,
I tell my story, how I arranged my early retirement. My wife has taught accounting for nearly 40 years. She knows the Thai tax law and the ups and downs of paying taxes by the Thais. Use it to your advantage. There is a lot to check in the Netherlands. They can't control much here. Almost everything that is government is chaos. Just look at the policy regarding Covid.As for state pension, is just information I have right now. It's my turn in 5 years. We'll see what it is then.
Greetings
Fred
This also applies if you transferred a private pension to ABP and then worked as a civil servant.
For me, 12 years of PGGM pension accrual contributed to ABP, ABP accrual 24 years.
2/3 of the pension benefit is taxed in the Netherlands and 1/3 is taxed in Thailand.
Albert, I transferred PGGM to ABP for 13 years. Until now, that distribution key has never been applied to tax between Thailand-Netherlands or now France-Netherlands. How much benefit do you get from it?
Because the income in the Netherlands is no longer in the highest tax bracket and you can use the necessary exemptions in Thailand, I save about 5000 euros per year.
Search the internet for “ECLI:NL:RBBRE:2011:BP7009” for the court ruling.
Hallo,
I think more. 400000 bath is already 10000 euros with the current exchange rate. and you also pay 3 or 4 percent less payroll tax.
Greetings Fred
Ayutthaya
In Thailand it is worth it. The wage tax is 3 or 4% lower and every Thai (and therefore also you) does not have to pay tax on the first 400.000 bath. That's even more from your retirement. How much I don't know now.. That's easily earned. You just have to put in some effort.
I now have my early retirement gross/net for 4 years. My retirement will last for more than five years
Greetings Fred
Ayutthaya
As a retired tax officer. Abroad in Heerlen, a big compliment for the clear and correct explanation with regard to the ABP pensions. Even employees of this service do not know how it works and provide incorrect information!!!
WHMJ, that doesn't surprise me.
I remember very well that 'Heerlen Abroad' wanted to introduce the remittance base (art 27 treaty) and obliged emigrants to have the pensions transferred from NL directly to Thailand, while the Supreme Court was clear about this. I stuck my neck out to an official of that service, don't name names, but it was a lady who didn't know how quickly she had to withdraw her 'cock' and admit her wrong.
An excuse? Well, that was not the point. A letter to everyone involved? They are still waiting for that. The remittance base is down, thankfully.
I understand that the tax authorities are undergoing a reorganization and that there is not enough real knowledge left. That is a pity for the citizen. We remember the surcharge affair that put a stain on that service. I have been a tax advisor for 50 years and have been able to work with those civil servants, but unfortunately I have also had to see that their knowledge of facts has seriously deteriorated. Unfortunately, the attitude 'we all know it, just accept it' has remained.
that's right. remittance does not apply to non-government pensions allocated to Thailand only for the levy.
G'day WHMJ,
Thanks for your compliment.
I share your opinion about the expertise on this point of the employees of the Tax and Customs Administration/Office Abroad. Even if they have access to the service time overview of the ABP, it is often not possible to make a proper weighting of the division into public and private-law pension, when different part-time factors and measurement values play a role.
I also want to point out the latter to 'do-it-yourselfers'.
For example, if you have worked in public education for 20 years with a part-time factor of 0,7303 (not full-time employment), this counts as 14,6 years.
If you have subsequently worked for 20 years in special education with a part-time factor of 1 (full-time employment), you will ultimately have 34,6 full years of service and you must divide the ABP pension into 14,6/34,6 government pension and 20/34,6. XNUMX private pension.
It becomes even more difficult if you have also received benefits from the UWV a number of times with different part-time factors and a measurement value of 50%. Then you are forced to work this out in a calculation program, such as Excel.
Thank you Lammert. It looks very professional and reliable.
I worked for an educational institution for 24 years. The first (approximately) four years as a government institution, then it became a foundation, so you could say: four years public and twenty years private. So a hybrid ABP pension, with the emphasis on private.
But now I thought I had heard somewhere that if an ABP career started public, it can no longer become private. So for me 24 years of public ABP pension, so fully taxable in the Netherlands. But do you think this is correct? It's not playing yet, but it's coming.
What you have heard, Eric, you must quickly say goodbye to, because nothing could be further from the truth.
In the 80s, a true wave of privatization took place in education in particular. Not all projects were equally successful. It has not infrequently been accompanied by a reduction in the quality of education.
But whatever the case may be, after privatization you are dealing with a hybrid pension: after emigration partly taxed in the Netherlands and partly taxed in Thailand. On the basis of the service time overview of the ABP (which can be downloaded via 'My ABP') you can quickly find out how to make the division. Do take into account a possibly different part-time factor (less than 100%).
That is true about the wave of privatization in education. Bizarrely enough, it was PvdA members who drove this privatization wave. I remember Ritzen, Wallage and finally Kok. It was Wim Kok who once let it slip that he didn't like the entire educational provision and would rather get rid of it. Including mass layoffs, of course. Thanks to privatization, those partial mass layoffs did happen anyway. I barely survived this period.
But your wonderful article is a valuable document, a showpiece here on the blog. I copied and pasted it and put it on my hard drive as a document, including WHMJ's meaningful compliment
If I can't figure it out in due time, I know where to find you and you can note me as a customer. Thanks again!
Hi Lambert,
Thank you very much for this explanation.
That's why I once checked my employment in education.
from February 1, 1978 to July 31, 1994 I worked at a technical school (was a foundation) = private
from July 1, 1995 to July 31, 2017 it was a municipal school (after merger) = public.
I have been living in Thailand since July and have sufficient balance in a Thai bank to meet the income / balance requirement of immigration and do not have to transfer any monthly amounts.
I will now live for the next few years from the profit of my sold house in NL and have my pension in NL paid into my current account.
After a year I can transfer an amount to Thailand, and then I think it's savings. Savings are not taxed in Thailand.
I then only pay tax in NL on my pension. Am I right? I read something like this on the blog once.
greeting
Ferdinand P.I
That is completely correct, Ferdinand, but most likely only comes into play from tax year 2022. I assume that you will not meet the days requirement for 2021. This means that if you still transfer income to Thailand this year, that income will not be taxed in Thailand.
Read what the Thai Revenue Department has to say about this on its website:
“Taxpayers are classified into “resident” and “non-resident”. “Resident” means any person residing in Thailand for a period or periods aggregating more than 180 days in any tax (calendar) year. A resident of Thailand is liable to pay tax on income from sources in Thailand as well as on the PORTION OF INCOME FROM FOREIGN SOURCES that is BROUGHT INTO THAILAND. A non-resident is, however, subject to tax only on income from sources in Thailand. ”
Incidentally, the double taxation treaty concluded between the Netherlands and Thailand assumes more than 183 days.
Ferdinand,
the treaty is decisive. Then it's about staying. If you stay in Thailand for more than 180 years, only Thai legislation is important. And it indicates what is stated above. You can use the dates of the entry and exit stamps as proof. According to the procedure won by me, that is sufficient. What else the inspector would demand is irrelevant.
At 180 days you are a resident and therefore you are regarded as a Thai taxable person.
On request, the Dutch inspector issues an exemption from withholding wage tax to the pension fund that does not pay a government pension.
With regard to request for ex officio reduction: if the objection period on the relevant final income tax assessment has expired, then only the request for ex officio reduction remains. The inspector will then make a decision whether or not to process that request.
The Treaty is indeed leading. However, the period specified therein exceeds 183 days. But that's just a minor thing.
The last part of your response in particular contains too many inaccuracies, imperfections or omissions to simply ignore it, Mr Gerritsen.
You write: “Once the objection period has expired, ONLY the request for an official reduction remains.”
That is not correct. If you are not such a good writer and you want to adjust your tax return, you can also simply submit a new tax return. See how to do that at:
https://www.belastingdienst.nl/wps/wcm/connect/nl/belastingaangifte/content/ik-heb-een-foutje-ontdekt
The resubmitted tax return is regarded as a request for an ex officio reduction and will be dealt with as such.
Your comment: “The inspector then makes a decision whether or not to process that request” suggests a high degree of non-commitment on the part of the inspector. Like: “It's Monday morning and I don't feel like it yet. Therefore, I will not consider this request.”
But that's not how it works The inspector is indeed bound by various statutory regulations, as prescribed in the Income Tax Act 2001, the General State Tax Act and the General Administrative Law Act.
Just read what the Income Tax Act 2001 has to say about this (if relevant):
“Article 9.6. Special rules for ex officio reductions
• 1 An official reduction of a tax assessment takes place exclusively on the basis of this article.
• 3 If the taxpayer has made a request for an ex officio reduction and that request is rejected in whole or in part, the inspector DECIDES this in a decision open to objection.”
“Definitely” is mandatory and not optional!
For the inspector, the decision period for a request for an official reduction is eight weeks. In other words: he must indeed consider the request and decide on it. In the event of a (partial) rejection of the request, his decision can then be appealed.
If the inspector does not fulfill his obligations, the taxpayer has various options, such as:
a. declaring the inspector in default, subject to a penalty;
b. the rules for filing an objection and ultimately an appeal due to fictitious rejection of the request.
Lammert, I'm glad you want to dot the i's and cross the t's again and again.
Although I understand that the profession has become so complicated that not everyone understands it; after all, the law is only 20 years young…:)
We almost agree.
Only if a final tax return has been submitted followed by a final assessment of which the objection period has expired, then only an ex officio request remains. After all, too late is too late.
In that late case, a new return for the same year will also be submitted outside and after the statutory period has expired and will be regarded as an objection, which is then too late. The inspector can then regard this as a request for an ex officio reduction.
Instead of a timely objection, a timely new tax return can also be submitted, which will then be treated as a timely objection.
And of course, the approach of an ex officio request by the inspector must be done carefully. That goes without saying. Your suggestive approach is at your expense.
And, as for those days.
The Convention states “For the purposes of this Convention, the term “resident of one of the States” means any person who, under the laws of that State, is liable to tax therein by reason of his domicile, residence, place of management or any other similar circumstance.” And in Thailand, under Thai law, the subjection arises at 180 days!!
It's just a trifle.
I was in Thailand in 2021 from 1/1/21 to 28/3/21 = 87 days
Now I went to NL in between and arrived back in Thailand on 28/7/21
from 28/7/21 to 31/12/21 = 157 days .. In total then yields 244 days .. so I will be in Thailand for more than 183 days this year.
Read the post and comments with interest. My question: Could there be discrimination here? One gets less rights than the other. Perhaps an idea to file a complaint with the Human Rights Council?