Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:33pm
Flattery will get you nowhere, but it's a good question, and I can only offer an opinion rather than fact.
Banks do an annual report to the tax office, and one of the things they have to report is whether or not an account holder is resident.
It's easy for banks to identify a resident, as all they need to do, even if a customer hasn't shown them a residency certificate, is to look at all the regular transactions on the account. In addition, they can look for the once or twice yearly resident tax payments. It's a long time since we did it, but anyone changing from an expensive non-resident account to a less expensive resident account may have to provide proof of residency.
It's not as easy to identify a non-resident, so banks have to obtain proof of this from the tax office.
If you challenged a bank, I think they'd say that the tax office charge the same for a non-residency certificate as they do for a residency certificate, so it's a level playing field.