stat

You can "invest" some "play" money in cambodia but not your nestegg.

BOI is not answering my email about tax exemption of unremitted income in 2025. So I guess there will be no gurantee that unremitted income will be tax free if ww taxation comes into existence. I would highly appreciate it if others were to ask BOI about tax exemption of unremitted income for LTR visa holders.

Do you really need a specific reasons to not trust an autocratic regime with an instable banking system? Ok here you go: https://countryeconomy.com/ratings/cambodia Nothing against cambodia and putting 5K in a bank there but that would be the maximum for any prudent person. If a developed country like malaysia imposed capital controls you can imagine what could happen in Cambodia.

We are talking about Guatemala, North Macedonia, Cambodia, Armenia etc those are the kind of countries that have not signed up to CRS/FATCA yet. I would rather pay taxes in Thailand then bank in Cambodia. I am talking banking and brokerage of course. Brokerage is usually non existing in those countries. BTW: Germany is a great country to bank, but a hellhole if you are a tax resident in Germany.

Then name a respectable country where I would like to bank that will not report a 2025 account. For Thais there was no tax to be paid on offshore accounts cap gains and interest in the past anyway. So come again what is ML talking about?

There is a long discussion in the LTR Visa thread if the LTR visa will really be tax exempt, if they introduce ww taxation as only remitted income is tax exempt by the royal degree. I have written several emails to BOI and so far I have not received a clear statement if non remitted income will also be tax exempt. If you want to remit every penny the LTR may be fine. If you keep the main part your money offshore (as every responsible investor would do, flag theories etc) it is unclear if TH will tax. Obviously the LTR visa would be the preferred solution if it really were tax exempt for anyone with 80K passive income per year.

Thx for your post! I think for the remittance part the accounting method is not yet decided or even though about by TRD. I highly doubt there will be any clarification let alone a crystal clear one. The only crystal clear solution would be to postpone or scrap the new directive.

This would more or less end the discussion I agree. TBH I have no idea how this ww taxation will play out. I do however think the yellow shirts will come to the rescue. Long live the king!

I would like to compare the scenario to the explosion of a nuclear power plant, while the likelihood is very very low if it explodes the consequences are catastrophic for some. If you have high cap gains the difference in tax payment is so huge that you have to be prepared. I agree with you however that the likelyhood of a worst case scenario taxwise in TH is low IMHO 10-20%.

It was pointed out that in the US one can self assess (Amazing to me as it is well defined in Germany what method has to be used ;-)) . It was also mentioned some hundred pages ago that in a different context (I think gifts) one could self determine the accounting method in Thailand. So again this topic is wide open if and which method could be used.

No one selected you (or me) to be the arbiter of anything or declare something argumentative. There are 2 different views in existence on remittance and you claim that the later one is correct (no connection to TRD as I am aware of) and the former from Sherrings wrong. Sherrings has actually spoken with TRD. Apparently there are quite a number of participants here who believe either view is possible or have different view which version is correct. However ML is the only one in this forum who is 100% sure about what is right and what is wrong.

There is a genuine misunderstanding here. You are talking about FIFO for the calculation of the gain in the shares. I am talking about what part of my proceeds are remitted to Thailand. If FIFO for the remittance is used the first monies that are remitted is my principal as it was first existent.

There was no one from TRD in that video you linked. Your tone is simply not acceptable for a member of this forum.

I was referring to Mike Lister that he is ignoring the statement from TRD not you, my apologies if I was unclear.

If you use FIFO in your example the first 20K would be principal i.e. tax exempt in Thailand when remitted. Other countries use all FIFO to my knowledge (US,UK, Germany etc). If that is indication enough for TRD to use Fifo no one knows besides a certain member of this forum.

These are 2 british tax advisors talking about mainly DTA. There is no one from TRD stating anything like you claimed. Again I do not state that the accounting method is x,y,z I simply say it is wide open and it is up to TRD. So pls enlighten us why you chose to completly ignore the answer provided by TRD themself in the sherrings document.

Can you kindly recall who from TRD made the statement that a pro rata method will be used? Thanks!

https://sherrings.com/foreign-source-income-personal-tax-thailand.html Question 7 answered by TRD themself. However who decides which accounting method is to be used has not been answered so far. This is why it is obvious that the tax document is simply wrong presenting the pro rata method as a fact.

So seriously you have one user report versus a direct statement from TRD and you discard the TRD official statement and stick with your one user report as a 100% proven fact? In addition you put the change in your "document" as a proof to support your argument?

So you do not have any document to back it up, that is exactly what I thought. Sherrings states as an answer from TRD that an accepatable accounting method should be used. So I do not understand why you present your opinion "pro rate method will be used" as a fact but based on your history I do understand.

I think you still do not understand that this is a debate forum and people need to make up their own mind as there is no final "answer". We are talking probabilities here not facts. Feel free to leave the debate as you kindly suggested!

I still do not understand why it is that Mike Lister can insult anyone on this forum without any repercussions so far.

Your statement "It cannot be claimed that the remittance contains just one or the other, it always contains both and this continues until the total amount is exhausted." is simply wrong. The method of calculation Lifo, Fifo or percentage are currently unknown. If you can use Lifo, principal comes first when transmitted. Sherrings states as an answer from TRD in question 7 that a generally accepted accounting method is to be used, that would/could be Lifo! Exampe you invest 100.000 USD and get 5000 USD interest. In case of Fifo accounting method you could transmit the first 100.000 USD without incurring any tax as it is principal. If Lifo is used you pay PIT on the first 5000. Only if a mixture of a capital and income is allowed/decreed as the accounting method the above statement from ML would be correct. However this method is rarely used Again the method used will be the key here, I explained this several times. Caveat is that TRD accepts your documentations, a big if. My take is still that TRD will let you self determine if you had any assesable income and in the case of capital gains you would be more or less tax free in most cases as you can transfer every cent of your principal before being taxed. If there has been a change and TRD announced which method is to be used please let me know.

Why would you pay your pension directly into your Thai bank account while being aware that this practice puts you at risk (I do not know for sure) of having to hand in a tax declaration? Why not season it? To be honest someone with more then 30 minute insight into the potential tax rammifications would have decided to send money via an offshore UK account. In addition you lose 1-2% minimum as you are a getting a worse fx rate by exchanging via a thai bank then via wise/revolut etc.

That is why I explicitly stated: In additions several sources claim that you will need a TIN for an extension in the future, but no offical proclamation yet.