KhunHeineken

How does immigration and the TRD know what an individual's tax residency status will be from the 1st Jan to 30th June, and / or the 1st July to the 30th June the following year? Think about it.

Whilst I tend to agree, many governments changed to a physical presence and time based tax residency criteria, mainly because many people were taking the p*ss out of the domiciled criteria. In a way, governments can't have it both ways, at law, mainly because, in general, the physical presence and time based model repeals the domiciled criteria. If one does not have a "domicile" in any country. Eg. own a property / have a "base" and that individual "moves around" in order to not be deemed a resident for tax purposes of any country, that's where the world wide income would seek to tax this individual, but it's not so easy for any particular country / government to deem them a resident for taxation purposes. That said, I do take your point. The day is coming when you will not be able to escape paying tax, somewhere.

I believe you are Australian. Correct me if I am wrong. Not all pensions are treated equally. Government aged pensions are not treated the same way as occupation pensions are in the Australia / Thailand DTA. Yes, the old Article 18 being subject to the provisions of Article 19 in the DTA. Watch between 16 minutes to 20 minutes. Quotes: "Aus/Thai DTA does not have an exclusion on Age Pension or Superannuation." and "Age Pension and Superannuation are assessable income if remitted to Thailand and taxable if remitted to Thailand are classed as assessable income." Are they wrong? If so, can you point out where in Article 18 and Article 19 of the DTA between Australia and Thailand where they are wrong? Go on the record.

I posted some time ago that the day MAY come where you see a "tax desk" at airports and boarders, in a similar way you see the "overstay desk." My post was the subject of some ridicule. As with many of these tax threads, most members are asking the question, "why would they" when they really should be asking "why wouldn't they?" Answer is: Money, Money Money.

Is it? Does your country offer a reasonable pathway to permanent residency and citizenship? My country does. Thailand doesn't. So, who really is xenophobic? As I have said before, you could have a wife, two kids, a house, a condo, 2 cars, 2 motorbikes, and a business, but you have ZERO more rights than someone flying in on a 60 day visa exemption stamp. No raging here. I have nothing I couldn't leave behind and head straight to the airport within the hour, if I had to, or needed to. That's by design. Thailand is not the be all and end all for me. I know it's terribly corrupt. Do you agree, or disagree? Go on the record. And even more examples of unjust outcomes. What's your definition of a "normal" case? Isn't a "case" a "case?" The fact that you say "normal case" show's you know the judicial system here is "abnormal." Certainly numerous cases where people have been screwed by the system as well. It would be a foreigner, as a test case, taking on the Thai government. At stake is billions of baht revenue, FOREVER. Seriously, who do you think will win, and even if the foreigner wins, they change the law for the next tax year. Simple. Your naivety is really raging now. Do try to remember where you are living.

I know.

Says you. They would not be "expats" any longer. They would be "tourists" with either tourist visas or coming in on 60 visa exemption stamps, paying their 1900 baht for the extension, doing a visa / cash run, and coming back for just short of the 180 days in total. If you call them "expats" from their home country, I would agree, but they can't be "expats" in Thailand when they spend more time outside Thailand than they do inside Thailand. Glad we cleared that up. And the truth is, one can say they are based in Vietnam / Malaysia / Bali / Cambodia etc etc etc etc and having a holiday in Thailand, and here some cash to support my stay. Maybe they will be done with the retirement visa, and will spend pull out their 800k or 65k each month and spend it elsewhere for 6 months of the year. Their passport will show this. It would be possible if one was living in Thailand on zero remitted funds. I could accept some type of "crackdown" in the future. For those that decide their tax liability in Thailand is not worth it, and they decide to do 179 days in Thailand each year on tourist visas, I can't see any breach of the law bringing in cash. Many would already have a Thai bank account. They would remit just under the taxable amount, and the rest can be cash. Yes, they can. The answer would be I remit some money, go traveling and bring some back with me because I get a better rate elsewhere. You don't to tell them it's a better tax rate and not exchange rate. Completely agree. I brought this point up in another post and a member point blank refused to believe that by remitting 1 million baht to buy a new car, if that 1 million is taxed, the car has costed him more. Same example with condo, and emergency serious and major medical treatment. I hear what you are saying. Yes, it may push the boundaries, but on the balance of probabilities, getting prosecuted would be slim. That said, as I mentioned to another member, they do like to make scapegoats here to send a message to others, and since money is involved, anything is possible.

Financial harassment. The cash cow is getting milked dry.

I simply don't believe you would, and I suspect many others are the same. Even if you won your case, which I highly doubt, due to the corruption and dislike for foreigners here, you don't get your extension next year, and have to leave. No reason given. You have no rights to stay here anyway. Would you appeal that also? You can post on here all your knowledge of western country tax law, but as someone on nothing more than a 12 month tourist visa, taking on the establishment is something that would come with consequences, win, lose, or draw. Only someone with a lot of money to burn, and who has also given up on Thailand, would try such a thing, and even then, what's the point, you are leaving anyway?

Correct. For me, I go to the Singapore F1 every year. Depending what happens with this policy next year, I will use that trip to be under 180 days in Thailand, and under 180 days in the other country I chose, should I decide Thailand is no longer worth it to me to remain a resident for tax purposes. For others, it could be exploring some cities and towns in a neighboring country for the correct amount of days to remain a non tax resident of both countries.

Sure you would.

Incidentally, for the many that may chose to do 6 months in Thailand and 6 months in a neighboring country, they very well could move to tourist visas in order to do so. That would see them being a tourist bringing in cash. What law have they broken? As for the expat, if their cash runs are done in the first 180 days of the calendar year, how do they know how many days the person is intending to stay in Thailand that year, thus making it "tax evasion." One could say, "I am only doing 179 days in Thailand." What law have they broken bringing in cash?

I would like to see what the Thai government does to the first farang to take them to Court over it. You never answered the question, would you be willing to do it?

Are you, or will you be, a tax resident of Thailand in 2024? That means, will you stay inside Thailand more than 180 days in the 2024 calendar year? If so, how can you make such a guarantee? If not, you are not really an expat, are you? Depends on whether or not you will be taxed by Thailand in 2025. Need more information on the above question first, but should one be taxed on bringing in a lump sum to buy a car, and that money will be taxed in 2025, the car has costed them more. Simple as that. However, I see you are now back flipping saying you will be paying no tax next year. If you are a non resident of Thailand for tax purposes, then I agree, but if you are a tax resident, which is the point being discussed, and your remitted funds taxed next year, then I disagree. The money needed to buy the car attracts tax, thus making the car purchase more expensive, not at the point of sale, but at a later point in time.

Yes. Two reasons. 1) I didn't have to. 2) I have no rights here, so why would I volunteer to pay tax as if I was a Thai citizen?

Thailand has people from many different nationalities living here full time. Most are retired expats. The majority, including myself, derive an income, and that also could be a pension, from their home country. The majority have never paid 1 baht in tax here, other than VAT, and some property taxes. Like I said, all you have done is make a "donation" to Thailand. Do you want a medal? I'm not poor, but not stupid enough to pay tax when I don't have to.

Do you think your personal circumstances are indicative of the majority of expats living here? How many expats have ever paid a baht of tax in Thailand before? How many expats have filed a tax return in the past? Not scaremongering. If the TRD tell them they have to pay "X" amount, how many of them do you think have the courage, and financial means, to appeal, all the way to a Thai Court, to have pre 2024 "savings" recognized as being non taxable, for example? I am suggesting people will just shut up and pay up.

Not really. One can have all the money and bank accounts their want. They can have multiple properties, a couple of cars etc etc, just don't stay inside Thailand for more than 179 days a calendar year. Find a second home in a neighboring country for the other 6 months of the year.

The whole discussion is about the ifs and buts. We all don't know what will happen after the 1st January 2025. No harm in discussing all possibilities. It's the Thai way to make a scapegoat of the first person that goes against the system. Do you have the moral and ethical fortitude, and the financial means, to take the TRD on in a Thai Court, whilst hoping for a fair hearing, with the eyes of the world watching, or will you just shut up, pay what they say you should pay, and go along like a good farang? Who's willing to risk it all and be the test case for all farang going forward? Are you up for it, CM? No, I didn't think so.

So, what do you think will be their threshold then? 1 million, 2 million, 3 million, 4 million, 5 million baht? Who sets the figure of what will be chased and what will not be chased? Given computers will be doing all the work, why wouldn't they chase every baht off every person, just like western countries do? I have posted a youtube video about the myth that a DTA only ensures your money is taxed in one country only. I suggest you watch it.

At the same time whilst it's generating a new revenue stream, which did not exist before.

So true. One either accepts it, or leaves. At least with the Thai tax law you can do 179 days, basically 6 months a year inside Thailand, and have no tax residency issues. The certainty of this is good for planning a strategy.

She may or may not remain as the head of the TRD, but the easy money that's just sitting there waiting to be tapped will still be there, no matter who is in charge, and it will be too tempting, and too easy, for whoever is in charge to walk away from it.

I understand what you are saying, but in the near future, and that does not mean next month, most countries will go online with similar laws, and taxing world wide income. Basically, it's becoming more and more difficult to be a tax resident of "no where." Should they "change destination" it's only a matter of time before they face a similar issue elsewhere.

Thailand has no proper pathway to permanent residency for foreigners. What does that tell you? Dual pricing has been in Thailand for decades. Yes, it's discrimination. Do you think they care? Big announcement to make without a plan, don't you think?