KhunHeineken

I Googled it and the below link appeared at the top of the first page. Seems pretty clear to me. If you are a Brit living in Thailand, you are "domiciled" in Thailand. What argument could you make to tax authorities in the UK that you are "domiciled" in the UK, despite not returning to the UK in years? https://www.litrg.org.uk/international/residence-and-domicile/domicile "You will generally be domiciled in the country where you consider your ‘roots’ are, or the country which you consider is your long-term, permanent home. Domicile is not the same as nationality, citizenship or residence."

I'm interested in the words " tax years immediately before the relevant tax year." So, you are saying, an expat living in Thailand, who hasn't been back to the UK for years, is still "domiciled" in the UK.

If they make a TRD document a requirement for the annual extension, no need to "chase" anyone. It would bring the foreigners to the TRD. They will line up to be milked, but hey, there's no way the Thai authorities would have ever have thought of this idea. It's all speculation, scaremongering, fake news, my opinion etc etc.

Many on this forum see "gifting" as a loophole. It very well may be, and should it be, how long before they close the loophole when they see a high percentage of foreigners just remitting funds into their wife's / girlfriend's bank account and avoiding this tax?

Yes, that's it, but maybe next year you will need one more document, that document being from the TRD. I know, I know, rocket science. You can expect whatever you want, but TIT. What have those accounts got to do with remitted funds to Thailand? You are confusing remitted funds with world wide income. And your point is? In one post you are saying the Thai's couldn't organize a p*ss up in as brewery, therefore, there's no way they will be collecting taxes in 2025, and in this post you say you don't remit much money so will have little to no tax to pay. What's happened to them not having the ability to collect any tax at all? Again, your point is???? Do you have a link for this? Computer data bases will group all residents for tax purposes together. Obviously, the immigration data base will be the first, showing someone has been inside Thailand for more than 180 days in a calendar year. I accept some high net worth individuals may be selected for greater scrutiny, but a tax resident is a tax resident, and once over the threshold, there's a quid in it for Thailand, and I can't see them walking away from that money. As I have posted in the past, the tax clearance certificate that MAY be needed for an annual extension next year might be like the Certificate of Residence. It should be free, but most pay 300 baht for it. Maybe the TRD document will be a flat 500 or 1000 baht fee, no other checks made. Just a new earner, and the money goes all the way to the top. Who knows what will happen next year, but I just can't see it all disappearing.

Can you clarify who, exactly, you think is right, and who is wrong, and about what? Below is Andrew Rigney's basic CV. He appears to be well qualified and experienced. https://www.rbwca.com.au Andrew C Rigney B Com, Dip Law (LPAB) FCA Andrew joined the firm in 1998 while conducting his undergraduate studies at Macquarie University and became a partner in 2008. He is a tax and corporate business advisor across small/medium businesses, international subsidiaries and high net worth family groups. Andrew provides advice in all areas of taxation, structuring, asset protection and succession. Andrew’s client base covers a wide range of industries including medical, construction, professional services, the legal profession and the not-for-profit sector. Andrew holds a Bachelor in Commerce (Accounting) from Macquarie University and a Diploma of Law through the Legal Professions Admissions Board (formerly SAB). He was admitted as a Chartered Accountant in 2003 and advanced to fellowship in 2015. Here's Carl Turner. https://www.expattaxthailand.com MEET CARL TURNER Carl Turner is the co-founder of Expat Tax Thailand. With his extensive background in international personal finance, Carl is dedicated to offering clear, transparent, and tailored tax guidance. Motivated by a desire to simplify tax matters, Carl leads a team of TFAC-registered qualified accountants and dedicated customer support specialists committed to ensuring our clients receive personalised service that makes navigating Thailand’s tax regulations straightforward and stress-free. Can you post your qualifications and experience so your "opinions" can be assessed for accuracy? Could it be because, maybe, just maybe, they will actually have to pay tax in Thailand, thus, now need professional advice? I think you should watch it and read it again. No exemption for aged pensions. Some government occupational pensions are exempt, but not the aged pension. Remember, Article 18 relies on the provisions of Article 19, and Article 19 sets out government occupational pensions, not the aged pension. I've never accused you of lying, but I didn't see the screenshot. Can you post it again please? Sure. Go back in January 2024 and your answer MAY be different. "TIT" right? Yes, but they are YOUR "views" and "opinions." Can you post links, quotes, youtube videos etc from professionals that back up your views and opinions? Do you think your views and opinions hold as much weight as the many professionals that have been quoted on the topic by many members of this forum?

I'm Australian, not British. In relation to tax residency, where one is "domiciled" has nothing to do with citizenship, but has to do with where one has a "home" including utility bills, club memberships, community ties etc etc. I would find it hard to believe a Brit could say they are "domiciled" in the UK, just because they have a British passport, but haven't been back to the UK for several years, but hey, it's your story, do tell.

They organize your annual extension pretty well. Maybe wait and see how much next year's extension is going to cost you, in one way, or another.

Weren't you the one that said Thailand would NEVER legalize cannabis? No, but incarceration protects the community. It just cost money. Money that state governments are not prepared to spend. A lot of cheap "black" labor in privatized prisons. That's what they have achieved. Correct. However, it's not politically correct to be seen to be legalizing drugs, despite alcohol and tobacco killing more citizens than all illicit drugs combined. Correct, but insurance companies and other industries don't like this. They lose money, so they "donate" and "lobby" governments to keep the status quo. Kieth Richards from The Rolling Stones s a prime example. Australia, and I am sure many other countries, rely on the tax revenue from these legal drugs, despite both drugs killing a lot of people. Not to mention, the anti-social behavior alcohol causes. Funny how governments can "spin" the truth when company interests and tax revenue is involved.

It's all relative. City kids have more money, so the class of drugs they are involved with is different for them. The drugs ARE the "amusement" and it's not based on geographic location.

Watch between 16 minutes and 20 minutes. The DTA differentiates between government pensions and occupational government pensions. There is no exemption for government pensions, that's Centerlink pensions, in the DTA. Article 18 of the DTA relies on the provisions of Article 19, and Article 19 is about occupational government pensions. So, do these guys put "it to rest" or does the Pattaya Mail put "it to rest?"

That's a sound financial move, buying a property in Ratchaburi Thailand, but living in Australia.

No smart phones worked for the Taliban. They won the war without them.

Are they still allowing machines with TPM 1.2 to upgrade to Windows 11?

They will scoop up everyone, in one way or another.

You say this, but in many cases the physical presence and time based tax residency model repeals the domiciled tax residency model, but I hear what you are saying. Basically, we all need to accept that global taxation is changing, and in the near future there will be nowhere for anyone, or their money, to hide.

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?