jacob29

We can infer there's external pressure from EU and US on this, so it stands to reason it will be implemented similar to how it would work in EU countries. Which means it's not demanding tax on already taxed income, but income earned **while** you're a resident. With the benefit of only taxing what you bring in (instead of just taxing worldwide income, which is what every other country seems to do) They're almost certainly not, I would bet money it's going to borrow heavily from what most other countries do already. Most countries tax worldwide income regardless of whether you repatriate it, making it more favorable than basically every comparable country in the region (e.g. Vietnam or Indonesia, Singapore is not comparable).

Most other destinations require tax as well, so where are they going to move to? Ecuador? The Philippines is the only regional alternative I'm aware of, but that's an acquired taste, I don't see an exodus there. Not to mention many (most?) digital nomads already pay tax somewhere, making this a non issue since it will almost certainly be covered by DTA agreements.

It seems unlikely those remittances would be treated any different from Indonesia, Vietnam etc in terms of DTA. At least they haven't given a reason to suppose the treatment would be any different. They should have provided more clarity to this effect, but it's not so unusual for tax department the world over to be a bit hazy on specifics.

This is ridiculous, it's looking like the tax will be less than just about every other country in the region that simply applies tax on worldwide income (I think Philippines is the exception). Thailand won't be any worse off than other countries in the region.

This tax appears less aggressive than both Vietnam and Indonesia, who will simply tax you on worldwide income whether you remit it or not. While not confirmed yet, pretty sure your tax obligation will be less in Thailand, and I think tax brackets are lower to boot (not sure if still true, but last I checked, tax brackets in Thailand would have you paying a few percent less tax).

Of course not, using cash is not tax evasion either - even though it's commonly used to facilitate it. Under reporting assessable income you believe the tax dept doesn't know about, is tax evasion.

Probably not, but this is a problem either way, and is more of a secondary consideration - for which there are established protocols (they shouldn't have to invent any new procedures, given all countries face this challenge). I'm thinking of a slightly different situation from what you had in mind though. Where someone has savings accumulated over say a decade - and then become a Thailand tax resident and begin generating foreign income. I don't believe they will be able to repatriate money and claim it was from accumulated savings (rather than the assessable foreign income showing up from years during which they were Thai tax residents). If that assessed income has tax paid on it already, I agree there will be ways to show that.

It's likely the same as any other country with a tax on worldwide income, the same rules would apply. Which means you don't pay tax on assets, though you may be liable for capital gains.

Proving money has been taxed is a compliance headache they may not want to deal with. That would require them to track what has been taxed, and make sure you don't claim against it twice. It would be much easier to aggregate the CRS data (worldwide income), data they have and can trust, and simply match remittances against that. That would make it effectively the same as other countries systems, with possible reduction in tax liability if you don't remit the full assessed amount. Which means no new special compliance techniques have to be developed, they can apply existing systems that other countries use.

That's nothing to do with assets though, you're talking about income and tax status on that income. I agree this is a tentative first step towards regular taxation on worldwide income. There seems to be a lot of people concerned this change will trigger tax liabilities even worse than tax on worldwide income implemented by other countries, and I think that's unlikely.

I think it does, as I don't think this tax will apply to assets in the way some are thinking. It's probably going to be the same as a global tax on income (like pretty much every other country in the region), with the added 'perk' that if you bring in less than you have cumulatively earned abroad *while you are a tax resident*, you don't have to pay tax on it. Mind you, the fact they haven't made clarifying statements and provided concrete examples is kind of baffling lol. It doesn't make sense to tax assets though, that would make it one of the worst tax regimes in the world. Does it really make sense to go from one extreme to the other?

This sounds like tax evasion, with a very obvious electronic footprint. I find it highly unlikely countries don't have the means of monitoring these currency flows, all electronic methods are surely tracked for money laundering reasons.

My expectation is that they will tally foreign income earned *while* you are a Thai tax resident, and any future remittance below that threshold will be considered as income. At least it's the only way I can see it working. Which makes it effectively the same as tax on worldwide income (at least not more), where you can get away with less tax if you never in future bring in more money than you earned abroad.

If it's never remitted it seems it won't ever be taxed. I highly doubt they will allow someone to decide whether a specific transfer is of past savings or assessable income, as I don't see how that's workable. I expect if you had past assessable income (e.g. earned while a tax resident) it will automatically be applied to any remittance. They will need to confirm this, but I don't see how it could work any other way. In effect it aligns it more closely with other countries in the region. (except Philippines), where foreign income is taxed, with the caveat if that money never comes into Thailand, it remains untaxed. A lot of people are discussing ways in which this change would tax people more than a country that simply taxes worldwide income (most countries), which I find highly unlikely.. as I don't think any country does this. It makes more sense that at its worst, you're taxed on full worldwide income like other countries do, while at best if you never remit more than you earned, that offshore part remains untaxed.

The order doesn't exactly say that. It appears to classify taxable income, as income earned abroad *while* you were a tax resident in Thailand. Not once does it use past tense, income earned before you were even a tax resident of Thailand. It explicitly states the opposite, foreign source income earned *while you are a tax resident*, will be taxed in future (without limitation) at the time it's remitted to Thailand. In practice, and grandfathering aside, I expect it will mean from the point you become a tax resident, tax on remittances will be capped to whatever accumulated foreign income they have on record (from CRS) from current or previous years in which you were a tax resident. If you exceed this amount, it's not taxable as you weren't a tax resident, thus it wasn't assessible as per the order (given the order makes no mention of income earned while you were a non resident).

Thai source income has always been taxable, regardless of whether those funds were repatriated. For obvious reasons as well, since otherwise employees could just set up offshore bank accounts to receive salaries for their Thai jobs, to avoid tax (which obviously wouldn't work).

Your home country doesn't ask if you've been taxed already, this is definitely not the usual way tax works. They will see the income from abroad (through CRS), and if you're a Thai tax resident during that same period, presumably they will want tax for money coming into Thailand.

The work is not being done *by* the servers though, otherwise they wouldn't need the employee in Thailand would they? The work is being carried out by an entity in Thailand. California has the same rules. If you're a US citizen working remotely in California, you pay state taxes regardless of where the employer or servers are located.

No you implied their statement doesn't apply to online work ("the OP was asking about online work"), which is nonsense. It applies to all work carried out within the borders of Thailand online or otherwise, and the 'digital' in digital nomad visa confirms this. For the sake of clarity, since you seem intent on muddying the waters - doing work online inside Thai borders for a foreign company, is considered Thai source income. That is what the OP asked, and that is the answer. Revenue department doesn't seem interested in pursuing it, which has already been clarified.

The OP you quoted made no comment on enforcement, and strongly hinted there is none. So no, he was not incorrect on every level.

They are exactly correct, if it was as simple as being paid by a foreign company, local Thais could easily avoid tax obligations by receiving money from shell companies set up abroad. Clearly it doesn't work like that. Even so, odds of prosecution are effectively zero as there's no visible signs of attempts at enforcement.

Thailand has a digital nomad visa for high earners, and they explicitly state you are liable for tax - even though the visa explicitly requires it to be remote work for a foreign company. The definition as per Thai revenue department is pretty clear on this, if it was not taxable income then digital nomads wouldn't be offered a flat 17% tax rate.

Never seen a tourist get abusive towards an immigration official, so yes it's fair to say there's a lack of tourists being abusive in this environment. They know the stakes are too high. What should happen is not the question, it's what can happen. In a neighbouring country I've seen someone denied entry for less, and I have little reason to believe Thailand would be different. I imagine those denied for having dodgy volunteer visas, didn't have that as the official reason either (as that would admit wrongdoing, and potentially trigger investigations).

What reason do you think they would put for being abusive? You aren't seriously suggesting someone abusive wouldn't face high risk of being denied. That aside, suspected breach of visa conditions is a reason (e.g. not a tourist, which is very broad).

They don't need hard evidence, it's the same with immigration in most countries, relying on discretion. The clearest example would be swearing at the immigration official - not a 'legal' reason to deny entry, but odds are very good you're getting denied.