Dogmatix

If the casino is really only 10% of the entertainment complex which will make such a huge contribution to GDP growth even without the casino, why not go ahead without the casino which is causing so much trouble?

While 31 March was the last day for filing PND 90 or 91 in hard copy, yesterday was the last day for filing online. Now you can still file for 2024 late and pay the fine but only in hard copy which is more of a hassle because the RD online system nowadays has a lot of your data already loaded, e.g. deductions for family and your insurance premiums, charitable donations and tax deductible consumer purchases. It also calculates the tax for you. I filed my own PND90 last week but filed for Mrs Dog, who is a Thai accountant but lets me do her tax, because tax is not her specialty or interest. As always her information that was not yet pre-loaded by the RD arrived at the last minute. After doing both PND90s with different types of income, I can confirm that absolutely nothing has changed in the system since last year, despite widespread speculation that the RD would update forms to allow for DTA claims. There is a box to tick, if you have stock dividends from overseas but that has been there for years. I have never declared any but I assume it is just there because there are no tax credits on foreign dividends, so the form for them excludes that calculation. It would be interesting to see reports of people who have filed PND90s for foreign income remitted to Thailand last year. It seems the only way to do this and claim DTA benefits if by filing in person at an RD office, assuming they know how to do, which seems doubtful in most locations.

The obvious problem is that, despite the fact the UK state pension had long been in existence when the UK DTA was negotiated, the British negotiators, unlike the Americans, didn't insist on the sole rights to tax state pensions. The fact that they did insist on the sole right to tax civil servant pensions made clear that was all they cared about. Now Brits are left scrabbling to establish some sort of equivalency based on the DTA that specifically excluded their pensions.

Yes, it is ridiculous. Trump is not terribly bright and doesn't understand economics and the people around him, except for those like Navarro who are as unhinged as he is, are playing an Emperor's New Clothes pantomime just to hold on to power and make money from using their inside knowledge of the next mad announcement to short markets. Goods are imported from countries that can produce them at the low prices that American consumers are willing to pay. It is not the producing countries fault that they are able to satisfy US commercial demands.

THAI was banned from flying to the US in 2015 due to its failure to comply with US safety standards. Are they flying there again now?

The US rejected Thailand's order for F35s, as it is considered an unreliable ally and the RTAF is planning to buy Grippens from Sweden instead. They can switch the order to F16s with the US kill switch in them and outmoded weapons systems like the ones offered to Egypt, so they wouldn't be too great a threat to Israel. But Egypt decided those were useless and cancelled the order in favour of Chinese fighter jets with all mod cons included. There is all no corruption money for Thai politicians on US arms. Buying from the US no longer makes sense for any ally except Israel which gets preferential treatment with the latest versions and never has to pay for the sales, which is why it has a trade surplus with the US in spite of the US's massive "sales" of weapons to Israel. Even Canada and Portugal which are allowed to buy F35s with kill switch installed are cancelling their orders. Thailand can import the chlorinated chicken that Trump ordered the UK to buy, even though it is more expensive than British chicken and the need for chlorination reflects the insanitary condition of US chicken processing. If Thais like chlorinated chicken, they will also enjoy the 150,000 tons of US grossly hormone fed beef that was just rejected and sent back by China for food safety reasons. Then there is GMO soy beans, wheat and rice. Trump actually complained that Asian countries refuse to import US rice. I wonder why. Thais should man up and buy US Uncle Ben's rice at vast expense for the good of the country. Thailand should also reduce 400% or so tax on completely built up vehicles and import lots of monster gas guzzling petrol driven pick-ups assembled in the US from Asian parts despite its own auto assembly business suffering. Locally assembled trucks will be more expensive due to the local excise and other taxes on them. Then there is also US wine, beer and liquor that could be made very competitive in Thailand without any taxes applied to them. Since cannabis is legal Ung Ing should also import loads of weed from California. Give daddy a blast and get him high enough to forget his killjoy approach to dopers. He might make better decisions, if kept stoned and stop coming up with ludicrous ideas like free handouts that have done nothing to stimulate growth. Yesterday Trump's trade advisor, the moronic Peter Navarro said the EU has got to give up its VAT taxation which, to Navarro, is a non-tariff barrier (or cheating in his words). So Ung Ing will have to ditch VAT or exempt US products from it, so they will have an advantage over domestic producers. It all looks pretty hopeless for Thailand. How can they negotiate with madmen making totally outrageous demands? Rather than groveling in this way, it would be better to stand up to a bully and join hands with ASEAN to retaliate. Navarro has already announced that reducing tarrifs to zero won't cut it. So what can they offer anyway?

I would argue that a state pension like the UK one that is not income from employment is non-assessable income in Thailand because, like Thai social security pensions, there is no mention of it under Section 40 of the Revenue Code that lists all types of assessable income. Of course, there were no Thai social security pensions when the RC was drafted and it has never been amended to include or to specifically exclude them. But a Bkk based British tax advisor at a well known firm told in a Q&A session that he or his people had asked the Thai RD about this and they told him that foreign state pensions would be considered assessable income because they would consider them income derived from employment, albeit indirectly. This is, of course, totally at variance with the RD interpretation of Thai SS pensions being not derived from employment and therefore not assessable, despite the fact that both are contributory pensions indirectly derived from work in exactly the same way. When I asked him how the Thai RD interprets Australian superannuation which can now be claimed by those who have never worked and thus not even indirectly derived from employment, he was stumped for an answer, as he had never heard of that. Bottom line is this in my opinion. There is no logical way a UK state pension can be considered assessable income under the RC, given that the The SS pension that has an identical structure of being indirectly derived from employment is not considered income derived from employment and therefore non-assessable. However, if RD officers individually or collectively decide that foreign state pensions are assessable just because all farangs are richer than them and their state pensions are much bigger than Thai SS pensions or some such nonsense, then that is the interpretation that will prevail, unless there is a ruling to the contrary in the tax court. However, given the pitiful value of frozen UK state pensions, it seems somewhat doubtful that any British pension will fund a case in the Tax Court. So the RD can do what it feels like. In fact the same applies to the RD's unilateral reinterpretation the RC to tax foreign income, regardless of when it arises which, should be amended by parliament, not the director general of the RD, if it needs amendment. That could be overturned by the tax court but no sign of anyone taking action there.

Stickman does appear to produce any evidence for his assertions.

In Western countries it is given to boys over the age of 9 because men get HPV related cancer of the penis and throat regardless of being straight, gay or trans.

Options to renew a 30 year lease are perfectly legal. The problem with them is that the Land Code only allows a lease of a maximum of 30 years to be recorded on the title deed and only leases that are on the title deed can be enforced by a court. That doesn't mean you can't sue the land owner for reneging on the options to renew but you cannot get a court order for the new lease to be recorded on the title deed and to evict anyone installed in the property by the land owner after the first lease has expired. But the owner could get a court order to evict you, once the first lease has expired. You could sue for financial damages though which would require an assessment of the financial damage incurred through the owner's refusal to agreed to a renewed lease at whatever price was in your agreement which may have been zero or a token amount, since all is paid upfront. That would mean suing for the cost of leasing another property for another 30 years. Other problems would be: 1) If the owner was a company, it might have gone bust or been dissolved 30 years after the original lease was signed. Even if still in existence, it might not have enough assets to pay the compensation ordered by the court and the process of enforcing seizures and auctioning seized assets is long and painful, even if you got a favorable court ruling. 2) The original owner, if an individual, may be dead and his or her heirs will not be bound by the option to renew agreement because they were not the parties who signed it. 3) The original owner, whether a company or an individual may have sold or otherwise reassigned the land. In this case the new owners are not bound by the option agreement. You can only sue the party that signed the agreement, if they still exist. So basically these options to renew, while perfectly legal, are not worth the paper they are written on and are a complete and utter con by developers, agents and lawyers.

I wonder how many get through with huge quantities stuffed in suitcases. Personal belongings must have been carried only in carry on bags. Fairly fresh weed has a very strong smell and dogs, even new trainees, would easily pick up that sort of quantity even if carefully packed up. The Thai authorities were probably tipped off anyway.

They definitely had enough to get suspended in Singapore. Lucky the Thais arrested them rather than let the Singaporeans get them.

Good luck in getting assistance from British Embassy or David Lammy. The latter is too busy figuring out how to brown nose Donald Trump after slagging him off repeatedly before he was re-elected.

That what lawyers do here. The missus took someone to court upcountry for land encroachment because they sold her their agricultural land and leased it back from her but stopped paying the rent and refused to vacate it or let the wife's new tenants work the land. She was countersued with a complete cock and bull story made up by a lawyer accusing her of being a loan shark but unsupported by any hard evidence. Luckily the judges didn't believe any of it and ordered the family to either start paying rent or vacate the land within 6 months.

Send him back to Switzerland with the dogs. I am sure Swiss police will deal with him more promptly than their useless, corrupt Thai counterparts.

Thai workers will be needed to build giant sized golden statues of Donald Trump iall over Gaza according to the blueprint I saw on video.

If you want peace and quiet the most perfect place to buy a condo is right in the middle of a red light district. I don't see how the cannabis is a problem for other residents or even how they know its there, unless they go into the units in question. Seems to be always used as an provable allegation in these condo rental accusations.

Yes. It is totally antiquated at the Land Dept with those ancient title deeds falling to pieces with many supplementary pages stapled on to accommodate loads of transfers. Lots of fraud takes place, including production of fake deeds for forest reserve land, much of it done by Land Dept officials.

RIP

There is an exact equivalent of a sole trader in Thailand. Not easy for a foreigner to do but the OP's wife could do it, if there were any advantage. Thais can just do any business, as long as it doesn't require a license, in their own name. Examples would be trading goods or operating or renting out a house or condo by the month or longer. There are licensing requirements for a hotel or guest house but this can still be done by a sole trader. You file a PND 90 tax return in your own name. Americans can operate sole trader businesses or partnerships under the Treaty of Amity and Economic Relations which allows them to operate any business structure that Thais can use but they need to apply for an alien business license. Non-Americans can theoretically get a WP as a sole trader because it is not specified in the law that the employer must be a limited company but Immigration and/or your local Labour office may not be willing to support this. Normally a limited company is the best choice, if you want a WP. Under the current Thai regime you can probably avoid filing for Thai tax on your UK business, apart from income earned from it that you remit to Thailand. Technically, if you are doing the work from Thailand, the income you earn from it is Thai taxable and you need a WP to do it. But in practical terms you wouldn't get a WP to run a sole trader business in the UK from Thailand. So it is probably better not to file for tax for work done that you don't have a WP for, as you may be creating the evidence for prosecution for working without a WP. A DTV visa should get you round the WP requirement but you would technically have to file for Thai tax on your income but you can claim double tax treaty relief on the UK tax. I think another option is just to get a spouse visa and don't mention you are working, since you are just quietly doing that at home. Then you are just liable for Thai tax on income remitted to Thailand, also subject to double tax relief.

Sounds like they only arrested them for overstaying, as they didn't catch them with any illegal dope. They will just be deported, if there is insufficient evidence against them.

The plod on the islands used to make a boat load of cash from importing and dealing in ganja. Busting their backpacker customers, shaking them down and reselling the dope. Legalisation deprived them of a hugely lucrative line. The new legit dealers who have taken away their business can't really expect the plod to get upset, if foreigners nick one jar of weed.

Buses are cheap in Thailand. Same price to males with long jihadi beards. He could try the old scam of getting an attractive girl to flag down trucks while he hides in the ditch or behind a tree and jumping out as the vehicle stopped. I was caught by that one in England once. 555

The law is, in fact, the same law that prohibits smoking tobacco or anything else in a public place, if it is causing a nuisance to anyone. You have to make the complaint that it caused a nuisance to you for police to take action. There is no specific law that prohibits smoking cannabis in a public place, despite assertions by police and government officials to the contrary. They say that just to scare people but cannot cite a cannabis specific law.

Also hard to imagine Yingluck in a cell and having her knuckles broken by a dyke warder's billy club.