Dogmatix

Gardasil 9 available at the Travel Clinic at Victory Monument with no age limit. The US CDC says it is only for those aged up to but there is no such restriction in Thailand, although the big private hospitals also say up to 45. The CDC's thinking is that is a waste of resourced to give it to oldies who have probably already been exposed to HPV already and older people might not live long enough to develop cancer anyway, since it develops very slowly. But with the 9 strain version, there is more chance to protect yourself against a strain you haven't already had. https://www.thaitravelclinic.com/cost.html

Reportedly the ruling said that the party posed a threat to the constitutional monarchy and national security by campaigning for the amendment of Section 112 of the Criminal Code. I may be naive but isn't drafting new bills and amending existing legislation actually supposed to be the role of political parties in parliament? There has never been anything in the constitution that says only certain clauses in statutory laws may be amended, while it is illegal to even propose amending others. Seems all very odd but ten I am not a legal expert.

It is a Tory law from Teresa May which should be scrapped completely or reduced to the level of the miserly state pension for a married person which the government obviously believes is perfectly adequate for a couple to live on. My nephew was unable to bring his Filipina wife to the UK due to this law after becoming unemployed overseas and unable to find a new job abroad.

The last para suddenly switched to talking about Settha’s case which the old charlatan Wissanu reportedly claimed would not attract any international interest (if he is binned by the constitutional court). It would of course be poetic justice, if a PM who was propelled to power as the nominee of a convicted criminal when the people voted for someone else were to be sacked by the court, but I think it would generate at least a smidgeon on international interest.

The bit of sheep’s intestine the haggis comes wrapped in makes an excellent, low cost re-usable traditional style condom.

See a doctor (urologist) for chrissakes. Liquid nitrogen removes them fast in the doctor’s office with minimal pain to genitals and wallet. Over the counter wart removers available in Thailand are of limited effectiveness and should never be applied to genital areas anyway.

T’would be a double jeopardy.

Definitely scared of debating with Harris. She will rip him to shreds.

The USA is a major participant in the war as the supplier of most of the Israelis’ munitions and the American hostages are also dual Israeli citizens and some are probably IDF reservists too. Thailand is in no way involved in the conflict and Hamas should have released the Thais long ago.

Complete BS.

It's probably illegal because you have produced an extract of more than 0.2% THC but I read somewhere a while back that police had been instructed not to prosecute for any cannabis offences in the current legal environment. I have never heard of dispensaries or individuals being prosecuted for that since June 2022. Those selling edibles might be low hanging fruit for the cops, if they were to prosecute. However, they would probably try to argue they had not produced extracts, as they just decarbed weed without using chemicals. Oil would be harder to defend.

Srettha is going to compete with Singapore and HK as a financial hub. It is so laughable it’s sad. Foreigners cannot set up asset management businesses and cannot be CEO’s of asset management companies. I doubt Srettha is even aware of this. He is just letting more hot air out of the balloon.

A few years ago they wanted to stop people making repeated trips on tourist or transit visas, whom they claimed were probably working illegally. Now they can't get enough of them and will even let them work without WP.

I don't know anything about the application of the HCCH in Thailand and it may not be relevant here anyway but Thailand doesn't have a uniformly good record on application of international treaties. I think the Foreign Ministry gets everyone on board to sign them for the sake of image abroad but when it comes to the implementation domestically by other ministries it may be a different story. A case in point is the Convention for the Reduction of Statelessness to which Thailand is a ratified signatory but flagrantly ignores its obligations under the convention by deliberately leaving a few hundred thousand minorities born in Thailand stateless, or makes it very difficult for them to acquire citizenship, even though most speak perfect Thai and have Thai names. A completely pointless policy that causes harm to Thailand and wrecks the lives of the minorities, motivated only by racism. Also in the old days of the international treaties that up until the early 1970s allowed foreigners among other things to own land in Thailand, the government was notorious for stonewalling applications to buy land in accordance with the treaties, even though they were and still are acknowledged in the Land Code. This discussion pertinent to the application of double tax treaties which Thailand accumulated since 1970s because the other states offered to negotiate them, even though Thailand has not had much use for them until now. Up until today none of them are acknowledged in the Revenue Code which creates difficulties in producing regulations for them. Thus there are none and probably never will be. I am sure that the RD will abide by the letter of the treaties but, since they are only bare bones with most of the important details open to interpretation and agreement between contracting states, abiding by the letter might not be very helpful.

If the poison was in their tea or coffee, Anutin should act swiftly to require permits for sale of tea and coffee throughout the Kingdom and assure Vietnamese tourists they are safe again, similar to his measures when a Chinese tourist was murdered at Siam Paragon with by a deranged teenager with a blank gun. He did a good job reassuring Chinese tourists they were safe by telling them he had required registration of blank guns and even BB guns. The message went out and owners of blank and BB guns were requested to register them but when the interest had died down, there was no follow up and, as of today, there is still no law or regulation to facilitate the registration of blank and BB guns. So it is not actually possible to register them.

My understanding is that the Thai civil courts would disregard any foreign agreement under foreign laws that overrode the provisions of the C&CC regarding division of Thai conjugal assets. But they only claim jurisdiction over Thai assets. Cases have only arisen in respect of divorces AFAIK. Interestingly there is a Supreme Court case where a farang paid for purchase of landed property by his wife and, despite the piece of paper signed in the Land Office agreeing that the property would not form part of the conjugal property, the Supreme Court ruled that the property did comprise conjugal property and ordered that it should be sold with half of the proceeds paid to the farang as part of the divorce settlement. So you can see that the Supreme Court upheld the provisions of the C&CC over the Land Code and the workaround of the prohibition on foreign ownership of land devised by the Interior Ministry to allow Thais married to foreigners to own land. So I am sure the C&CC would be upheld over any foreign laws or agreements.

Good point re Section 1471 of the C&CC excluding gifts from conjugal property. This is applied very easily to gifts of property but it is much harder to segregate gifts of cash. Section 42.27, in fact, gives exemption up to 20 million not only for gifts to spouses but also for support and maintenance " Income derived from maintenance and support or gifts". So what about remittances that are for support or maintenance which are not segregated from conjugal property in the C&CC? If your wife received a piece of land as a gift from her parents after you got married, it is very clear cut under the C&CC that when you get divorced, you cannot claim this as conjugal property to be divided up between you. But, if you paid her a million a month for support or maintenance, under the C&CC the cash and anything she buys with it are conjugal property. Even, if it was clearly in the form of gifts, it is difficult to segregate, particularly, if she has cash and income of her own. If she buys a house or a car with that money and you make use of them too, it would be difficult for the RD to go through the weeds to prove that this disqualified the tax exemption and I doubt they would attempt to. If you have children in common she uses your remittance to pay their school fees, the RD would have a hard job arguing that was the father's personal obligation only and anyway, if you paid them yourself, you would probably be paying out of conjugal assets. Furthermore a remittance used to pay your kids' school fees could also be argued to be a gift to your descendant relatives who didn't have the ability to pay the school fees themselves. Personally I think the issue of the exemption for support, maintenance or gifts to a spouse under 42.27 is not nearly as clear cut as some have tried to maintain by citing non-existent rules. It comes as no surprise that there are no cases to be found where the RD has challenged exemptions claimed by Thais under this section in the 9 years since the amendment.

The Revenue Code taxes pensions on the basis that they are income from employment. There is not a class of assessable income that covers pensions that are not income from employment. The Australian suparannuation is now payable to citizens who have never worked in their lives. The RD might claim that all foreign state pensions are income from employment and therefore taxable but that is not what the Revenue Code says and will therefore be contestable in the Tax Court.

I don't see how you can do that without trying to override the Civil and Commercial Code. You may keep property acquired before marriage but not after marriage. Thai lawyers may charge for agreements of that type but, if you tried to enforce them in court, the judges would strike them down. I was drinking with a Thai lawyer who did a lot of work with farang clients once including pre-nuptial agreements. Because she is female, it was her job to get the bargirls to sign on the dotted line without understanding what they were signing. But she admitted that the pre-nups were not enforceable in Thailand because they were a device to override the Civil and Commercial Code. They are only enforceable, if they give are more generous to the financially weaker party than the law provides, just like pre-nups under English law. These were simple boiler plate agreements and they made good money from them from farang clients who were not informed about the lack of enforceability in Thailand. However, they had a value in scaring ignorant Thai wives into believing they had signed away their rights and not going to court in the case of divorce.

I think it is important to point out that these are not rules derived from the Revenue Code or from case studies from the Supreme Court or the RD's own website or the Civil and Commercial Code. There is very little information or case studies on gifts, other than the bare bones section in the Revenue Code and the one case study on the RD website. It is up to members to decide how useful are purported rules that don't cite the references from which they are derived. The thing about gifts having to be connected to some special occasion is not in the Revenue Code but it is to be found in case studies. However, the case studies only stipulate the special occasion test for gifts to those who are not spouses or ascendant or descendant relatives. The case study about spousal gifts doesn't make this point at all. It is also logical that spousal gifts for the purpose of maintenance should be permitted but not to less immediate family or friends. Incidentally, no allowance is made for gifts to common law spouses and a case study specifically excludes this category of gift. The thing about gifts to a spouse being personal property of that spouse and not conjugal property is a pure concoction that has no basis in the Civil and Commercial Code or any case studies that I am aware of. According to the Civil and Commercial Code all assets acquired by either party to a marriage after the date the marriage was registered automatically become conjugal property. The only exceptions are income and gains derived from person property of either spouse that was acquired before marriage. One of the accountants from Mazars pointed out in a webinar I attended that the Civil and Commercial Code was in conflict with the Revenue Code regarding spousal gifts because there was no way to separate the gift from conjugal assets. This would probably have to be resolved by the Tax Court, if challenged.

I wouldn't recommend this. If she remitted the money to herself, it would not be considered a gift. In this case, half of the remittance is technically a gift and the other a transfer to herself but the RD might choose to consider all of it a transfer to herself. I don't know of any Thai cases where ownership of assets in joint accounts is considered by the RD but, in other jurisdictions the assets are deemed owned by the account holders pro rata. For inheritance tax which is a common area where jointly owned assets are taxed, this is usually the case. The US goes further and asks surviving account holders to prove they funded their share of the account themselves.

I came across the following Q&A on the UK HMRC community forum. It is a pity that the RD has not studied how the UK and other developed countries handle DTAs and the regulations and spaces on tax return forms they have developed to cope with them. Only a few months to do now and the top RD officials are just sitting on their backsides waiting for the deluge to hit their untrained and inexperience staff. Breathtaking negligence and incompetence! How to correctly enter US dividends in online tax return? Posted 2 years ago by I have >£2000 of foreign dividends and therefore need to fill in the foreign dividends online pages. The US dividends have been charged a 15% withholding tax at source by the US authorities since a W8-BEN has been filled in. How do I enter these dividends into the online self-assessment form? I understand I have to submit the gross dividend and the tax paid. But should I tick the "foreign tax credit relief" box or not? And it I did so, what is the correct rate of relief allowed? I cannot understand the guidance on the HMRC website. Thanks, David Posted 2 years ago by HMRC Admin 32 Hi, Article 10(2)(b) of the UK and USA double taxation agreement allows for both countries to tax the dividends and limits Foreign Tax Credit Relief for dividends to a maximum of 15%. Uk/USA Double Taxation Agreement - 2002 In the section of the online tax return for foreign dividends, you should enter a reference for the dividends (to help you identify them), the country they are from, the amount of dividend and the tax deducted. The special witholding tax box is for tax deducted under the terms of the European Savings Directive and equivalent third party agreements. This tax will be in addition to any foreign tax deducted by the country of origin of the payment. Please select the rate of 15% and then select yes to the Foreign Tax Credit Relief, only if you want to claim this relief. Click 'add'. Repeat this process until you have entered all of the dividends. You should complete all of the tax return before viewing your calculation. Take a note of the tax due on your dividends. The FTCR is up to a maximum of 15% of the tax deducted in the USA. Thank you.

You would just get a confused look and she would repeat her answer.

US porn producers often go to Brazil to shoot porn movies and the Czech Republic is a favorite destination for this too. I am not sure, if it legal in Brazil but I believe it is in the Czech Republic. Costs in those countries are obviously much less than in the US and Western European countries. Small outfits, usually individuals with a camera and tripod, come to Thailand to shoot porn and Thais post their own sex movies on Only Fans. It makes sense to legalized and develop something that already exists in a small way underground. Thailand certainly has a lot of movie "talent" that would be happy to earn extra money doing what they doing anyway. It also has nice locations to film, although not necessarily with action.

I agree and also feel sure he would have shared it with us, if there was severe pressure from one man who is still unhappy that his son became a coke head. He was parachuted in as health minister, despite voting for cannabis decriminalization when he was justice minister in the Prayut government, to replace the previous minister who was resisting that person's instructions and working on a bill to restrict cannabis use while leaving it legal, so as to at least allow the medical cannabis sector to develop without placing it under impossible restrictions.