Dogmatix

Funny there were no pics of him arriving at the Police Hospital the night before his release.

No, It was the bit in the RD case study where they suggested that rules for asset declaration by political office holders required them to report assets and liabilities of live in common law spouses as if they were lawful spouses. The RD said that these rules implied that Thai law could recognize common law marriage which might be relevant in the tax case i.e. allowing a 20 million exemption of common law spouses. I didn't go into detail on this, as I thought it convoluted and not something that farangs could put any faith in. But the confirmation of that overseas remittances from foreigners to Thai spouses count for 20 million exemption is positive in my view.

Complaints by non-users of alcohol and tobacco and many other things are not taken seriously. So why should complaints about cannabis result in a ban for another few decades. It was only made illegal under American pressure as a condition of aid. Hardly any aid comes from the US now which is in the process of legalizing.

Not two PMs - just one. Thaksin will call the shots. Srettha will either step aside completely to make way for Ung Ing who will let her father decide everything, or will just continue racking up air miles to sell land bridges and stuff.

Re gift tax. This RD case from Feb 2023 may be of interest to anyone thinking of using gift tax exemptions to remit funds to a spouse https://www.rd.go.th/64926.html. I have saved and attached the Google translation which is quite readable The is actually designed to clarify that remittances to an unmarried partner or common law spouse are not exempted from gift tax (or may be in certain circumstances). In the process of clarifying this, the case write up makes clear that, if the foreign man and his Thai spouse had been legally married that the remittances to from overseas from human to wife would have been exempt from gift tax up to 20 million in one tax year. I know some people were looking for confirmation that the gift tax exemption up to 20M p.a. for spouses applied to transfers from abroad from foreigners. Of course there is nothing in the wording of the Gift Tax Royal Decree about nationality of giftors or provenance of gifts but it is nice to have this actually confirmed by the RD itself. ' I think it is worth putting as the comment on the remittance instructions "Gift to spouse". A simple agreement between spouses acknowledging the giving and receiving of a gift might be worthwhile, perhaps drawing on the wording of the definition of an irrecoverable gift. It might be OK to only draft this, in the event of an RD inspection but it is not too much trouble to draw up, just like a simple receipt. Whether some or all of this money comes back to the giftor is a grey area. It could be argued by the RD that any part of the gift that is returned to the giftor makes the original gift not an irrevocable gift under the Civil & Commercial Code, so that it should be subject to income tax retroactively. However, this is complicated by the fact that under the Civil & Commercial Code all assets acquired by either spouse after marriage are considered joint conjugal property. There is also no specific prohibition on the recipient spouse making another gift of some of the cash to her spouse later. She could, for example, use the gift to buy some property and later gift some or all of the proceeds to her spouse. If it were profit on the sale, it would be new money as well. Basically the spousal exemption on gift tax is at variance with the concept of joint spousal property and spouses may be allowed to shuffle cash between each other freely as long neither receives more than 20 million per year. Most likely the gift tax loophole with come under attack sooner or later, since, along with inheritance tax it has raised very little revenue. Srettha cited this as a cause for concern when he took office, although he seems to have delegated the finance ministry to his deputy, while he goes on never ending roadshows. Even though the Prayut government claimed inheritance and tax levels were only intended to be "symbolic", it is easy to see how the original low levels could turn out to be just the thin end of the wedge, as thresholds get ramped down and tax rates ramp up. Gift Tax Case RD KK0702-530 11 Feb 2023.docx

The PM is busy trying to please his master by making great efforts to sell the unviable land bridge to foreigners (to get big consulting contracts) and get the digital wallet done, which will probably tie him up in legal knots and pave the way for the master's daughter to step in.

I wonder how the new buyers will feel, if they inadvertently spend over 180 days in Thailand the year they buy a condo and end up paying 35% tax on the remittance plus penalties and interest for not declaring it. The money laundering strategy of coming to Thailand and dumping black money into Thai condos won't look so great then.

The talk of Thaksin's plans to have his daughter replace Srettha is growing so loud that one wonders why Srettha doesn't just quit. He has no following in PT, so can do nothing domestically which explains why he flies around the world continuously on pointless roadshows like his former gf Yingluck was made to do to keep her out of the way. It seems that Thaksin is keeping him on as a useful idiot to let him take the hit, if the digital wallet blows up in their faces. Otherwise he can't wait to get out of hospital and have his daughter installed, so that he will effectively be PM again.

This ridiculous rule was a revolutionary decree in 1972 from a military junta that seized power in an illegal coup. It was enforced at first and then ignored until the first Thaksin regime decided to dust it off as part of its social order campaign. The government shouldn't have the slightest hesitation in scrapping it. If they are so keen to have tourists plastered all day long, they should also continue to allow them to be stoned all day long and not go ahead with another ridiculous plan to walk back some but not all of the cannabis liberalisation. I think police stings to extort money from tourists for recreational use of cannabis in private will go viral on social media, like the Taiwanese gal who was shaken down for having vapes which are only illegal in the sense that import duty as not been paid on them because imports are illegal. Two many pointless laws aimed at generating backsheesh for cops already.

I think the situation is that the RD requires any tax resident with over 120k in income to file a tax return but it is rather pointless because the tax threshold starts at 150k plus a 60k basic allowance. So it is not enforced. I am not sure what law or regulation requires this but it is to be found on the RD's website without cited any legislation to support it. Thus I don't know, if there is any penalty for not filing a tax return for those who have income over 120k but not enough to pay tax. I don't think so and this regulation seems not to be enforced. AFAIK there are only penalties for not filing tax returns and paying tax on income over the threshold and allowances. Re DTAs I have heard from professional tax advisors that claiming tax credits from corporate income tax under DTAs can be a complex and costly business. The RC doesn't ever specify that DTAs are applicable to PIT but there is a ruling to that effect. So perhaps it is unsurprising that there is no space on the PND 90/91 forms, as this is unsupported by any section of the RC which is always referred on the forms. You say the reinterpretation is intended to tax corporate and personal income derived from funds that originated in Thailand. This is not an issue in the case of corporate income tax because companies already have to pay tax on income arising overseas whether it is remitted to Thailand or not. However, most Thai companies do not have income overseas in their own names. They have income in overseas subsidiaries that is taxable in their country of domicile, while dividends remitted to the Thai parent are taxable in Thailand but subject to DTAs as they usually taxed in the country of origin. There are other cases like Thai companies earning capital gains from investments in businesses overseas that they sell for a profit. This has always been taxable. Also where tax companies own property overseas.

Offer visa free travel more small countries like Kazakhistan, Nauru and Micronesia and the problem will be solved forever with no need to improve the air quality.

Got stung by a jelly fish in Hua Hin. I didn't see it, so have no idea what type it was but it also felt like an electric shock and I collapsed in the sea, as I was waist high. It hurt like hell for 24 hours and was then septic oozing pus for 3 months, eventually leaving a scar behind. I don't know if it was a box jelly or not but it might have been, even though I didn't pass out or feel it was life threatening. Previous jelly fish stings just felt like an irritation in the sea that got worse over a few hours but very low intensity compared to the one in Hua Hin. After the sting a lot of people told me about others who had been stung badly in Hua Hin. One guy's little girl got such a bad scar on her stomach she wouldn't wear a bikini when she grew up. Another girl ended up with a scar on her face. Anyway Thai waters are infested with various species of jelly fish, as well as sea lice, some of which are extremely dangerous. Better to use the swimming pool.

This was a smoke screen from Anutin. He kept insisting that over 0.2% would still be illegal without saying that only referred to extracts. The majority of Thais understood that referred to everything and buds would be illegal which thinking how it would be possible for there to be any business for shops and growers like that. Newin's daughter already had a huge plantation and was talking openly about selling for recreational use. Daddy, Anutin's boss, would not have been happy, if she wasn't able to sell all the bud she had prepared for market.

In the public hearing, one of the weed shops owners argued that someone with a prescription who took it for say back ache was able to relax after dealing with the back ache and so it could be construed as recreational use because he couldnt relax without it.

It is not very clear how this is supposed to work. I couldn't find the clause in the draft that says you need a medical prescription but it is clear enough there will be a fine up to 60K for recreational use and up to a year in jail and/or a 20k fine for DUI of cannabis - limit and testing procedure unspecified. However possession of any part of the plant except extracts over 0.2% THC remains legal but you are not allow to use it, unless you have evidence of medical use. So the cops will have to catch people actually consuming the cannabis recreationally, possession not being criminal. You say you just like the smell and you keep weed in the house like pot pourri you remember from your great aunt's musty old house. Smoking anything in public so as to cause a nuisance to other people is illegal under the Public Health Act but there needs to be a complaint and I think the fine is only 10k. There is nothing on this in the Cannabis Bill. It seems like they have to catch people in the act of smoking and fine them for doing it recreationally. But as he says, this would be mainly an opportunity to shake down backpackers. Most Thai stoners will not have much money to pay the cops and the fine for a first offence is not likely to be more than 10k. I don't think they can detain offenders for an offence that is not even imprisonable. Very hard to catch people who ingest it. Extracts over 0.2% may be illegal but if people avoid extracts and only ingest decarbed weed, pretty difficult to catch them.

First of all Chlonan is a Thaksin lackey and Thaksin waged the war on drugs to get revenge on his son's dealers and is still down on drugs, even relatively harmless ones. Secondly they hope to get political credit from voters who are brainwashed against "yaa septic" (narcotics).

Stolen from them by Thaksin who sold out to the military in order to come home without having to go to prison. Without Thaksin the military had no way to steal the election and they are only a small part of the government anyway.

There is some data on this. A rich guy's son did a hit and run on a female Cambodian migrant worker in his sports car. The woman was decapitated by the impact and her torso went through the windscreen and ended up in the passenger seat. Still the rich kid didn't stop and drove off with a shattered windscreen and the headless corpse of the woman for company in his passenger seat. I am pretty sure he got a light sentence.

"It is a decision about the kind of democracy Thailand aspires to be—one where the rule of law prevails over political maneuvering. For the sake of our nation’s democratic integrity and commitment to justice, Thaksin should be released." What an astonishing statement but unsurprising due the political orientation of Thai Enquirer's ownership. Quite the opposite is true. Thaksin a common criminal convicted of corruption who deserves to serve his full sentence. His treatment since returning home and stealing of the election by his party represents a supreme triumph of political maneuvering over democratic integrity and justice.

Since you need your passport anyway, if you are staying at a hotel and overstayers are unlikely to travel by air, this is a solution looking for a problem.

I too am a degenerate. These two Polish lassies are welcome to come and sunbathe by my pool, as far as I am concerned, but Mrs Dog may have some cultural objections.

The Israeli ambassador's ads on tuk tuks campaign should have a decisive effect. Hamas high heid yuns on gentlemen's trip to Bangkok will immediately relent and send the hostages back demanding nothing inexchange, not even a day of cease fire.

The Palestine govt that has embassies is the PA, or Fatah which is nominally in charge of the West Bank. Fatah was given control of Gaza b Israel when it withdrew in 2005 but there were elections which were won by Hamas. Fatah refused to cede power and a bitter civil war ensued in Gaza. Hamas won and has been charge of Gaza since them- Fatah was driven out to the West Bank. There have been no further elections.

Looking only at penalties in the draft bill for users, not growers and vendors, it looks like this. Consuming cannabis for recreational use - fine up to 60,000. Driving under the influence of cannabis - up to 1 year in jail and/or fine up to 20,000. Recreation is defined as using for entertainment or enjoyment whether alone or with other people. Refusing a test, assumed stoned. No definition of stoned or how testing will be carried and this overlaps the existing law on driving under the influence of alcohol or substances where the penalties are higher. A big catch for the shop owners is up to one year in jail and/or 100,000 for selling to be used for recreation. They asked how they can prevent customers who buy for medical purposes using it for recreation. No meaningful reply from the ministry muppets.

I think there is room for both types of thread. This issue is going to evolve over the next couple of years and it will be good to maintain a "go to" thread to check in with every now and again to see, if anything new has happened. You can just go back a few pages to see, if guys are discussing anything new. Of course, these these lengthy threads contain a lot of information but not indexed or easily retrievable. So a tax guide thread is useful as a sort of summary too. Legal liability? A disclaimer helps, although there are many legal cases, where disclaimers and even signed waivers of rights are deemed unenforceable by courts. However, I expect the risk is minimal in this case.