Dogmatix

Actually the government under Prayut starting telling Thais they wanted them to file tax returns whether they had suffiicient assessable income or not, saying it would help create a system for reverse taxation, i.e. paying money to people whose declared income is below a threshold, even though there is no sign of negative taxation. Not sure, if they really want tax returns from foreigners below the tax threshold though. They certainly won't pay them, if their income is low.

tiresome to keep seeing these shameless lies about Thaksin from everyone from the prime minister down. How do they expect Thai people to believe anything else they say?

When I first came to Thailand I had a Thai teacher who was quite pretty and very friendly, who told me she was a Muslim from the South. After a few weeks of weekly lessons, she hinted strongly she would like to go on a date with me to the movies or something. She had already told me she had trouble finding a boyfriend because he would have to convert to Islam, if they got married, which would, of course, involve an operation for some. Fortunately, there were many more fish in the Thai ocean.

Can't complain about rounded up, if you overstay your visa, specially if your behaviour annoys others, so they report you to the cops. But it is not really very exciting national news.

They keep going on about tourism recovery but we couldn't care less. If you do your promotions and offer visa free travel, there is nothing much more to do about it. Just wait and see. It depends on the economies of the countries of origin, especially China. Far better to worry about things you can change, like upgrading Thailand's appalling public education to facilitate more foreign investment and ability to speak English and work in higher value added businesses.

Let him take a few months off and give everyone a break from his PR photo opportunities around the world and save the taxpayer some travel costs. He can't do anything at home because he would tread on toes and he has no faction of his own at PT to protect him and is not even an MP because Thaksin refused to put him on the party list. Flying to Japan to sell a completely unviable land bridge to Japanese, who know perfectly the Thai government has an appalling track record of ripping off foreign infrastructure investors and refusing to honour international arbitration, was a complete waste of time. The only thing junk projects like that generate is fat consulting contracts for PT cronies from commission can be kicked back.

An air ticket going overseas purchased from an overseas airline website would be more difficult to trace. Agreed. if remitting fees to a Thai school from investments held overseas prior to 2024, I guess the investments may have to sold and realised to show income realised before 2024. but no one really knows the answer to such questions. If you have a child at private school in Thailand and you are also living with a wife, remittance of gift to spouse might be a good way to handle school fees.

I was in the Amcham call and didn't understand it exactly like that. I think he said that paying for services received in Thailand should be taxable, eg you remit school fees to a Thai school from overseas. So an air ticket out of Thailand would qualify but, if you are sitting in Thailand and use a foreign credit card to pay for your hotel overseas or kids college tuition overseas, that would not IMHO. Anyway it would rely on overseas banks and tax authorities reporting it to the RD which is probably a long way off. Probably goods ordered abroad to be shipped to Thailand should be taxable but it would be more difficult to trace that, since the seller is not in Thailand. Paying for goods from a Thai supplier with a foreign credit card would be easier to trace but, if small amounts, it might get lost.

The RD auditors have a big backlog. My company was audited for stuff they found suspicious that had happened 6 years earlier. They couldn't notice anything until the after the end March 2025 deadline passes for 2024 tax returns. If they follow up on your remittance and think you should have paid tax on it, or just want to query it could easily take take them till 2030 but the problem is that they add on heaps of interest and penalties. If they are going that route with expat retirees, many of them may be dead before they catch up with them.

AN keeps reporting these stories about how Thailand is so desperately trying to get Chinese tourists and not succeeding, as if the average AN reader could really give a monkeys whether Chinese tourists are here or not. In fact most would probably prefer, if they never come back. Some members may be running or working in tourist related businesses but most, being largely farangs, are likely to be working in businesses that depend on farang tourists, not Chinese. If the Chinse economy is is down the toilet, no amount of wringing of hands by Thai officials is going to bring them back. But Srettha should try a digital wallet scheme directed at Chinese tourists - 10,000 baht for each arrival who earns less than 70,000 baht a month and has less then 500,000 baht in the bank (documents notarised by Chinese government and translated and notarised by a Thai consulate in China0. Have Srettha go to the airport every day to greet tourists and personally hand over the package, showing how to download the app and block chain technology. That will him from impinging on the turf of Ung Ing, would be PM Anutin and others. The thought of receiving 10,000 baht personally from a 2 metre tall grinning cat PM would definitely dispel all fears of being abducted, shot dead in a shopping mall, blown up at the Erawan shrine, drowned in an unseaworthy and unlicensed tour boat, shaken down by cops for having vapes or being raped by someone met on an adult dating site.

If you remit this month, the old rules apply, i.e. it is assessable if the income was earned this year. Of course it depends on your deductions and how much other income you have remitted or earned on shore.

Earlier in the thread there was a lot of discussion about standard deductions for Thai income tax which is quite important for determining whether you will have assessable income and estimating tax on it. What is most confusing is the 100,000 standard deduction up to a maximum amount of 50% of income. Although not expressed clearly on the RD's own website this 100,000 deduction is only for those earning income from employment. The standard deductions are: 60,000 personal allowance 30,000 for a spouse, if filing jointly 30,000 for a minor child 190,000 for being over 65. There are many more deductions for charitable donations, life and health insurance premiums, RMF investment etc but the standard deduction for a pensioner over 65 will be 250,000.

I expect gifts have been made to spouses from offshore but there is no record of any test cases or rulings on this.

Basically the section oh gifts in the RC which talks about gifts to "provide patronage" to a direct family member being exempted up to 20 million is at odds with the concept of conjugal property in the Civil and Commercial Code. There are no specific exemptions for Americans or any other nationality in the CCC but it is worth noting that Thai courts have never attempted exercise jurisdiction on property overseas which has effectively meant that any assets held overseas are not conjugal property.

Unfortunately they have not said anything other than that they intend to avoid double taxation according to the treaties. But this still needs a lot of clarification and maybe some new rulings. The RC doesn't even mention that DTAs have to be taken into account for PIT but there is one ruling from I think the 80s that said they would. Treaties are normally held to have higher force than statutory law but statutory law normally explicitly states that treaties will be adhered to, eg the Land Code. It could be a serious problem, if the RD decides to only accept tax credits issued in respect of the same tax year that the income is remitted, as it does for corporate income tax. In this case there a mismatch of tax years, e.g. the UK's April to April tax year could create problems.

Some of the UK, Oz and NZ rules that are more liberal than Thailand would be welcomed by sports shooters here. Those countries have vigorous hunting and target rifle communities. Thailand has no hunting but a growing community of target rifle shooters. In those countries you have to keep rifles and ammo secured but you are allowed to hand load ammo and buy replacement barrels which are not allowed here. You are also allowed to taken your gun and ammo to the range, unloaded and properly separated, whereas Thai cops will shake you down and say ridiculous things like you should have a concealed carry permit, if they find your rifle and ammo in the car, despite the fact you have a license to use it for sport. This is, of course, an excuse to shake down sports shooters for cash because the law is vague on this point. How can you use a rifle for sport, if you can't take it out of the house? Personally I am not so interested in handguns any more and wouldn't care too much, if they stopped issuing licenses for them. However, I would like to keep one or two of the licensed handguns I have at home to protect my family, since I already have them. Nevertheless it has to be said that that there is a huge sports shooting community in Thailand and over 90% of it is handguns. This is huge business and it is going to be difficult to shut this down. Anyway over 90% of gun violence involves illegal guns. If the police could shut a fraction of that down, it would be a big positive.

It is true. A soldier in charge of an armoury in Chonburi and left in the same job for years was found to have sold a couple of hundred thousand rounds of military grade 5.56 ammo. This stuff is sold all over at much lower prices than legal imports of 5.56 and .223 ammo. The military also destroys stocks of rifle and pistol ammo that is over 10 years or so old. A lot of this ammo is not actually destroyed but gets out into the black market.

Maybe someone else has a clue what this means.

I am thinking that it may make sense to sell shares and funds in overseas accounts that may be needed for remittance to Thailand in the remaining trading days before New Year. The proceeds could be reinvested, even in the same investments afterwards but safest might be to remit to TH in the early days of Jan, if you are sure you want or need the money here. They would probably not bother trying to argue that all income arose in a few days in Jan 2024. According to the two P. orders, all divs, interest and cap gains arising from 1 Jan 2024 onwards is assessable income. You should be able to remit tax free anything you can show was realised prior to that, regardless of what happened to it subsequently. But Gods knows how they will attempt to police all this.

They look like victims of ISIS. I wonder how many of these guys were actually Hamas combatants. Not very many I would guess.

PT's digital wallet will save the day.

That sounds fine in respect of Thai income tax but do you have UK tax liability on the transfer of the sales proceeds from the company that owned the flat to your personal account? How will you book that transfer in the company's accounts? It may depend on how you funded the company in the first place. I would guess it has to be booked either as a dividend, a director's bonus, repayment of a director's loan or a combination. The first two would be taxable in the UK if it is a UK company. If it is an offshore company, maybe not.

I paid my 1,000 baht to listen in on the Amcham seminar this morning. They had tax advisors from Mazars, KPMG and one other firm, the name of which I forget and the guy from Mazars led the discussion. It was very lucid and well done and they presented a very good overview of the story so far but emphasized that it is still work in progress at the RD, since they have launched the tax change at half cock. I not am sure there was anything new for many of us here who have read the print off everything that has come out on the issue so far but it was good to know we are on the same page on most aspects. Points arising that struck me are below. Re gifts. They thought gifts from offshore to a spouse or other direct family member should be OK but cautioned that the RD could regard such a gift as conjugal property and, as such, interpret things so that only half of the tax is tax exempt because you own half the conjugal property. Gifts to people other than direct family members should have a reason, e.g. wedding gift, according to the Mazars guy. I don't see anything in the RC saying gifts to non family members need a reason but I have seen cases like this, e.g. the transfer of SHIN shares free of payment by Potjaman to her brother was claimed to be a wedding gift (about 2 years after the wedding). It was suggested that gifts should be documented. They thought a 'genuine' loan from an offshore company controlled by a Thai tax resident to himself could not be construed as income as there is nothing in the RC to suggest that loans could be deemed to be income. But they cautioned that this is not confirmed, rather that there is nothing in the RC or elsewhere that suggests a loan can be deemed to be income. Re tax credits. The RD has told people verbally that tax credits will be recognized in respect of DTAs but has not clarified how this will be done. It pointed out that the RD only accepts tax credits for corporate income tax the tax credit applies to foreign income earned in the same tax year the same tax year as it is remitted to Thailand.

These Sig Sauers were imported by the interior ministry for the civil service welfare scheme. The deal was negotiated by the police chief on the basis the guns for police to buy from the civil service welfare scheme. But obviously a lot them went to civil servants other than police or anyone qualified for the scheme which includes state enterprise employees and village defense volunteers. When negotiating with the US they always emphasise the scheme is for law enforcement officers and for self protection for people like teachers in government schools in the south that have been targeted by terrorists. Anyway I hope that answers your question.

There has been plenty of grandstanding on this by Anutin announcing ineffective measures like registering all BB guns, which he doesn't have the authority to do without amending the law, and stopping the issuance of carry permits, which is also doesn't have the authority to do because that is the police chief's turf. But this is all designed to get him attention, not to have any impact on gun violence which he probably doesn't care about. On the other hand the new police chief, Pol Gen Torsak has publicly acknowledged that the problem is the estimated 4 million illegal guns which are used to commit about 90% of gun violence.