Dogmatix

I remember these - a right PITA, if you had to go on a trip at short notice. Secretaries sent messengers to get them but retirees would have to flog over to the RD themselves, if they re-introduced them in the same format. They must have suspended the requirement with an RD order and another RD order would bring them back. A dictatorial Thaksinite government would love this and Immigration also loves anything that causes grief to foreigners whom they regard as all criminals.

The only reference to pensions in the UK Thai tax treaty is in Section 19: (2) (a) Any pension paid by the Contracting State or a political subdivision or a local authority thereof to any individual in respect of services of a governmental nature rendered to that State or subdivision or local authority thereof shall be taxable only in that State. That means only pensions occupational pensions paid to former civil servants and local government people shall only be taxable in the UK. There is not even any mention of the UK state pension which means it can be taxed in Thailand and the RD can tax the different between UK tax on it and Thai tax, if the Thai tax is higher, which it will be, if the taxpayer has no other income and has only basic Thai tax deduction. This won't be so bad for over 65s who get an additional 190k deduction. The UK wasn't very aggressive in negotiating this. They should have got the state pension exempted like the yanks did and the Thais wouldn't have cared in those days, so I guess the Brits were too lazy to ask. There was no retirement visa at that time and therefore the only British retirees were expats with PR who retired in Thailand after spending the latter part of their career in the Kingdom. Anyway the large numbers of recently arrived wealthy Chinese are in worse shape, as their DTA is only for companies, as it was negotiated in the early 80s, not long after the Cultural Revolution, when there was no private enterprise and no private wealth 555.

My understanding from the clear as mud RD Q&A was that any remittance to wifey under 20 mil in a tax year is not assessable for tax and doesn't need to be declared. But Srettha has told the RD to review Inheritance Tax and any review would also include Gift Tax.

The problems with this, as I see it are: 1. LTR visas don't provide any exemption for earnings earned before the LTR visa was issued. Therefore someone coming in with a new LTR visa and wiring funds to buy a condo will have to pay up to 35% tax, if they can't prove they earned the money after the LTR visa was issued, which is unlikely, if they earned the money somewhere else. 2. The Royal Decree was announced last year under the previous government and the whole LTR scheme was the brainchild of that government, one guy in particular who didn't get a job in this government. although he hoped to be a minister or at least a deputy minister. So the Srettha government feels no particular obligation to this project. The LTR tax exemption didn't seem like a big deal when anyone could just wait till the next tax year and get the same exemption. Now resentment will build up from Thais who will see the LTR visas holders like British people used to see the non-domiciled foreigners who got exemption from foreign source income, like Rishi Sunak's rich Indian wife. Now the non-dom tax privileges are being gradually whittled away to nothing. Even though no one cares about expats, Srettha said this is being done in the interest of fairness and equality which will look odd when he gives tax exemption only to rich foreigners while taxing the butts off Thais and less well off foreign retirees who are often struggling to support Thai families. I predict the LTR tax exemption won't survive long term. Another Royal Decree or an amendment to the Revenue Code would eliminate it. Those with 10 year LTR visas are unlikely to get this privilege with their first renewal and it might not even last that long. The first Elite cards came with the right to buy land but that was axed in the first few months with an offer of a refund. LTR visa holders would probably get their 50k baht back pro-rata, if the tax exemption went mid stream, i.e. a 25k refund if it went after 5 years and you no longer want the visa on that basis. Obviously the BOI people who write that stuff have to sound upbeat because they are still selling the LTR scheme and will judged on their sales numbers. But they have no power and are part of the PM's office.

Definitely driving retirees away both those on modest pensions and the wealthy ones. Just the uncertainty (both regarding this edict and worries about future edicts from a flaky government getting deep into debt) and the hassle of having to file tax returns and deal with capricious official in a non rule of law jurisdiction is enough to put most people off.

Unfortunately the UK Thai tax treaty doesn't exempt the UK state pension from taxation in Thailand, only government service pensions for civil servants and local government officers. The US treaty does exempt social security.

I think you've got too many zeros there but the 207 years is correct. It is a drop in the bucket but makes Thailand no longer an attractive retirement destination and makes it impossible for retirees who are already here and renting to buy a condo without leaving for over half a tax year which could be costly and inconvenient. Many will ask why bother coming back? It creates great uncertainty for LTR visas and Elite/Privilege too, as who knows what they can chuck out at short notice next. Netting off incremental tax with retirees leaving or not coming and not buying condos and new cars etc, the overall effect on the retiree sector which they have been trying to promoted is bound to be negative in economic terms. How incredibly stupid! I don't think the results will be much better for the Thai overseas investment sector. Keeping tax accounts for capital gains, dividends and interest is going to be a headache for traders who don't have to do this on their Thai stock portfolios. If I were doing that I am sure I would give up and bring the money home but this is unfair too because the short notice period means they have to pay tax on earnings from this year and had no time to tax plan. Many wealthy Thai investors will just leave money overseas indefinitely that they would otherwise have reinvested in the Thai economy. So probably a net negative on the Thai side too. If you saw Srettha blathering on TV about the digital wallet and the fuel subsidies (he said that 99 economists and two former Bank of Thailand governors were a minority because they were only 101 out of 71 million people), it is clear he is a man of shallow intellect, who can't or is too lazy to think things through. He seems to just agree to all the ridiculous policies handed to him in scripts by the faceless, unelected Thaksinite team which is Thailand's equivalent of Classic Dom Cummings to Boris Johnson.

What I meant was past savings that are still overseas and to be remitted in future, not past remittances of past savings. But yes, they can tax past remittances and can go back 20 years, I think, but only if the remittances comprised earnings in the year they were remitted. I don't think they will bother with that, particularly as they won't have past CRS information as they only joined this year. They have never bothered with it in the past.

I think loans from company bank accounts could work. However, bear in mind that banks under CRS have now started to lift the corporate veil and will report on the beneficial owners of the company bank accounts. I think in Switzerland they will report on any shareholder who owns over 25% and they will report on beneficial owners of trusts too. All this without telling you, unless you ask. Bank secrecy is completely gone there. If that is not enough, BVI companies now have an obligation to file unaudited accounts with their BVI agents for 2023 onwards. The accounts are not publicly available but can be revealed to any tax authority that is a part of CRS. So the RD will know, if you are a beneficial owner of the company that makes the loan, and if it is a BVI company, they will be able to see the company accounts you file with the agent to check it really has loans, has paid dividends, salaries etc. I imagine unaudited accounts requirement is just the thin end of the wedge and audited accounts may follow later. Of course it may be hard to find auditors for family holding companies, particularly, if the past unaudited accounts filed were fraudulent. The problem I see is that the RD might lift the corporate veil and say a loan from your company is income. They could also say that, if a loan is not repaid within a certain time frame. If you pay interest on the loan you have to deduct withholding tax.

One thing I find particularly disgusting about this is the short notice. It should have been done as an act of parliament for a major change like this with a longish notice period. But Srettha jumped on this unlawful reinterpretation as a great way to counter critics of his stupid unfunded digital wallet and fuel subsidies, even though any tax from this will not arrive till 2025 over a year after the digital wallet is spent and forgotten by the voters. As it is all many people will not have records of past income, tax credits and bank balances because there was never much need to keep them. I am even starting to think seriously about leaving for the first time in over 30 years. I will do better in a jurisdiction that taxes global income in the year that it arises but not past income on remittance. I wouldn't mind paying tax on overseas earnings if I had them but being forced to pay tax on past savings remitted just to survive is unacceptable.

I have had another look at the RD's Q&A sheet regarding RD Order P 161/2566. The way they write the Thai is pretty hard to read and the google translation comes out worse than usual because the original is in pdf format and the Thai characters get jumbled when cut and paste. Anyway it is only a superficial attempt to clarify a very few points that may arise for Thai taxpayers. But a couple of points are worth mentioning. Q 4. Like most of it the answer is rather garbled but it is does seem to say that inheritances from overseas will not be taxable as normal income. Presumably this means they will be taxed at Thai rates if death took place after the Thai IHT Act came into force. What it doesn't mention is that overseas inheritances are taxable in Thailand, if over the threshhold, whether remitted to Thailand or not. It also seems to say that gifts from overseas between direct relatives and married couples are tax free up to 20 million, which is consistent with Thai Gift Tax. But it doesn't reference Gift Tax per se or say that gifts to non family up to 10 million are tax free, as per Thai Gift Tax law. It also mentions very special situations like support of parents and spouse which implies this is another tax law not the Gift Tax Law. So much for clarification. They are really a load of so and sos. For those who have a Thai missus who has a foreign bank account, perhaps you could transfer money to her overseas and get her to gift the money to you in Thailand, rather sending money to the missus which you may not get back. Q 10. This deals with a question about a Thai who moves back to Thailand and brings back money earned while spending several years living abroad. The answer is vague but what they are saying seems to be that such a person had better make sure they bring in all the money in the year before they become tax resident again. Many Thais returning home will get caught by this unwittingly, if they move back before July in any year without understanding this, which is pretty disgusting. But even more worrying, this doesn't offer any hope for foreigners who are already tax resident and want to remit savings from abroad going way back, if they say the Thai workers savings would taxable if they brought them back after becoming tax resident again. It seems to imply tough luck, we'll tax your savings at 35%,m whereas the 2003 RD directive was that savings are not taxable. RD Order 161 2566 Q&A.pdf

Half of my son's kindy class are sick at the moment, at least two with RSV. The US FDA recently approved the first RSV vaccine from Glaxo Smith Kline and it is now being rolled out in the US. When will be available in Thailand? Not even mentioned in the OP.

He has a new boss now, recently returned to Thailand who can get rid of him, if he doesn't listen.

This dispute where the Yubamrungs clearly claim Thaksin is the decision maker about cabinet appointments should provide some interesting material for someone to petition to have PT dissolved on the grounds it allows an external person to have significant influence over it. Lucky for PT they are now part of the elite and courts will take their side.

Of state pensions the only one I have seen that is exempt in a DTA is US social security. The UK state pension is not exempted in the UK DTA which only exempts govt pensions paid for service to central and local governments.

It’s already officially announced in 161/2566 a directive to RD officers to reinterpret the Tax Code to mean something other than what was intended. Binding on RD officers but not on the public. That is how this government wants to operate. Thaksin is back in power from his “prison cell” and it’s back to the Thaksinite authoritarian ways of rule by decree. There may be no further announcement and no effort to amend the law by lawful means.

I resumed filing after a few years between jobs and there was no question about the missing years. There is no obligation to file if you have no incone. Filing to reclaim tax on interest and dividends is optional. If they do ask, tell them you had no assessable income or file late returns claiming tax refunds which might offset late fines..

I see a lot of knee jerk stuff from Anutin and others grandstanding on TV. Many stricter controls for registered guns which are already strictly controlled. How will this help prevent 90% of Thai violence committed with illegal guns and by soldiers and police like the Korat massacre and the massacre of innocent little children. How about getting rid of illegal guns and only letting soldiers and police have guns on duty and hand them back when they go off duty?

20 guys in tactical gear, armed to the teeth could pop along to Big Joke's residences in armoured cars but in a shooting opposite Police National HQ it took 90 minutes for cops to respond to a mass murder who was tackled by a cop in a motor cycle helmet who decided to have a go.

Worth pointing out that the Korat murders were started using guns bought from the Interior MInistry's Civil Service Welfare scheme; the firearm used in the the murder of the little children at the day care centre and in the murder in the Kamnan Nok case were also sold to he murderers by the Interior Ministry. The Siam Paragon murders were committed with a modified replica gun. None of these murders were committed with guns bought by regular citizens for full price at gunshops. Most other gun murders are also committed with unregistered guns.

That looks like a more detailed write up of the same press briefing by Anutin. Odd that he proposed that only people with carry permits could bring their guns to the range after saying he would not allow any more carry permits to be issued. Since they are only valid for one year at a time, there will no one left with carry permits to go ranges after a year. Ranges will obviously not be able to store guns for all their members and whatever storage they could offer would be steel cabinets in non-aircon spaces where guns would rust in the humid Thai climate. This would kill private ranges and sports shooting and create a large number of guns people want to sell without any legitimate buyers. Many who need cash would attempt to file off serial numbers and sell the guns on the black market, which already happens with guns fraudulently reported lost or stolen and with orphaned inherited guns that don't get transferred to heirs. I think that would happen to the large numbers guns bought through Thai nominees for wealthy Chinese sports shooters who come to Thailand to shoot because they are not allowed even BB guns in China. Another interesting issue is the Civil Service Welfare Scheme which is the largest gun importing and retail business in the country run by the Interior Ministry itself. The Interior Ministry is on both sides of the fence as the licensing authority for buyers, sellers and importers. This is a business, which is exempted from the 30% import duty on guns and is worth multi billions of baht annually, managed in an unaccountable, non-transparent way with plenty of opportunities for graft. Having only just seized control of the ministry and its purse strings, will Anutin be willing to regulate this prized business out of existence? Without permits to buy and ranges to practice at, the revenue, profits and commissions of this scheme would shrink dramatically. It is notable that government never responds to calls from the public to rationalize or cancel this scheme.

What he actually said in Thai was he had instructed the DG of DOPA to cease issuing Por 12 carry permits to the general public. Presumably ministers, MPs, senators and other worthies will still get them. He didn't say he would cease issuance of Por 4 permits to own firearms. It makes sense that this will not happen. Otherwise the Ministry of the Interior, the largest importer and distributor of guns for civilians, will likely be left with a lot of unsold stock on its hands.

This gun should still be OK, shouldn't it?

They won't because the government is the main importer and seller of guns to private citizens through the civil service welfare scheme that imports a couple of hundred thousand guns of all types to be sold to civil servants and state enterprise employees. We are talking about a sales value of about 10 billion baht here. This is a huge money spinner for senior Interior Ministry officials. The issue of other import and other permits is also very lucrative for individuals.

Unfortunately the OP is an inaccurate summary of the linked INN press release. In that, Anutin is quoted both in the headline and para 3 saying he has ordered the DG of DOPA to immediately cease issuing permits to carry guns (i.e. Por 12 permits) . The wording ใบอนุญาตพกพาอาวุธ is very specific and can only refer to a Por 12 permit, which is already extremely difficult to obtain, needs to be renewed annually and is processed by the police not DOPA, although the actual piece of paper is issued by DOPA. Regular licenses to own and use a firearm are referred to as ใบอนุญาตมีและใช้วุธ (Por 4). This doesn't mean that Anutin will not crack down on issuance of ordinary Por 4 permits. A crack down was actually already in place under the Prayut government making It much harder and requiring far more documents and evidence of assets. But ceasing to issue permits altogether is not what Anutin said.