Dogmatix

Correct. They said he had arthritis in the spine before he came back. I also it and in the neck too. I would guess that a large percentage of Thais of his age also have it but they just can't afford treatment. So they just grin and bear it. What a total shamster!

I would keep copies air tickets, evidence of arriving in the other country - entry stamp, hotel bill etc. The RD should theoretically be able to verify departure and entry dates from Immigration but that would involve the dreaded interaction between government departments.

Can you cite any reference to support this view or is it just your assumption? The RD case กค 0702/530 of 1 February 2024 doesn't mention that whether or not the foreign partner's overseas funds had been subject to foreign tax was a criterion for determining whether the remittances were assessable for Thai tax or not. If it were the case, they could have said under the previous interpretation that it would have been necessary to prove that the amount remitted was not from income arising in the same tax year. At the American Chamber seminar I attended at the end of last year the tax advisors from Mazars and KPMG were both of the opinion that gifts remitted from overseas to spouses in Thailand would be exempt without any further conditions. If it is necessary to prove that the overseas funds were from income already taxed overseas, why would they have recommended this? There would be no advantage in making the gift, if it were subject to the same rules as remitting the money to yourself with the added disadvantage that, if is more than 20 million in a tax year, it would be subject to a further 5% tax on top of 35% income tax. case กค 0702/530 just suggests that, if the couple had been legally married, the overseas remittances could have been omitted from assessable income in the Thai woman's tax return without further ado.

Sorry. It was an Act of Parliament amending the RC. Here is google translate. Gift Tax Case RD KK0702-530 11 Feb 2023.docx Revenue Code Amendment Act (No. 40) B.E. 2015 1. In the case of giving movable property (1) Person liable to pay taxes: (a) a natural person who receives money from support or from a gift from parents, descendants or spouse (b) a natural person who receives money from patronage out of duty of morality; or from giving by affection during ceremonies or on occasions of customs and traditions From another person who is not parents, descendants, or partners Married (2) Property subject to tax: All types of movable property that can be calculated in terms of money (3) Income that is exempt: · Income received from support or from gifts from parents, descendants, or married spouses, only income that does not exceed 20 million baht throughout that tax year. · Income received from patronage as a duty of moral conduct or from gifts given in ceremonies, or according to customary occasions, from persons who are not parents, descendants, or spouses, only money received in an amount not exceeding 10 million baht throughout that tax year. · Income received which the giver expresses or is seen to intend to use for the benefit of the business, religion, educational affairs, or public interest affairs According to the criteria and conditions specified in the ministerial regulations. (4) Tax rate: The rate is 5 percent of the value of the property received in excess of 20 million baht or 10 million baht. I attach the case study from 11 Feb 2023 in google translate and in the original.

The military seemed think at the time it was an open and shut case of LM and made the complaint to the police, vowing to ensure Thaksin faced prosecution. The military seems as gentle as a lamb on this LM case now. From I recall about it Thaksin stated in a Korea TV interview that the Privy Council was behind the 2014 coup.

Gifts to a spouse are exempt up to 20 million a year and it is in writing in the form of a Royal Decree amending the Revenue Code. It is also in writing that gifts from spouse to spouse remitted from overseas are also exempted up to 20 million a year in case study published by the RD which I posted a little earlier in this thread. There is definitely some review after you file your tax return. In my case they always write to me a few weeks later asking for documents. These are to do with allowances claimed and income. There are also inspectors who audit personal and company tax returns at random several years later. You an be called in for an audit or they can just show up at your registered address, assuming you actually live there, although this is not very common. I have never been called for a personal tax audit in many years of filing PIT returns but was called for a company tax audit because the inspector had spotted small VAT payment not made 4 years earlier in error and decided to go through everything with a tooth comb over two separate half days of grilling. Having said that she was not unreasonable or unpleasant and had a lovely young female assistant who was super polite and helpful.

The Civil & Commercial Code defines a gift as something irrevocable but then goes on to describe grounds under which a gift can be reclaimed. More importantly the Civil & Commercial Code also makes all assets acquired by either spouse after marriage as common conjugal property. So once the gift has been received in Thailand by the recipient spouse, it is legally common property. Another way of looking at it would be your spouse already has 5 million in her bank account and you gift her 2 million. Then the following year she gifts you 2 million. Who can say whether she gifted you the 2 million you gifted her the year before or another 2 million that was already in her bank account (or that it was merely a shuffling around of conjugal common property)? Gift tax has only been in Thailand for a few years and there are probably very few cases on record about it. As usual the decree was drafted leaving plenty of room for interpretation which has yet to be done. I would expect a tightening up of the gift tax law but properly by reducing the tax exempt amount from 20 to 10 million for spouses and 10 to 5 million for others, rather than by going to the trouble of drafting pages and pages of regulations which is not the way the RD or the politicians work. The RD is extremely sparse compared to tax codes in developed countries. That is the lazy way of legislating which also leaves open the possibility of interpreting in favour of people with money and influence, in the way we have seen several apparently open and shut cases of tax fraud eventually go in favour of the Shin family on appeal.

Gifting it to her in the US might not pass a sniff test by the RD. Because the gifting didn't take place in Thailand, they might argue it was a transfer from your wife to herself and therefore assessable for Thai tax. Personally I would make the gift transfer from one spouse's overseas account to the other spouse's Thai account. Anyway it is uncharted waters, so your idea may well work but looks higher risk to me. The bit about transferring to your Thai bank account to add to your US Social Security account I don't understand. How can you add to your US Social Security account in Thailand?

Pity there is no informed discussion of the legal situation in Thailand just feeble rants between the two camps. What a waste of thread.

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).