Mike Teavee

7 hours ago, vangrop said:

I have no income. I am a tourist. I travel around. I go sometimes to Laos, Vietnam , Philippines, Hong Kong, Japan etc I am not a resident, I am just a tourist as said and I don"t care Section  my a$$ of the Revenue Code located abroad according to section my appendice paragraph down under of the allocation Code (no Revenues) Department has ordered the following: i don't add any of the following as the first, second, third, fourth, jesus I forgot which paragraph of Section 1 2 3 4 5 I also forgot of the Revenue or spend Department Order or No. P.123/4567 regarding: receiving of income tax according to Section this was 69 , paragraph again forgot the number of the Spending Code, dated near future. I only have bitcoins so I really don't feel involved. ???????????

Technically if you spend >179 days in Thailand in any one calendar year then you are Tax Resident & if you spend < 180 days here you are not Tax Resident irrespective of what kind of Visa you use.

Crypto Capital Gains seem to be one of the areas that they are looking to target, but again this won't make a difference to you if you spend < 180 days here.  

57 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Call it what you will ' Opted out ' or ' contracted out ' The end result was the same.

 

 

Sure, but as AVC's haven't been mentioned, they were not really part of the discussion. I am not evenconvinced that you pay AVC's towards the State Pension, it is more a Private / Company Pension thing.

 

You can pay VNI's  towards your State Pension, but in some cases this will be a waste of money.

 

 

https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/pensions-and-retirement/state-pension/voluntary-national-insurance-contributions-and-the-state-pension

 

You can pay VIN's  to make up your qualifying years if you are short of the 35 qualifying years to get the maximum State Pension.

 

I've been paying AVCs for the past 16 years, that's what HMRC called them so that's the term I use, this is the 1st time I've heard of VINs but a quick look on the government website seems to suggest they've adopted that terminology.

It doesn't matter to me as I stopped paying in April this year as I now have 40 years NI contributions which is what I need to get a full State Pension having been contracted out for 20 years, self employed for 2 years & working overseas the rest of the time. 

10 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

I am only explaining why your State Pension is so low.

 

1 - Lower initial payment because you were  ' opted out '

 

2 - Periods when your State Pension was frozen.

But even if you were Contracted Out, you can make additional AVCs to take your pension up to the full amount & this is approx.  £10,600 pa, so nobody is going to be taken over their personal tax allowance by an 8% or so increase. 

10 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

 

When you are " Opted out " it means that you paid a reduced rate of NI for the years that you were opted out.

 

That reduction in NI equates to a reduction in the State Pension, it also means that you do not qualify for SERPS 2, or whatever it was called.

 

Nothing to do with a Private pension.

You can't "Opt Out", you are "Contracted Out" by the company you work for & as part of that they have to put the reduced Employer NI contributions that they pay into a pension for you so Private Pensions do come into it.

Don't know about reduced Employee contributions as I paid the maximum NI contribution even though I was "Contracted Out".   

007 Road to a Million 
 

Nine pairs of everyday people are unleashed on an epic global adventure through a series of Bond-inspired challenges, for a shot at winning a life-changing £1,000,000 prize.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt19049680/

15 minutes ago, Enzian said:

And then how do I "show" that without turning over my bank records and possibly my tax return to the Thai bureaucrats? Understand I'm not trying to argue with you.

The onus is always on the Tax Payer to prove what they're claiming is true, so if asked to prove it,  you will have to show your Bank Records / Tax Return to the Thailand Revenue Department.

I mentioned this in another thread, but when I completed my 1st Tax Return this year, one of the things they initially asked for was copies of all statements for all my non-Thai Bank Accounts, when I pointed out that I'd had one of these for 50 years & my UK main account for 39 years they seemed to relent & say they had everything they needed and would be in touch if they needed anything else... 8 months later I've still not received the withheld interest back. 

9 minutes ago, Enzian said:

I appreciate the answer, but because money is fungible how does anyone really know where that other $30K came from? Or it came from where I say it came from, like a combo of SS and savings from previous years, prove me wrong? But the banks break down every item that goes through the accounts, so in that way it's doable. But of course i will pick the items that are to my advantage and ignore others, so it's really what I say.

The good news is that there was a recent update where they seem to be saying any income "Earned" before 1/1/2024 will be classed as savings so if you can show that your $30K came from money in your account before that date then you should be ok. 

32 minutes ago, Enzian said:

So say if I bring into Thailand $50K during a year, but because of major construction expenses, general repairs, lawyer fees and losses for tenants that stopped paying and can hardly be evicted, previous years' depreciation schedules, exemptions of various kinds, on and on, I only had US$20K "taxable income" (on which my tax owed is based), is that $50K money I have already paid taxes on in the US? (Ignoring SS and any other misc.)

If you only had $20K taxable income then it would depend where the other $30K came from. 

If it came from savings then there would be no tax on it, however if it came from another income stream (Dividends, Capital Gains, salary for Remote Working, Royalties etc...) then you may (depending on your country's DTA with Thailand) be liable for tax on it. 

35 minutes ago, Misty said:

 

Yes, the US does tax any tax resident on their world wide income - citizens, green card holders (permanent residents) and holders of other types of visas.  Green card holders outside of the US are also taxed on world wide income.

To align that to Thailand, that would that be like Thailand taxing all Citizens & Permanent Resident Holders on their World wide income.

And if I've understood you correctly, somebody who went to work in the US for 1 year on a H1B Visa would be taxed on their world wide income during that year, but presumably once  they left the Job/US & were no longer Tax Resident, the US wouldn't tax any income not arising in the US.

1 hour ago, samtam said:

 

Itsy bitsy spider...

Thanks @Dogmatix. I hope this is the first nail in this coffin of stupidity. If however, Thailand tries to tax all worldwide income, like the USA, that would be an even more silly idea than the one currently being spouted, and unlike the IRS, I think their ability to enforce this is wildly optimistic. The article you reference also seems to emphasise the main target as (wealthy) Thais who invest overseas, and I suspect like previous attempts to alienate this segment of the electorate will end in tears.

Perhaps somebody could explain how US Tax works for non-US Citizens living/Tax Resident in the US i.e. does the US Tax them on all of their world wide income or only Income earned in/remitted to the US? 

I can see Thailand introducing a US Style Worldwide Income Tax on Thai Citizens (though they lack the "Clout" of the US when it comes to getting other countries/banks to report information to them) but I can't see them introducing this for Non-Thai Citizens even if they are Tax Resident.

19 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

The state pension is still under the PA threshold, even after the increase in April.

Interesting article on Frozen Personal Allowances (Frozen until 2027/28) & the impact on State Pension.... 

https://theprogenygroup.com/blog/how-the-personal-allowance-freeze-might-impact-you/#:~:text=If the OBR's projections are,personal allowance in 2027%2F28.

If the OBR’s projections are accurate, then by 2027/28 the difference between the new state pension and personal allowance will be about £360 – less than a tenth as much. The OBR’s estimate only needs to undershoot by 0.8% a year for the new state pension to be larger than the personal allowance in 2027/28

I think it would make too much "Noise" if the government allowed the State Pension to go above the Personal Allowance & pensioners started to be taxed on it, so if the OBR did get their predictions wrong & it looked like it was going to go over it, I'd expect them to either limit the Pension increase OR increase the allowance. 

6 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

But in the case referenced he paid no UK tax.

Sorry, I seem to be struggling to get my point across.... 

There is a huge difference between paying no UK Tax because the income wasn't taxable (E.g. interest earned in an ISA) AND paying no UK Tax because the effective rate that applied to that income was 0%. 

In the latter case you have been taxed & it could be argued you've paid the tax due (all £0.00p of it) which is where rule 5 of the RD Guidelines come in to play. 

8 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

 

The poster involved @KannikaP State pension is taxed at 0% because it falls under the £12570 threshold, which strongly suggests that he does not have any other UK income, so why in the name of anything sane would he give up his PTA to have his State Pension taxed at 20% rather than 0%, and possibly then be skelped for Thai Tax as it appears that the State Pension is not covered by a DTA.

 

Some pensions, certainly Government pensions ( no idea about the State Pension ) will always be taxed in the UK, regardless of what you try and do, UK tax only stops when you die.

I didn't suggest he or anybody gave up their PTA, I was responding to Sheryl's statement that UK State Pension is not taxed as I believe it is taxed at the 0% rate (something which you seem to agree with) - I merely used the example of where people give up or lose their PTA as rationale for why I believed this.   

As I posted this is an important distinction as RD guidelines recommend that income will be taxed at the most beneficial rate to the taxpayer so if the RD views State Pension as not taxed, they could Tax it, but if they view it as having been taxed at 0% then they wouldn't Tax it. 

RD Guidelines: https://www.rd.go.th/english/23520.html NB Point 5... 

5.   What happens if the rate of tax stipulated in the Revenue Code is different from that of an agreement?  

- Apply the rate which is more beneficial to the taxpayer.  

35 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Under the UK-Thailand DTA, UK State Pensions are not exempt from taxation in Thailand and since you pay no tax in UK,  no credit to apply

It depends on how you view Taxes in the UK, I believe State Pension is taxed in the UK but at the 0%/Nil rate band because they are put it onto your "Income Stack" 1st & it falls below the normal Personal Tax Allowance. 

As an example, it is possible in the UK to give up your Personal Tax Allowance where this is beneficial for your other income OR people lose their PTA when they earn over  £100,000 (You lose £1 of PTA for every £2 you earn over £100,000 so if you were to earn £125,140 you would have no PTA left & would be taxed 20% on your State Pension).

This is an important distinction as by RD guidelines, if you've already been taxed on income covered by the DTA then the lower of the 2 countries rates apply (so in the case where you do have a PTA it would be 0%).

On 11/5/2023 at 8:41 AM, JimGant said:

Presumably such explanation would apply to UK DTAs, as they adhere basically to either the OECD Model or UN Model tax treaties, as do US DTAs.

Yes, UK has a similar clause in the DTA which can be found here... 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a80bddc40f0b623026953eb/uk-thailand-dtc180281_-_in_force.pdf

Page 12... Article 7, Income From Immovable Property, clause 1 

(1) Income from immovable property may be taxed in the Contracting State in which such property is situated.

The DTA also covers what happens if you are taxed on income in Thailand & the UK...  

Page 31... Article 23, Elimination of Double Taxation, clause 1 & 3   

(1) In the case of the United Kingdom and subject to the provisions of the law of the United Kingdom regarding the allowance as a credit against United Kingdom tax of tax payable in a territory outside the United Kingdom (which shall not affect the general principle hereof):  

(a) Thai tax payable under the laws of Thailand and in accordance with this Convention, whether directly or by deduction, on profits, income or chargeable gains from sources within Thailand (excluding, in the case of a dividend, tax payable in respect of the profits out of which the dividend is paid) shall be allowed as a credit against any United Kingdom tax computed by reference to the same profits, income or chargeable gains by reference to which the Thai tax is computed.  

(3) In the case of Thailand, United Kingdom tax payable in accordance with this Convention in respect of income from sources within the United Kingdom shall be allowed as a credit against Thai tax payable in respect of that income. The credit shall not, however, exceed that part of the Thai tax, as computed before the credit is given, which is appropriate to such item of income.  

(4) For the purposes of paragraphs (1) and (3) of this Article profits, income and capital gains owned by a resident of a Contracting State which may be taxed in the other Contracting State in accordance with this Convention shall be deemed to arise from sources in that other Contracting State.  

Possibly more geared towards US guys (though from the bits I've seen they do touch on UK a little bit). but it is very long (2:32:48)...  

... & So far I've only watched the 5 minute edited highlights from

16 minutes ago, samtam said:

 

Can you expand on "economic ties" please?

Sorry, the correct term is "Family Ties"... 

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis/rdrm11530

I think the Statutory Residency Test explains it better...  

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis/rdrm11500

3 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

I am not non-resident for tax purpose in Thailand but I am non-resident for tax in the UK. I live in Thailand year round, did I say something that made you think otherwise?

No, I was asking the other 2 guys who said they never spend enough times in a country to become Tax Resident whether this meant they were by default Tax Resident in their home country (I.e. Do you have to be Tax Resident somewhere). 

Can I ask how you're not Tax Resident in Thailand if you live here year round/> 180 days? 

1 minute ago, Captain Monday said:

I do it every year at Tax Revenue district 1 Chiang Mai.

As you're Non-Tax Resident you obviously don't need to do a return so do you do one to reclaim the Withheld tax on Income from your Bank Account?

I didn't even know Non-Tax Residents could file a return 🙂 

3 hours ago, Gknrd said:

Same here.

3 hours ago, Captain Monday said:

Then to nothing to concern myself with as  I do not spend 180 days/year in any country.

 

regards,

 

Captain Monday 

 

 

Constant international travel

Can I ask which country you guys are from & whether not being Tax Resident elsewhere means by default you are Tax Resident in your home country. 

The reason I ask is that I plan on doing every 3rd year as a Non-Tax resident in Thailand during which I'll bring in enough money to support me for the next 3 years, BUT I don't want this to mean that I default to becoming tax resident in my home country (UK).

As an aside, the Tax Residency threshold in the UK operates on a sliding scale depending on how long you've been Non-UK Tax Resident & how many "Economic Ties" you have there. I can spend up to 89 days in the UK as I have 2 "Economic Ties" there, but if I had the full (4) "Economic Ties" it would be 45 days as I've been Non-UK Tax Resident for > 3 years & 16 days if I hadn't.