cleopatra2

If you need the letter translating just use a translation company. Since it is only 1 sentence it will not be expensive. If this is not an option, and given the language used will be formall , use the official Thai dictionary or an online translator .

The UK state pension is not included in any provisions of the UK Thai tax treaty. Thus both states have a right to tax. It would fall under the article to eliminate double tax , by using the credit method.

This only applies to government pensions. Private and the state pension do not fall into this category.

No I did not state that. I stated that Uk pensions with the exception of government pensions are taxable in both states. If your pension is a government pension then it is only taxable within UK ( with some further exceptions). The UK state pension is not a government pension.

For UK pensions payments are taxable in both states, with the exception of government pension. Double taxation is eliminated by recieving credit from UK tax paid against any Thai tax due. The new Thai Revenue instructions does not change this.

The issue is the OP is incorrect. The OP states this includes savings . When if you actually read the notice/instruction it is only refferinng to income from work activities and property whilst being a Thai tax resident

I think you misunderstand what the instruction is stating. The instruction is referring to Thai tax residents earning income from overseas in a work capacity or from property situated abroad. It is not refferinng to savings. Any monies earned overseas whilst not being a Thai tax residents is not relevant.

DTT do not work like that. DTT determine which state has taxing rights of a specific form of income. If both states have taxing rights on the same income then the provisions in the articles for elimination of double taxation takes effect . This will specify the method and how such income and tax relief is applied for each state.

I cannot open the link you provided without sign up. I am using Edge browser

It is a way of referring to an older person . It is not disrepectfull, rather usually used as a mark of respect.

Update Following discussions with various Thai persons , I am told the term means end of life , or to live at the end of life. Thus i stand corrected.

Thank you . I notice that Thai2English only gives one definition for ใช้ , to use .Wherass the official Thai dictionary gives 4 . However I note that it also gives making a living as possible use of ใช้ชีวิต. The use of ,ใน and บั้นปลาย can be combined and the Thai2English gives this as , finally , lastly, at last. The Thai dictionary also gives a definition of ใช้ being , compelled to carry out some activity. Thus I interpreted the phrase to mean that the requirement to carry out this activity ( when combined with ชีวิต to make a living) has become final and no longer required.

I would refer you to the official Thai dictionary. Means gone , used for retirement age.

The term เกษียณ refers to a point in time , thus would be age . It is usual for someone to reach pensionable age and continue working. In this case the person would not be retired, but have reached pensionable age. The actual term used is to signify that the person is no longer making a living, i.e . The person is retired.

Can I ask where you got the translation from. The term บั้นปลาย means at the end. And ใช้ชีวิต while relating to lifetranslates to " means of life " in this context. Thus means of living has now ended . Which corresponds to the English word Retirement , no longer actively working. When the applicant provided the reason for stay it is assumed that the applicant knows what he is writing. The fact that the IO did not mention ar ask if the applicant intended to work is immaterial. It is the obligation of the applicant to provide the full details. Whilst the IO can request further information this does not relieve the applicant of this obligation. If the applicant intention is to work there are a number of other Non IM subcategories available for this purpose. The granting of a NoN IM does not automatically give authorisation to work. The subcategory of the NoN IM can place conditions on the type of work available. For example a NoN IM M for media duties , or Non IM F for official government duties. A person who enters on Non IM F would not be allowed to carry out work that required Non IM M. Thus given that the extension is for the purpose of retirement. There is no occupations available under this category , simply because the purpose iof extension is for persons not working in Thailand.

The Thai language makes it clear that the purpose is for person's who are retired , no longer actively working If the purposes was for retirement age it would use different language. The age of 50 is just a qualifying criteria.

The following is taken from the OSOS " Eligibility for issuance of a work permit to the holder (only for category B and category O (only a foreigner who married to a Thai national); " https://osos.boi.go.th/EN/how-to/218/Getting-Visa--Work-Permit/

When an applicant applies for permission of stay on the basis of retirement, the applicant is indicating that they have withdrawn from active working life. Thus the permission is granted with the belief the applicant is no longer working. If the applicant so wishes to be gainfully employed the necessity to stay cannot be for the purposes of retirement. The Thai language specified for purposes of retirement translates to " making a living has ended". ( ใช้ชีวิตบั้นปลาย)

It would fall in section 341 . Causing the immigration officer to issue a permit of stay without declaring the full facts.

The issue would be the application for permission to stay based upon retirement. The applicant has to state the reason for requesting an extension of stay. In the case of retirement this can only be reasonable construed that the applicant is retired and does not intend to work. Thus if the applicant subsequently applies for a WP the initial application for extension would be fraudulent unless the reason for stay is changed.

Just because one person has managed to recieve a WP with Non O extension based upon retirement does not mean it is the norm. The OP headline implies that a WP is now available for a Non O retirement. Thus I would expect some official documentation to be provided from the Labor dept. to support this.

MF would need the backing of other parties. It also assumes that there will be no defections .

The ruling has very little effect. Pita can be renominated as long as the renomination is not the same . Thus if PT nominate their candidate then MF can nominate Pita because the resolution will be different from the previous.(Pita was the sole nominee, now the facts are different).

Going into opposition is not a good idea. This option is usually made assuming the government is a minority and the opposition have the numerical numbers. However it fails to take into account that MPs are not a loyal to any party. What would happen is a number of MPs would switch political allegiance from opposition parties to the parties of the ruling government . Thus the opposition would be a minority.

Aiding and abetting tax avoidance cannot be unethical . That is why companies and individuals employ accountants , to reduce the amount of tax due.