cleopatra2

I think MFP need the Speaker position as a fall back position. If Pita is disqualified t the PM must come from another party. If MF relinquish the House Speaker say to PT and Pita is disqualified it is more than probable that the PM will be a PT candidate. Thus MF will have no power.

There were over 3,000 homicides recorded in England and Wales between 2015 to 2020

Let's take ITER The latest figures I have is Q=,10. That is 50MWin 500MW out in thermal energy. ITER have confirmed it now requires 440MW to operate the reactor. ITER also estimate that the 500MW of thermal energy will equate to 200MW of usable electricity Thus giving a Q (total ) of 200/440 =0.45 Thus for a plasma Q of 10 results in a Q total of 0.45

Fusion reactors are making pitifull progress. I accept that the energy produced can be more than the energy the lasers inject into the reaction ( Q >1 ), However this only represents somewhere in the region of 2% of the total energy required to be provided to the reactor . This is without taking into account that the energy produced is still not in a useable form and will incur further efficiency losses .

The fact that the company is not currently carrying out any media activities is moot. The only relevant question , is the company still registered as a media company ? In previous case of the printing business that no longer was operating , the court ruled that it was still a media business . Even though it had ceased to be operating any printing activities. The reasoning , the business had not official notified that it had ceased and thus could in future resurrect its printing activities.

Only the voters can sack the MP. The process as follows Select Committee recommend 10 day suspension. Parliament has a vote to suspend or not . 10% of voters required to request MP recall. Only at this stage the MP would be sacked.

From reading the article on the CC interpretation , to be inactive requires the company to be formally dissolved. The fact that the company is not currently carrying out any business is immaterial, ( from previous cases listed in the article),

This raises the question , why was the shares not transferred to their rightful owner earlier. What is still not clear , even as executor , did Pita inherit some of the shares .

If the UK changed the situation where British expats no longer entitled to the personal tax allowance. This would have the effect of removing entitlement of Thai wives or spouse to the tax allowance.

To me the possibility that due to the ongoing court case the legal ownership of the shares have not been transferred yet. Thus the estate is the legal owner .

I have never claimed to know the facts. The article states that the shares were left to Pita thus he is the owner. The judge quotes heritage manager , not heritage owner. Whilst Pita has claimed that the shares belong to his family and acting as executor. This statement is somewhat ambiguous , is Pita claiming that he has no ownership or beneficiary from any of the shares. If Pita is the true owner of any shares then that would be a violation of the constitution .

From the article Pita owns the shares. Normally an heritage manager would not be a beneficiary. Pita as owner has to be a beneficiary and thus the true owner. If this proves to be the case . The EC has only one option but to ask the CC to disqualify . Any other outcome would be a form of corruption where a candidate receives favourable treatment due to popularity.

As the eldest son , under Thai inheritance law would the shares or part of automatically be passed down to Pita. If a will does exist it seems inconceivable that Pita would be excluded from any beneficiary of the shares. like most people here I do not know the facts. It would appear that Pita is depending upon a technicality of being executor and not yet official owner.

There will be some married persons who also leave and re-enter the country during extensions period( using re-entry permits). Thus resetting the clock.

Keeping the topic to the OP. The pension income is UK sourced . The Thai UK DTT provides for no relief on UK tax due for this income. However article 23 provides for the UK tax paid to be used as credit against any Thai tax on the same income. There is no provisions in Article 23 to allow any Thai tax paid on UK sourced income to be used as credit against UK tax. There is provisions for Thai tax paid on Thai sourced income to be used for credit against any UK tax due.

With regards the pension income, the material point is the source of income. Having the monies paid into a Thai bank does not change this. There is no provisions for Thai tax paid on UK sourced income to offset any UK tax. The only relief available is for UK tax ( UK sourced income) to reduce any Thai tax due on the same source of income

lets clear this up Regarding your pension income , there is no means of reducing your tax liability for the HMRC ( you will pay the full amount due in regards of UK tax authorities ) As regards Article 23 of The DTT , if Thai tax authorities decided to tax you ( they may decide your pension income is not taxable) , then any tax paid to the UK tax authorities can be used as a credit against the Thai tax bill. Thus the Thai tax due can be reduced. There is no refund from the HMRC. With regards your other income I have not looked into the DTT for these so cannot comment.

He obviously does hold the shares , statements have been made to the effect that he has been unable to sell them. The question is in what capacity he holds the shares, Pita has stated that they are owned by his family, is this by a will or Thai inheritance laws. Even if Pita statement that he is only heritage manager is correct that still leaves the actual ownership vague. it could be possible that he is managing the shares on behalf of himself and his family.

For the points you raise my personal opinion is that the EC will refer the matter to the Constitutional Court. As far as I can tell neither the Organic law on elections or Constitution define the meaning of shareholder, in the context of nominee , manager in a trust or beneficial owner.

ARTICLE 98 of the 2017 Constitution. If as stated he does not own the shares how could he declare them. The fact that he previously declared them to the NACC is only relevant in the circumstances of alleged concealment. As far as I know Pita does not deny the shares only the interpretation of holding them.

The OP pension is non government thus article 19 does not apply. Because the DTT has no specific articles regarding pensions. There is no relief available for UK tax. To avoid double taxation article 23 applies and UK tax paid on income sourced in the UK can be used as credit against any Thai tax due.

The OP cannot claim the tax back from UK derived income. In the case of his pension income he would be able receive credit for the UK tax paid against any Thai tax due.

When you state UK citizen I assume British National With regards to your pension assuming it is UK derived income , it is taxable in the UK even as a non resident for UK tax purposes I am unsure on the Buy to let and investment dividends . On these would need to consult the DTT

It would depend upon the specific pension. If the pension is from a government pension then article 19 applies. Any spouse pension paid to a Thai national residing in Thailand would not be UK taxable but subject to Thai tax

Cannot just nominate a new MP for PM after the election . The nominees had to be provided by the Party prior to the Election. IF the MF leader is found to have broken the Constitution he will be disqualified and the party dissolved. What happens to the MPs I do not know. What appears to be known is that the MF leader even if as executor does own the shares and is listed as the owner. The benchmark was set during the last election and should disqualify the MF party. I suspect failure to disqualify will lead to further complaints from the present ruling class , and disqualification will lead to protests from the voters. A lose lose situation.