Etaoin Shrdlu

I think he's threatening the Panamanian government because it is pursuing the Trump Organization for tax evasion.

This is interesting reading: https://www.ifcreview.com/news/2024/december/panama-trump-organization-accused-of-tax-evasion-in-panama/

Many years ago I read that the RD's stated objective was to increase the amount of tax collected. No mention of ensuring compliance with Thai tax laws. Those might pretty much be the same thing in this environment, but it was strange to see it stated that way. It also invited speculation as to the methods that might be employed to increase collections.

I'm not sure that the Thai RD has much interest in ensuring a Thai taxpayer's compliance with foreign tax laws other than its obligations under various information sharing agreements such as FATCA and CRS.

I have no insight into how the LTR and its tax benefits work.

I don't think that the information shared under either FATCA or CRS would drill down to the level of the makeup of remittances. My understanding is that the relevant reports exchange information on account balances and interest/dividend income paid by the financial institution that holds the account. Seeing a large account balance on a FATCA/CRS report may cause a tax authority to take a closer look at the account and the sources of those funds via an audit, however. I don't think these reports drill down into the nature of deposits/withdrawals/remittances, etc, so FATCA/CRS would be of limited use to Thai tax authorities when it comes to remittances. It would be up to the Thai tax authorities to make inquiries based upon information that either the taxpayer or the local bank provides. I admit I may not have the full picture, so anyone with more complete information, please advise.

I'm not sure what you mean by "tax exempt clearly assessable income". If you mean income that is tax exempt in the individual's home country, that home country tax exemption may have no bearing on whether the remittances are tax exempt under Thai tax laws. Or did you mean something else?

Remittances may contain only non-assessable income or savings, in which case there is no place to declare these remittances on the tax forms we have seen so far. Think US Social Security benefits, savings from before 1 January 2024, etc. No need to declare them on Thai tax forms so far. Remittances may consist of only assessable income, in which case the entire amount of the remittance needs to be declared. Remittances may consist of both assessable income and non-assessable items. In this case, it will be up to the individual to declare the assessable portion of the remittance. It is up to the individual to determine what is assessable and what is non-assessable. In order to be able to prove which portion of the remittance is assessable and which is non-assessable, the individual will need to keep records that would stand up to scrutiny if the RD requested an audit. Unless the forms are changed and/or the RD formally gives issues instructions otherwise, there is currently no way to declare non-assessable income on Thai tax forms. In my opinion, anyone suggesting otherwise is mistaken, including individual RD employees.

Exactly! Using US terminology, these "exemptions" are what we would call "deductions". In other words, deductions from assessable income. Unless the RD changes PND90 and PND91 to specifically require declaration of non-assessable income, there is no way to report remittances of savings or income excluded from assessable income by DTA. The only thing that has changed is the new interpretation of how remitted income may be assessable income if the income is both earned and remitted after 31 December 2023. It seems that nothing else has changed.

Even if you decide to obtain private medical insurance, don't give up the social security coverage. Continue to pay the monthly premiums so that you'll have this scheme to fall back on. Private insurers will exclude pre-existing conditions, so that coverage will have holes in it depending upon your medical situation and history. Thai regulations are not as consumer-friendly as in the West and policies here are often not as broad in coverage. You may find better coverage and better underwriting and claims-paying attitudes with offshore insurers. Don't mistake the local operations of multinational insurers for the operations of offshore insurers. They may be part of the same company with the same branding, but operate under different regulations, have different approaches to underwriting and claims, and use different policy forms.

Might look into AXA's online offerings: https://www.axa.co.th/en/motor-insurance-online There may be others.

Trump's Gleichschaltung.

I had a US will and power of attorney drawn up by a lawyer in the US a couple of years ago. Both documents required notarization with witnesses. I had that done at the US Embassy here in Bangkok. $3,000 or so for a will using a lawyer sounds about right, but could be more if the estate is large and more complex. I think there are some issues that need to be addressed if one is not a legal resident of any state. Might be best to get proper advice instead of using templates.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/elon-musk-277-million-trump-republican-candidates-donations/ Ok, it was to other Republicans, too, but still, it must buy something.

I think Donald Trump’s campaign received something like 277 million votes for Elon Musk to be president.

As Scuba said above, make sure that you have made complete declaration of any pre-existing conditions. My suggestion would be to submit medical records going back as far as you can and let the insurer decide what affects their underwriting judgement. Don't just fill out the proposal form based upon what you can recall or what you understand about your medical history. Many of us have test results or doctors' notes in our medical files that haven't been properly explained to us or which were are unaware of that could be cited as as non-disclosure and thus grounds for denying a claim and canceling a policy from inception. Also, make sure you read the policy beforehand and make yourself aware of any obligations you may have under the policy. If you take care of the above, you are unlikely to have any issues with PC when it comes to claims.

Corporate coverage for cyber risks is available from international insurers and reinsurers. Convincing businesses to obtain cyber insurance would also potentially require Thai insurers to provide it, but Thai insurers have little experience with this line of insurance and have little internal capacity to insure these risks even if they wanted to. Thai insurers would be reliant on international reinsurers to provide capacity and underwriting expertise. International reinsurers may not consider Thai risks in a favorable light, making obtaining this cover yet more difficult. I'm not sure what the OIC could do to change this.

Mazars has a download with instructions on filing PND91 for 2024 on their website and there is no mention of declaring income that is non-assessable due to DTAs or for declaring remittances that are not taxable. https://www.forvismazars.com/th/en/insights/doing-business-in-thailand/payroll/personal-income-tax-return-form-pnd-91 The info is supposedly current as at 21 November 2024 and I would think that if the RD had changes in the works that Mazars would mention that. But one never knows in Thailand.

Good point. We'll have to see if the PND90 has been updated to accommodate income that is non-assessable due to DTAs or non-taxable remittances.

Here's a screenshot of an old PND91's section B that lists the type of income that is exempt. It seems to be very prescriptive with respect to the types of income that are exempt and has no place to declare income exempt due to DTA. Is the form for 2024 any different?

Perhaps Costco looks at the experience of Tesco and Casino here in Thailand and decides that a local partner with majority ownership in the current retail environment doesn't suit them.

Thanks. I wasn't sure. Just wanted to provide a fuller picture.

The Central Park 5 were subsequently acquitted when the real perpetrator confessed and DNA evidence linked him to the crime. Had the death penalty been carried out on the Central Park 5, it would have been a horrible miscarriage of justice. It was bad enough that they spent years in prison for a crime they did not commit. This is just more evidence of Trump's dangerous rhetoric.

Very good. Just wanted to make sure you were in a good position to be a dog owner. Not everyone thinks of these things in advance. With respect to 5b), you'll possibly have the issue of the two dogs getting along. Good luck.

In Trump's first impeachment trial, the Senate voted 52-48 to acquit. In Trump's second impeachment trial, the Senate voted 57-43 to convict. He remained in office because it takes 67 senators' votes in favor of conviction to remove a president from office. All Democrats, all Independents and seven Republicans voted for conviction. So it is fair to say that the majority of senators in the second impeachment trial voted to remove him from office. It just wasn't enough to do so.