Lorry

I agree, you have convinced me. But I am wondering how this would play out: It would be very easy for the RD just to tax all international remittances arriving in my account. No matter from whom, gifts or not. I guess it would be more complicated to filter all international remittances arriving in Thailand (including in the accounts of the Soi Dog Foundation) and figure out which ones came from me. There may be several people named Lorry in the world. So I could imagine that the RD finds it more practical just to tax all incoming transfers of my account. Some RD staff have said so, as posted earlier in this thread. Of course, it would be very stupid to pay the rent or the baker by international transfer and then not to declare these transfers as income. Could easily happen, though: you buy a condo off plan, wire the money from abroad directly to the developer - I think for many people it's not obvious that they have to declare this money when they file taxes in Thailand

Agreed 100%

Now the argument really spirals out of control. The whole point of @Etaoin Shrdlu and @JimGantis: A wire transfer as a gift to your Thai wife is still subject to YOUR personal income tax, even that transfer never hits your account in Thailand. And it doesn't matter whether it's a transfer to your wife, your landlord or the Soi Dog Foundation. Money that never hits YOUR Thai bank account it's still a remittance YOU have to pay tax for. Much earlier in this thread the corresponding UK rules were quoted, and they say exactly this. This part is wrong: "which means you don't have any remittances to declare to Thai tax" It may be that Etaoin and Jim are wrong, but I don't think so. And of course, if I would use transfers to my landlord hoping the RD would not find out that these are my remittances and that I have to pay taxes on them, and if I would not declare them, that would be tax evasion. Same in the UK. BTW of course the landlord and the baker have to pay their income tax, too.

No. If someone transfers gifts from his father or the inheritance from his mother to Thailand, it's not one of the kinds of income listed in RD 161/2566 and no PIT is due. That's not tax evasion, that's following the law

That was a theoretical example in order to demonstrate that the receiver and the purpose of the transfer cannot matter. Nowhere did I say that the transfer to landlord and baker should be called " gift", quite the opposite

I know and I did it. Just pull it upwards

Thanks for clarification

Flew business March 2020, old recliner seats. Return flight August 2023, flatbed seats.

I thought about situation 1 and about JimGant's "sarcastic" post and I think in situation 1 he is right. I could pay my rental apartment in Bangkok by international wire transfer from my foreign bank account to the bank of my landlord. I could even pay my baker like this. Obviously this money is still money that I remitted into Thailand (the UK rules even explicitly say so). So the receiver of the wire transfer and the purpose of the transfer do not matter, and they don't matter either if the transfer is a gift to anyone. This is important, it means gifts a tax resident sends to his Thai wife instead of himself don't help. About situation 2, I think JimGant is wrong. If Aunt Mary in Tallahassee sends me a customary gift, this is not a kind of income as specified in RD 162/2566. Stat is right here. 3 problems: 1. In Klonko's video, even the RD guy said a gift to your son has to be customary. That's wrong (read the law) because he was talking about father and son, but he is the RD. 2. What's customary? We only know a Ferrari isn't. What about a Mercedes? 3. As stat mentioned before, you could easily live off gifts from close relatives. I don't think Somchai, the tax inspector, will let you pull this off. But it certainly is one more layer of protection.

This discussion mixes up two completely different situations: Situation 1 (the situation most posters talk about): A foreigner, tax resident in Thailand, transfers money from abroad to the Thai bank account of another person in Thailand. The other person may be his wife or the Soi Dog Foundation, doesn't matter. The money is a gift. The money never goes into the foreigner's Thai bank account. Does the foreigner - who never controls the money since it left his bank account abroad - have to pay personal income tax on this money? @Etaoin Shrdlu thinks yes, and @JimGanttoo, if I understand him correctly. I would like to know from native speakers of English and/ or Thai ( @Dogmatix?) whether a "remittance" according to RD 161/2566 necessarily means a remittance to oneself or not. Situation 2 (the situation @stat is taking about) Another person, e.g. a close relative like stat's father, who is not a tax resident in Thailand, sends money as a gift from abroad to his beloved son's (who is a tax resident in Thailand) Thai bank account (not so much as to buy a Ferrari, that would not be customary, see @Klonko's video). Has the son to pay personal income tax on this money? @stat thinks no, I agree with him. Anybody thinks otherwise?

There are no certified statements in my home country. The RD there accepts pdf printouts.

Very true. Except that the girls aren't cheaper here than in my home country. And sometimes they just lie, like the youtuber pretending you get a 120sqm house right on the beach of Koh Samui for 16000 baht per month. Or the guy saying a prostitute travel companion for 3 weeks charges 3000 baht (for 3 weeks, not per day or per hour).

"former AV Idol who was born on April 18, 1985"

Most Thais care, including the old guys themselves. Not really. Gik and dek is not the same. A gik is more like a girlfriend or FWB even if you are in a relationship already. A gik can be your age. A dek is the 18y.o. you picked up in Tawan Daeng or a beer garden and you "take care" of her.

"Normal" as in frequeht, yes. "Normal" as in agreement with societal norms, no. Thais do disapprove of guys having a girl a generation younger. And, contrary to farang, Thai men rarely walk around in public holding hands with their dek. Its acceptable to have a 18-y.o. dek, but not a girlfriend. Even a a mia noi is not as generally accepted as farang think.

That's probably normal for Thai 18-year-olds. But maybe you should show her Mr Rockwell's pic, and she would change her mind. He doesn't look bad, certainly not a generation older than her. And he is rich and famous, 2 very strong aphrodisiaca. But generally I agree with what has been said before: Only girls with daddy issues who want money are interested in older guys. There are a lot of these in Thailand.

It means what law enforcement think it means. It doesn't matter what you, I, a linguist or any reasonable person thinks it means. And law enforcement think it means we can arrest Mr Rockwell, even he obviously did not take away the girl from her parents

See my latest post - it doesn't matter what it means, this phrase is used if you have sex with a person 15-18

I quote from coconut: "The age of consent in Thailand is 15, according to Article 279 of the Criminal Code." Ha! So LiverpoolLou knew it all along! LiverpoolLou should tell the police, obviously they don't know the law. Oh, wait...I quote again: The age of consent in Thailand is 15, according to Article 279 of the Criminal Code. However, if a sexual encounter occurs with a teen (aged 15-18) outside the home it requires parental consent. https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/tiktok-teacher-luke-rockwell-arrested-after-sex-with-16-year-old/ BTW I always wondered what it means to "take away" a 16-year-old from her parents (see @Neeranam's quote). Obviously, Mr Rockwell didn't take away the girl. But it doesn't matter (and it doesn't help him) what I think, it only matters how the police interpret the law.

I agree. Thai prostitutes are surprisingly honest, it's usually a fair deal. Set-ups like you described are common in the Philippines and in Cambodia (in Cambodia foreign NGOs are often involved). In Thailand I have never heard of anything like this.

I once stayed at a place where aircon cost more than 6000 a month. It was a very old aircon, and a relativrly high price per unit. This combination is deadly and can be found often in "cheap" apartments: salary 13000, rent 5000, aircon 4000. If it's a condo, you should pay electricity yourself, directly to MEA. No high price per unit. If it's an old aircon, you can move or you buy a new one at your own cost.

There is no "legal age for prostitution" because there is no legal prostitution. But: it is legal to work as a gogo dancer when you are 18. This is not considered prostitution. It is legal to visit a gogo bar or any other night club (e.g. Nana disco or Therme) as a customer when you are 20. You may or may not meet a nice guy there, and he might even give you a present. This is not prostitution. If you are a streetworker the police will fine you if you are under 18.

In the Gift Tax Case from the RD (I posted the link 7 posts earlier) the sums are 700,000 - 1,000,000 THB per year . Not a domain of the wealthy. Most expats in Thailand give gifts to their partners or Thai family (I mean real genuine gifts), and often this is the bigger part of the money they bring to Thailand. So it would be of practical importance to know how the RD treats/will treat gifts. But we know very little about it.

The DPA website just says, non-resident baht accounts are not protected. I remember @Mike Lister saying in another thread that our accounts usually ar non-resident accounts. I am not aware of the old threads (didn't read any) and AN is not searchable. Could you please summarize your knowledge here? And how do I find out whether I have a resident account or a non-resident account?

I think he meant exactly this. I would say the gifter doesn't get a tax holiday, he just never remitted the money to Thailand. A remittance imho is a transfer to oneself. But the RD case @Dogmatix quoted much earlier in this thread was the attached one iirc. It is about the taxes of the receiver of the gift, not about taxes the gifter has to pay. In @Klonko's video the RD also talks very clearly about the tax of the receiver, and not very clear about the gifter. I give up and agree with @Yumthaithat we just don't know. PS thinking about it, @JimGant's argument makes sense in combination with @Dogmatic latest post: If Mr U gifts 1m into Mr T's Thai account, Mr U has to pay personal income tax for it @JimGant If Mr U gifts 1m to Mr T's US account, and then Mr T remits it to Thailand, Mr T has to pay personal income tax for it @Dogmatix So the 1m will always be taxed, win-win for the RD. Gift tax.mov Gift Tax Case RD KK0702-530 11 Feb 2023.docx