Lorry

No, it seems to depend on whether you got pink card first ( > TIN will be the same) or TIN first (2 numbers). Nothing to do with work, I know retirees who have never worked here can have both alternatives.

That's correct. And tax residency is usually where he has his residence. If there are reasons to doubt this, the financial institution has to dig further. But tax residency is not automatically the country of his nationality. The Polish guy in your post may be a tax resident of Madagascar, so he has to be reported to Madagascar. The FI should find out, it should not just choose the easy way and assume tax residency equals nationality.

For some people, it is. Others have 2 different numbers, one on the card, and another TIN.

Wrong. This may very well be how some banks handle it, but it's not correct at all. You can easily google "oecd crs" and read how the OECD wants it to be done.

3 dead (including a 14 years old), 2 wounded

That could well be It depends on the relevant clauses of the DTA. They often work like this.

Thanks for the link. It seems like pretty much every country where Thais go to work has a DTA. (Israel is quoted all over the place as not having a DTA, I just believed it without checking). But still, a DTA doesn't help illegals (like in Korea) and most probably won't help labourers. Someone who goes to pave the streets of Taipei doesn't have access to international tax advisers.

Yes. This is why Thais working abroad are upset, see my screenshot from tiktok above. Israel doesn't even have a DTA, Taiwan probably doesn't have one. Korea may have one, but a DTA doesn't help illegal workers. Finland probably has one. But in this thread you can see that educated farang find the recourse to a DTA a "bureaucratic nightmare". An industrial worker will certainly not get any help from a DTA.

Isn't age of consent in Thailand 15? Or is it different for same sex?

They haven't. Another poster was asking why the developers don't react. I guess they know this.

The whole thread is about the proposed changes. You should read the OP and the RD order that's the subject of this thread.

Thanks for posting this, I knew I have read "180 days or more" but couldn't find it. The Revenue Code ("180 days or more") is obviously more binding than the RD website ("over 180 days")

Somewhere else it said "180 days or more", I can't find the link, but I think it was also from the RD. Leaving on day 179 (day 1 being the day of arrival) is probably safer than on day 180.

The obvious solution for those who have no problem staying out of Thailand for 6 months in some calendar years. In these years they are not tax resident, and can remit - tax free - as much as they want, enough for the next year(s). I would not want to rely on this method in the long run. Smells like a loophole waiting to be closed.

How do you think did they get those 61 treaties?

Sounds like good advice

That is all your worldwide income, remitted to Thailand or not You do realize that this is a contradiction to what I just quoted? What did the law firm actually mean?

Threads have titles.

Foreigners are fleeced in Thai hospitals to a degree you cannot imagine. Billions of baht. Everything costs much more than if you would pay out of pocket in a country like Germany. What we get for all this money is quite mediocre. Sorry, wrong. Actually, it's a very strange idea.

555 "Very clear" Yes, my country's DTA seems very clear to a layman (it's one of those you mention). Unfortunately, our tax authorities interpret it VERY different from you and me. Actually, they don't interpret it differently, they deliberately ignore it. And I have explained earlier, that you as an individual have no right to demand that your government follows the DTA. The DTA is a treaty between two parties (the two states), only these two parties can demand that the other party (i.e. the other state) observe the treaty. A DTA gives the citizens of these states no individual rights if a government chooses to breach this treaty.

Much better than the governments of America and Western Europe who buy weapons and use them in actual wars. I much prefer weapons that are only toys, like submarines without engines. In my country (considered squeaky clean), lots of politicians sold masks to the goverment for inflated prices. The head of our government is involved in a multi-billion dollar fraud - but he doesn't recall, so all is well. Wrong, in the informal sector of the economy (street stalls) there is no VAT.

The article in the Thai Examiners has multiple quotes meaning pretty much the same. https://www.thaiexaminer.com/thai-news-foreigners/2023/09/25/calls-for-clarification-of-new-regime-income-tax-foreigners-overseas-income/ So who do you think the government is targeting? To say the PM is targeting rich Thais is ridiculous. He is one of them. The money of the Thai middle class is mostly tied up in their condos and cars.

You winessed this? You witnessed a murderer ending up in prison? You forgot the moon landing and the existence of America...all hearsay, I didn't witness it. I only hear other people saying it's true.

Correct. BTW I heard Thailand has a new government - hearsay, I didn't witness it. I also heard if you murder someone you might end up in prison - hearsay, has never happened to me. Don't get me talking about the moon landing...or the discovery of America

Sorry for my English. https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/296174/at-a-shop-or-in-a-shop "At the shop" tells the listener you are in or close enough to the shop to be considered on the premises. "In the shop" is more specific and tells the listener you are within the walls of the shop. So,"in" would not have been correct. The difference between "at" and "near" seems to depend on the definition of "premises". Maybe you visit the place and draw a map of the premises (to scale, please). In the meantime, I will ask that vendor where exactly (inches, please!) this happened. Then we can discuss whether "at" or "near" was the correct preposition