chiang mai

The devil is in the detail. The average wage in Thailand is 15k Baht per month, that's 190k per year. The personal deduction for tax is 60k plus the first 150k of income is zero rated, that totals 210k. All of that means that on average, half the population doesn't make enough money to qualify to pay tax. The 4 million that do pay tax are part of the 11 million who file tax returns, 4 million seeking refunds, 2 to 3 million filing null returns. All of a sudden that 4 million who pay tax makes more sense, The workforce is 38 million, 50% don't make enough money to file a return, leaves 9.5 million, 4 million paying tax, 4 million seeking refunds and 2 to 3 filing null returns.

So how did the person qualify for the visa, are they supposed to explain to the TRD they used an illegal practise to obtain their visa hence there's no tax to pay? That's a bit like saying you have an alibi for the robbery, you were busy committing murder at the time.

I haven't said what I want, I've only said what I think is right. And no, I don't work for the government or the Revenue, you dreamed that up. Apparently you don't know how to debate or simply don't want to.......so, goodbye.

A hill tribe gardner used a chain saw to remove a tree that had sprung up in a bad location and was damaging a wall and the banks of the klong. After he took it down to a stump, he cut an X in the top of the stump and poured in a bag of salt......the stump is perishing at a rapid rate.

I don't get this wanting something in return for paying tax. Getting something for paying into say the Social Security fund every month is similar to paying National Insurance contributions in the UK, it's a club where you make contributions and you get something in return and that is different from personal income tax. But taxes in most countries, pay for the infrastructure or fabric that everyone uses or exists for the benefit of everyone, I also don't think it's right that people are able to move from their home country where tax is medium/high, to another country that is poorer where tax collection is low and escape tax completely in the process. Many argue that VAT is a tax that everyone pays and that is fair, so why not increase the VAT rate? I think VAT puts the poor at a disadvantage whilst the wealthy can easily afford any increase so I don't see a VAT increase as fair, not unless the rest of the tax system is fully implemented and fully operational. I think there's a price to be paid for living in any country and that is to become a part of their tax system. Changing countries to escape tax takes things in the wrong direction and it seems to me that is the problem the global tax system is trying to fix.......something else I agree with in principle. BTW this is not a competition, I thought we were debating an issue, not competing against each other for points!

It isn't a new law, it's a reinterpretation of an existing law, which doesn't need to be gazetted.

Members of AN are hardly in a position to see what TRD is and isn't doing, there aren't enough of us with sufficient reach to be able to understand that. Anyway, any report of TRD action by a member would only ever be regarded as anecdotal, quite rightly too.

Playing devils advocate: If foreigners were excluded, wouldn't that discriminate against Thai people and put them at a financial disadvantage? I wonder how we might feel if this was our home country and the government announced that foreigners wouldn't be taxed but we would! I'm pretty sure in that case I'd be very unhappy.

I suspect the revenue they will gain from taxing those Thai tax evaders, will far outrip any losses from foriegners who leave. Why not exclude foreigners? Why should they?

Closing that tax loop hole was a sensible move that was aimed at middle and upper class Thais who had been evading taxes, foreigners were just collateral damage. It will take a couple of years I would imagine, for the global tax bill to be tabled, debated, voted upon, approved and implemented, it wont be a quick process.

No, the global income option has not been agreed.

Yes it would.

The TRD doesn't agree with you, neither do I.

I didn't say it was a new law. The rule on question has been reinterpreted, that reinterpretation has only existed since September 2023, not forever.

Very much agreed

True, only the reinterpretation of the existing law, implemented last year.

A lot of posters get such things very very wrong, in many cases, it is after all only guesswork combined with the posters desire to be right.

In which case, your savings are exempt under POR162. Different people have different ideas of what constitutes savings, which is why I gave you chapter and verse on the issue related to savings. But since we're here on the subject of savings. Some Revenue domains consider savings to be income, minus taxes and expenditure, which I personally agree with. It's not completely clear to me that the TRD rules sees things the same way. I think they may look at remitted funds and if they are not assessable under POR162, they may wish to understand the source of income from which they are derived. That's nonsense of course, if those savings are years old, but as things stand, there is no clear cut set of rules to say that income earned after 12/31/23, minus tax and expense is considered savings and therefore not tax assessable (POR 162 excluded), when remitted.

POR 161 and POR 162, reinterpretation of the current year remittance rules, dated September and November last year

Belt and braces. 🙂

The tax is on income from any year, not just current year, EXCEPT that any savings earned prior to 31/12/2023 are not taxable.

You may want to keep a weather eye on future deductions and allowances which appear to be more variable year on year than I had previously understood. It appears they are altered, based on the current state of the economy and were increased quite substantially during covid. It would not be unreasonable to think they will revert to the longer term norm, once the economy is functioning better. This means that a foreigner's liability to tax is impacted not only by remittance levels but also by exchange rates and current TEDA.,

Interpretation of the Thai tax rules is not the issue that I commented upon, the accuracy and appropriateness of your opening statement was. What you wrote was incorrect and set the stage of understanding for many people, inaccurately and inappropriately. "the Thai government put a new law into affect that created a personal income tax on all cash transfers into Thailand which applies to all residents of Thailand", I appreciate that you subsequently asked a question but you framed or preceded it with false information and not every reader is up to speed or aware of the issue.

"created a personal income tax on all cash transfers into Thailand which applies to all residents of Thailand", It didn't do anything like that, the op should do his homework and read up on what really happened.

See if I understand that correctly: 1 - If your country has a DTA, there's no need to file a return. 2 - If an agency or government department wants to see one, you must file....does this mean the TRD may want to see one? 3 - Income imported into Thailand, calculated according to the Thai method. Does this means remittances that are assessable according to the TRD rules and the DTA rules? They looks like circular rules.