chiang mai

And Malaysia. The issue is not about why different countries differ in their taxation approach to CC transactions but why remitted loans in one country are not assessable whilst credit card transactions in the same country almost certainly are.

One month ago the Baht was 33.07, yesterday, 30 days later it was 33.12! What's the problem!

The bigger problem now is that the extent of the relationships are proven. They involve quid pro quo if NK wants to attack the South and if Xi wants to make a move on Taiwan, at a time when US supplies to Israel and Ukraine are already overstretched..

I keep coming back to try and understand why some countries regard credit card transactions as potentially assessable and why they should be, but as Gant asks, why loans are not. The possibilities I see are: - the place where the transaction takes place is a key factor in forming the contract - credit card operations are seen as a service and it is that which distinguishes it from pure lending. - the sheer volume of credit card transactions and card holders makes them a more probable vehicle to try and escape tax, particularly in tourism oriented economies, which is why some Revenue Departments feel they must be included. - loans are equally as assessable but significantly rarer. Ultimately, I agree it is the source of the funds used to pay the bill, credit card or loan, that will determine assessability but the ratio of the two must be phenomenally high. For every foreigner who takes out an overseas loan to buy property here, there must be millions of people making credit card transactions using foreign cards where the bill is paid for using tax assessable income. I

The two things are part and parcel of the same thing, you should know that if you're working with international taxation! Where the contract is formed has a direct bearing on its tax implications. If the purchase or contract was made overseas, it has no relevance to TRD, but because it was executed in Thailand is does. Anecdotally: I spent one particular year working in Hong Kong but the work was such that I was in HK for less than 180 days in the tax year. HK PIT was taken from my salary every month, regardless of whether I was in HK of not. Bonus was paid at the end of the work and this was paid gross of tax. Ultimately the decision to tax my bonus or not came down to where my contract was signed, which was in the UK.

Thanks, that's useful to understand. It seems Malaysia now joins a list of countries where credit card transactions van be considered as assessible, either directly or vis some form of transaction tax. The anecdotal examples is mounting. Fringe benefits and benefits in kind are embedded in the Thai tax code: "Taxable income covers both cash and benefits in kind". https://www.forvismazars.com/th/en/insights/doing-business-in-thailand/payroll/personal-income-tax

Pays 150k in interest payments to avoid 50 baht in tax, sounds like a great plan!

Pr ftobably the major difference between the tax implications of using foreign credit cards in Thailand and those of using a home country loan to buy property here is the scale and volume. Between 65% and 85% of the populations of western countries have credit cards whereas I imagine the number of people willing and able to take out a loan in their own country, to remit to Thailand to buy property, must be in the very low single digits percentage wise.

I read Chartchai in the Bangkok Post regularly.

Probably true, parking on a bridge of any kind is ticket able, trust me I learned this lesson the hard way

My wife told me today she had read that it has been sold and mentioned Kasikorn, much more than that I don't know.

ALL statistics on almost everything come from Thai sources, out of necessity. But if you don't trust the central bank, there's no point in even discussing things.

Many of these exceptional scenarios would likely end up in front of a tax tribunal judge with both sides able to argue for and against assessability. The point is they are exceptions which are probably so complex that even tax attorneys would have difficulty deciding them.

I believe it is since the important part is the age during the tax year. But I don't have an official statement from TRD to confirm this so I presume it must be regarded as opinion!

I disagree with respect to logic and the laws of finance. Your home country revolving credit agreement obliges the credit card company to pay, on your behalf, the cost of any goods or services that you authorise and in turn obliges you the cardholder to reimburse the credit card company. In Thailand, you offer up your credit card as payment for the rent on your Bangkok apartment. The landlord accepts the offer and is provided with consideration, by the credit card company., on your behalf. Therein, the three essential components of any contract have been met, offer, acceptance and consideration and significantly, that contract was made in Thailand. When the credit card company pays the landlord, the remittance has been made, on your behalf, for goods or services you specified and received whilst in Thailand. With respect to iHerb: importing goods into Thailand using a foreign credit card strikes me as not Thai assessable (given all the usual criteria about the source of funds used to pay the bill)/

Don't know what bearing current year has but also don't know what point you're debating since that is what I have said from the outset

And if it is funded with assessable income?

You are no longer discussing the assessability of cc transaction and are instead exploring ways to evade tax.

And before someone goes there, it goes without saying that all of this is subject to the funds used to pay the cc bill, being assessable.

The cc transaction was made in Thailand, the relatives gift or loan to you was not. When you charged your rent to your cc in Thailand, you entered into a contract with the Thai landlord and your cc company. Later, I'm now out and about

99% of what is currently understood by members about Thai tax rules must be regarded as unconfirmed on that basis because none of the code refers specifically to foreigners.....a stupid word game that has no place here.

The TRD does not care about your financial activities in your home country, it only cares about the assessability of funds at the time of their remittance. If you remit assessable funds and subsequently make arrangements to alter the nature of their assessability...oh well, too late.

Huh! If I live in Bangkok and remit overseas funds to pay my rent, later I stop remitting funds and charge my rent to my UK Barclaycard and reduce my annual remittances by a corresponding amount, I just committed tax evasion, if I didn't declare the charges. If I never paid my Barclaycard bill I'm an idiot because I was declared UK bankrupt and I lost my credit rating.

Revolving credit and a loan are different things. One is a line of credit that may be utilised for any purpose and without security or a fixed completion date. A loan has a specific purpose and is typically of fixed duration with fixed repayment schedules.

If you post a challenge, you cannot read my reply and then go back and edit your challenge to negate my response, if you do that it's the fast track to my ignore list, I hope you understand that. We have all been painfully aware for almost a year that the existing TRD Code is very short on clarity and detail, as it relates to foreigners overseas remittances. It is not realistic or even remotely reasonable to state that something is unconfirmed or untrue, solely because there is no known TRD statement saying that something is true and confirmed. I recall from early posts about tax that some members refused to accept that assessable income was defined hence the new rule was not applicable to foreigners. Please let's not go back down that same path again because it's counter productive.