anrcaccount

Yes. You get it. The soft power definition as written, is extremely broad and could include a music concert, a single medical appointment, a single thai cooking class, and many, many other things Time will tell if these are accepted. IMO what the DTV really is, is a 5 year Multiple Entry Tourist Visa, allowing stays of up to 180 days each entry, easily extendible or rest on re entry.

I think this will be a free for all. Time will tell. Initial applications have been filed with a single hospital appointment under the "soft power" provisons. We'll see if they are accepted. Once the visa is granted, it's granted and valid for 5 years. There is no mention of any ongoing checks or validity requirements. The only practical time these would occur is upon extensions, which can be avoided by re entry.

It's been in effect for 1 day - so give it time. I think your hope will be pretty close to the reality. This looks like a free for all.

Sure, OK, but the point remains the same. I would note many long term visas are affixed into the passport. Entry stamps are separate. We'll see how they do the DTV very soon.

Yes.

No. It's 10K for the visa. 5 year unlimited multiple entry. Each entry 180 days. Extensions of 180 days if not leaving / re entering possible at Thai Immigration. Believe it's additional 10K per extension but alternatively - you border bounce / travel in and out once every 6 months.

It's 10K. Not 100K.

Based on how the requirements are written- only required one time at application and not needed to be in a Thai Bank. Yes, looks much easier than a marriage visa, no re entry, no yearly extensions, no paperwork. Could say the same for retirement visas. If implemented as written -this will also kill some categories of the LTR visa, decimate the Elite Visa and will end anyone using "employer of record" visa services - why would you?

No need for those tricks. Simply enrol in a cooking class, or music festival! Get the 5 year visa stamped into your passport and you're good to go. Based on how visas operate there will be no re checking after the visa is in the passport, you're good for 5 years.

For the love of God, Buddha or whatever it's called, please do not turn this discussion into another tax thread.

How do you figure that from this wording? What's the difference between attending and participating? "oralien who wish to come and do other activities, including learning Muay Thai and martial arts cooking class Studying and practicing sports Medical treatment, training, seminars, art and music exhibitions"

No, documentation of work is one option. Others include visiting for art exhibitions, music festivals, Muay Thai or cooking classes....... AKA- tourism. This is looking more like a glorified Tourist METV, 5 years validity. Roll up, one and all!

Yup, an absolute free for all. Looking at the conditions- will be very broad and very, very easy to qualify for. Might as well have just changed the visa exempt entries to 5 years!

Great question, this visa (if implemented as it looks), will be extremely popular and as well as attracting new visitors/migrants will, also Put many other existing visa types on the back burner, with many existing holders likely to be advantaged by changing to this. Even many retirement and marriage visa holders will surely consider this, why not?

Doesn't look very difficult, who wants to bet the Zoolander style "professional" modelling portfolio may suffice! Failing that, simply enrol in a Thai cooking class and get the visa granted under the "soft power" reasoning. If this is as it seems written, it'll be exceptionally popular amongst those looking to visit, emigrate and those currently residing in Thailand under a myriad of other visas.

This looks like a complete free for all. Almost at the point where they should just make it a 5 year visa exempt entry!!! As long as you can show 500k THB, and a reason to visit - which can include attending a music festival or a cooking class, there you go, a 5 year multiple entry visa, only 10k THB.... Roll up, roll up, one and all. If implemented as per these guidelines, this will be the biggest change in visas in a long time.

This is laughable, like an amateur sportsman criticizing a professional. Take some time to look into this lawyers background. He (Luca) is the real deal, long time in TH, married to a Thai royal descendant who is Managing Partner of the firm, highly connected, deals with public sector government and large businesses in Thailand. Much closer to an authoritative source, than any of the speculation on here.

Cool your jets son, a big life change based on this policy discussion is an overreaction! You probably were liable to pay tax in TH for the last few years anyway (according to policy) , and you didn't, and nothing happened. Remember, the at times very wide gap between policy and enforcement in TH. Right now, apart from a lot of hot air on this forum, there's little to indicate next year will be any different!

FIFO/LIFO and any other cost methods are only relevant for calculation of capital gains on stock sold, as it relates to shares. This does not address remittance of original capital , which IMO is not income , even consider cases where no gains, or losses, have been made. I maintain Q9 of the Sherrings statement backs this up, that it is up to the individual to decide exactly what funds are remitted to Thailand and what funds remain offshore. Taxpayers can determine this. Gains are only the proceeds exceeding the original cost. OK, you can debate how this original cost is calculated, but I don't see a debate on remitting principal. Same principle applies for term deposits and on call accounts. Remitting original principal is not taxable (Q11), only income. Here's another opinion source for that referring to bonds, again, only the income is taxable, not the principal. https://thelegal.co.th/2023/10/18/qa-statement-issued-by-revenue-department-clarifying-taxation-applied-on-foreign-sourced-income/

You remitted whatever you self determined, it's either income or capital. Ergo, simply state it's capital and in the almost negligible chance of being asked, you'd have the records to prove it.

Source for this? From where do "we" get the "understanding"? A very unclear statement. There's capital, and then there's capital gains. Gains are income, original capital, is not income. Never has been. Always contains both? What a strange statement. How would that possibly work?

POR 161/162 refer to income. Not remitting original capital / principal. When the investments are sold, only the gains are taxable, if remitted. Stock investments comprise capital, and gains(if any) ,when sold. This "savings" terminology is irrelevant. When they are sold is only relevant for the income portion, if remitted, as you reference POR 161/162. What's not clear? Really? So the Sherrings link , question 9, contradicts this completely? https://sherrings.com/foreign-source-income-personal-tax-thailand.html

I don't see why there's any debate on this point. This is simply the difference between capital, and capital gains. Or assets, and income. Notwithstanding this is unlikely to ever be enforced, let's clarify something. As you've said many times, the policy is " income earned AND remitted to Thailand". Stocks sold comprise the original capital plus gains ( if any, also can have no gains) /. If the gain is remitted, this may be taxable. If the original capital is remitted, this is principal and not subject to taxes. Doesn't matter if principal is from the proceeds of a on -call savings account, a term deposit, stock sales, mutual fund sales, anything. None of these are income. Income is dividends, distributions, interest, capital gains. Only these things can be subject to tax IF remitted. It's up to the taxpayer to classify their own remittances into Thailand as capital or assessable income. Ergo, it's acceptable to remit the original capital/principal and leave the income offshore. Sources, I'll use the same ones you have cited: https://sherrings.com/foreign-source-income-personal-tax-thailand.html Question 7, Question 9, Question 11 https://www.stashaway.co.th/r/thai-tax-announcement-29112023 "The principal amount is not subject to taxes" What's not clear here? If I'm missing your point entirely, please explain?

Putting aside that verbose spiel above, what I refer to as fear mongering is you making statements like these: "You have to tell them and if you lie and they check, you get to go to the big house for a few years, vaseline not included." and "Now they realise that was actually a very very risky game. The cars and houses that were paid for using current year investment and pension pot income (tax free 25%), many will now realise it was quite scary to behave that way."

Wow the fearmongering has really dialed up a level , I thought your philosophy was to share information to put peoples minds at ease? Anyone reading these threads, needs to realize , at the most, they're simply an academic debate on policy at this stage. As anyone who has lived in Thailand knows, policy and reality are very often wildly divergent. I think it's also fair to describe the threads as 'absolute speculation based on multiple non definitive sources" I think a poster said it best in another thread, bears repeating: "Considering that the 180 day rule has been around for years and just some changes on what income is included were amended this year, I would say everyone is overreacting about all this tax news. Why? Because of enforcement. Until they announce any enforcement measures, I would not even worry. The more logical statement is "IF" they announce. I don't think there will be a "when". Why? Because they didn't enforce it before, so they likely won't enforce it now. Regarding ways they could enforce it. Currently, they only enforce the filing of personal income tax in Thailand when one needs to renew a work permit."