anrcaccount

Reality > Theoretical Understanding of Law Multiple reports continue to come in of people being unable get a TIN in the real world. Your view is: - People should lie to the TRD in order to obtain a TIN - TRD officials are lying, as their actions don't agree with your theoretical understanding of the law - Anyone not "smart enough" to get a TIN, shouldn't contemplate living in Thailand The mind boggles.

Correct, but actually / in reality, no one actually even claimed it was from a different year, no one needed to, as there has never been any enforcement. Currently, there's no indication 2025 will be any different. It's likely that almost all foreign income remitted will remain undeclared (regardless of year earned), as it has done for many, many years. Agreed, absolutely nothing will change in 2025 regarding worldwide taxation.

Webinar was actually held on October 3rd, but we'll see. If you do receive any source link or TRD documentation, be great if you share it on here. Thanks for the link. Thanks again for the link, yes a very old article, pretty vague, but to be clear it does state any that LIFO is also acceptable: "For scripless securities, the taxpayer is allowed to use any acceptable accounting method such as FIFO, LIFO or weighted average method in calculating cost of securities." and also states specific share parcels can be sold at cost if identified: "Where securities are certified and the serial numbers of the shares are identified, the specific cost of the share has to be used."

Be very careful relying on any information from this company, which sprung up only in October last year, some might say opportunistically. Consider their real world experience with the TRD, even, whether they have ever submitted a Thai tax return, let alone one with foreign income.......... Anyone know the source for his definitions of the accounting methods for capital gains calculation? Where has he got this info from, when it's not listed by any of the bigger/established accounting firms, or the TRD? He states FIFO and Average Cost are acceptable. Really? Consider a single stock owned with multiple purchases at different cost prices over a long time period. When a portion of these shares are sold, it's possible to choose which parcel. Therefore to minimise capital gains, in this situation any logical investor chooses to sell the highest cost first. How can FIFO or Moving average apply to this? Logically appears impossible, as then TRD would be trying to tax a stock that hasn't even been sold, (unrealised gain) let alone remitted.

Very well said. People on here get lost in theoretical debate, one of the things forgotten is actually what a "remittance" really is. Essentially, it's a citizen ( in your example Thai) , working overseas and sending money back to their home country. We can argue black & blue about whether it includes a foreigner using an ATM , or their home country credit card, but these all pale in comparison to what a remittance 'really' is ( regardless of legal definition). In a developing country like Thailand, remittances play a huge part in the economy.

They're not necessarily identical in terms of remittance. Let me ask you, about this one: I have an account in the UK. I use my UK CC to buy something in Thailand and settle the CC balance from my UK account. I have remitted funds that may or may not be assessable depending ENTIRELY on the soruce of those funds. What event constitutes the timing of the 'remittance' to Thailand? Is it the purchase on the credit card, or the payment of the balance with assessable or non-assessable income?

Hard disagree -it is perfectly reasonable to say something is unconfirmed, because....... it is unconfirmed! It's also reasonable to state an opinion that something might be untrue, that's just as valid an opinion as stating 'you're certain' , in the absence of any confirmation.

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. Sure but if the credit line is never paid back then the source of funds remains forever money that has been borrowed. Yes. correct, there's no certainty here. The definition provided doesn't answer the question of whether a loan is income under Thai law, and the TRD's interpretation. Here's another scenario, you pay off the credit card with a draw down on your mortgage ( i.e. using money that is in an 'offset' or a 'revolving credit' mortgage arrangement. Pretty common setup in many countries. Now how on earth, would that ever be considered 'income'? Implausible.

Yes, but to avoid that - simply make what was called the "load of money" or "capital gain" in a year you are NOT tax resident. Then it's never taxable in Thailand. So, not really any different to the idea of staying a Non Thai Resident in years where you remitted, which is what people were discussing previously. Either way the whole concept is seriously Unworkable/ Unenforceable IMO.

I may not be reading this correctly. But based on my read - this is just as convoluted and unenforceable as the previously discussed "rule". The way to avoid paying it, in theory, would then be simply to only remit income earned SAME year, but when you are NOT a tax resident. That way the income wasn't earned as a Thai tax resident.

Well said. There is good reason that the concept of "remittance" tax is present in very few countries in the world. Unworkable, unenforceable, illogical.

OK, maybe I worded this poorly . Let me clarify. Banks will withhold the 15% WHT on all interest, regardless of the customer (exception with the exemption if you fill out the right forms as per the Krungski link I provided earlier. ) . This interest is forwarded to the TRD. If a customer has a tax ID, and notifies it to their bank, the TRD will receive this data, and know which WHT paid is related to that customer (your case). Then for future years, the TRD already has that interest and WHT data sent, that's it. For the majority of foreigners with bank accounts, who don't have tax ID's, and many are not tax residents, the TRD does not know which WHT received, is related to that person. If any of those people wish to reclaim WHT paid, they need firstly, a document from the bank showing the WHT paid on their behalf. They then, need to register as a Thai taxpayer, get a TIN and file a return. As above. No, no one can do this. It is not possible to request a refund from the TRD without having a TIN and filing a return. What wild speculation is this? Are you saying there's some kind of automatic creation/assignment of TINS? 'Short form" Do you have any kind of source for this thought bubble? The banks send the WHT tax paid to the TRD.

I can't remember how many years I've been reclaiming WHT on interest from Thai banks but it's certainly goes back to at least 2012. The process for doing that was to obtain a letter from the bank, setting out the account holder details and ID, along with gross, net and tax paid amounts. The TRD office would complete the relevant parts of the tax return which I would sign, three week a later I'd receive a cheque or a deposit. Over the years since, TRD has automated the electronic interface so they are able to confirm the contents of the letter, via their system, in real time. Previously, that was verified centrally, or so I was led to believe. Electronic interface and automated or not, banks have been sending account details of people who had tax withheld, for at least a decade. I think you misinterpret this. IMO, the interest income data is only sent to the TRD for those who have already registered a TIN at their bank and are trying to reclaim the interest WHT. This represents a very small proportion of those foreigners with Thai bank accounts. For everyone ( tax residents and non tax residents) , the WHT is deducted automatically at 15%. In the minority cases ( like yours) , where the individual is a registered Thai tax filer and wants to reclaim the interest already deducted as part of an overall PIT filing, then the interest data is sent to TRD. Otherwise, it is not. Here's how one of the Thai banks describes it. https://www.krungsri.com/en/about-krungsri/about-us/overview/announce/exemption-tax-interest-savings-deposit If I have this straight then, it is not correct to state as below, because it isn't what typically occurs: "banks reporting details of accounts to TRD, from which they withheld the statutory 15% WHT on any interest earned. The latter already happens and has been happening for many many years." If I have this wrong, happy to be corrected!

Right, I think there might be some confusion between what you describe, possibly because you are already registered in the TRD system and voluntarily file returns, vs what the poster WLMC was describing. I understood the requirement for the banks to report "interest" only began in August 2019 : https://sherrings.com/bank-savings-deposits-interest-income-tax-reporting-thailand.html Which is in fact, after the requirement to report 'deposit and transfer' information, for certain groups began in March 2019, as described in user WLMC's post.

Both of you are referring to CRS and money laundering rules under AMLO which has nothing to do with banks reporting details of accounts to TRD, from which they withheld the statutory 15% WHT on any interest earned. The latter already happens and has been happening for many many years. Can you please clarify exactly are you referring to, that 'has been happening for many many years'? If the detailed account information and granular transactions were already being sent to the TRD, why would that amendment need to be passed?

Spot on, well said. Thanks for balancing out, with reality, the constant paranoia / worrying we see in these type of threads. Poor reporting, with sensationalist , inaccurate wording like the article this thread is based on, doesn't help the situation. The new firms that have sprung up are best described as opportunistic vultures, feeding off worry, taking advantage of peoples concern , and clearly overcharging while doing it! Spot on, again, well said.

This thread, page 89. User name "Lopburikid" The reply had hidden the report which is why I reposted it. Thanks for the real world report.

Again, dismiss and denigrate the content of real world reports from readers on their tax experiences. These reports are more useful than most of the theoretical ramblings (mine included!!!) that make up 99% of this thread. Here's what the user reports: Been to 2 different Regional tax offices. (just last week), Both had to phone head office in Bangkok. ALL knew nothing about taxing foreigners. All asked what visa I was on, I said LTR, ALL replied " no tax on retirement pensions". They checked all my paper work I had taken, House agreement, passport, paper work from pensions department UK, UK tax code, Military pension paperwork. Thai bank statements, They had no idea of what to do with it. I asked if i needed a tax code, they laughed and said, no, you not pay Thai tax.

No Gant, nobody said that at all. What was said is that all Visa & Mastercard transactions involving foreign cards, are reported by Visa/Mastercard Thailand, to BOT, because of their foreign exchange implications. But you knew that. So firstly, you say.... no one is saying TRD will canvass foreign credit card purchases, and the transactions are reported to BOT for foreign exchange purposes. Then, you post a whole wall of text outlining the data sharing capabilities and relationships between the BOT and the TRD, and commenting on the TRDs "investigative abilities" to credit cards. Clearly insinuating/implying that people should be worried.........

Because technically the funds remitted to Thailand did not come from you. They came from your parents. Your UK dividend income remained in the UK. See above. You never remitted the dividend income. There's no income category for "my parents paying back an air ticket I bought for them". It is income tax. "Spending" is not assessable income.

OK, so if you don't want to term it a gift, OK, up to you. But it's not technically assessable income. It doesn't fit into any of the 8 categories of Thai assessable income. Apologies for referring to the real world, but respectfully, I cannot see how it's possible for you to declare this as income in Thailand, even if you felt compelled to try.

The funds your parents sent you are a gift, they're not income. You're not remitting any income to Thailand. The income from your UK dividends remains in the UK, it cannot be subject to Thai taxation. I see what you are saying, but yes, you could do this, you wouldn't be remitting any income to Thailand, and any funds received from your parents are a gift, they are not income, and certainly not your income. That you paid your parents/siblings/kids bills from a foreign bank account to another foreign bank account is nothing to do with Thailand. You can see why few countries operate 'foreign remittance' based taxation, as it is typically simple to avoid, without necessarily evading. '

Correct, spot on. FYI Gift allowance is 20M THB per annum ( not 200) in this situation.

Agree with 1 and 2. For 3, do not agree. A credit card transaction itself is not going to be considered 'income'. The only issue is ever the funds used to pay off the credit card. If your parents sent you funds, that's not your income. I cannot fathom any way that would considered assessable income for you. Interested in why you think that it could be? OK, fair enough, will not comment on this.

You're entitled to share your views on tax and am not trying to bully you off the forum. But please, you can drop the charade of not being the author of the Mike Lister account. Just own it. There's coincidence both accounts: Are mid 70s Live in Chiang Mai Both filed thai tax returns in the past Both worked for PWC Both had Thyroid issues, Sriphat Hospital Let alone the tax posting behaviour, timing, tone, etc. It's blindingly obvious you are the author of the Mike Lister account.