K2938

3 hours ago, oldcpu said:

Money earned (outside of Thailand)  between 1/1/2024 and getting the LTR Visa is not taxable if it is not brought into the country until AFTER one gets the LTR Visa.

There are people who say that is not true IF you were a tax resident of Thailand in the period mentioned (i.e. 1/1/2024 to getting the LTR visa).  Who is right I have no idea and probably only the future will show.

8 hours ago, JackGats said:

My understanding was that it needed to be cash over 12 months, never mind which kind of account (current account, savings account, brokerage account). It then became an issue of showing at least 12 statements of account for at least 12 consecutive months up to the present.

Brokerage account is not acceptable any longer.  Only was very eary on.

3 hours ago, Pib said:

Now if a person ended-up running up a hospital bill say for $50K USD, couldn't pay it due to no health insurance polciy or self-insure capability (i.e., didn't have $100K USD in a bank) and Immigration Police got involved in trying to assist the hospital in getting you to pay your bill, well, Immigration now has justification to cancel your visa since obviously you didn't maintain one of the LTR visa requirements.

So what about if the person could pay the hospital bill and used his $100k USD deposit for this?  Depending on how the BOI looks at this in the future, they might well say you failed the requirements as you did not maintain the $100k USD throughout the visa period, throughout the last two years before the 5 year check-up etc.  So in the worst case, this $100k USD might well be untouchable.

How is the water situation in the apartment buildings in Hua Hin?  Water trucks do not really help there.

6 hours ago, HerewardtheWake said:

My dilemma is: at over 75, if I discontinue my Pacific Cross policy , and if at some point BoI changes the LTR health insurance rules, I will not be able to get health insurance.

 

So, is it best to continue carrying the health insurance policy?

If you can at all afford it, it is best NOT to terminate your health insurance.  You have absolutely no assurance that the rules for the LTR visa will not be changed tomorrow or that the LTR visa might even be entirely terminated.  Health insurance is therefore very important for you. 

2 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

If a 50% increase in lung cancer deaths in a decade doesn't inspire a clean up there, then I don't know what will.  

Air pollution has got to be worse for children, whose lungs are still developing.   

Was also very bad last year.  Did anything change then?🤣😱🤣

 

On 4/5/2024 at 1:33 AM, stat said:

As for the bigger part I only have shares so I can "generate" income by selling shares whenever I want.

As has been previously discussed in this thread at least in the past the BOI was not very excited about any significant amount of capital gains, especially when these were generated based on your decision vs. the decision of some external trustee.  Please therefore kindly update us if you make any progress with this.  Thank you.

EY presentation on tax changes for Thai Privilege:

https://www.facebook.com/watch/live/?ref=watch_permalink&v=1149895986005482

1 hour ago, Mike Lister said:

I think this may be the difference between investing in an overseas investment fund, overseas, and investing in an overseas fund from within Thailand. It is very clear that any Thai tax resident who invests in a "foreign investment fund or Depositary Receipt", overseas and later remits the income from that profit, to Thailand, is liable to Thai tax. That scenario is the key driver for the new tax rule change, to capture people who have previously avoided tax in that way. I think we can say with great certainty there is no tax exemption associated with that, agreed?

 

What that leaves is the possibility that investing in a "foreign investment fund or Depositary Receipt" from within Thailand, say via a Thai bank or investment house, is exempt. If that was the case, it will be the first  time in over six months of thousands of posts that anyone in all these tax threads has heard of it and it would also make little sense. What that would mean is that making the investment via a Thai bank was a more cost effective way to make the investing, rather than investing offshore directly, but that the Revenue would relinquish any opportunity at tax, on the income. That would also mean that investors are incentivised not to invest in Thai companies but instead to invest in foreign companies. On the upside, such a measure would benefit the SET trading and Thai banks.

 

A depository receipt is designed to promote domestic trading of international companies thus avoiding the need to invest overseas. 

 

"A depositary receipt (DR) is a negotiable certificate issued by a bank. It represents shares in a foreign company traded on a local stock exchange and gives investors the opportunity to hold shares in the equity of foreign countries. It gives them an alternative to trading on an international market".

 

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/depositaryreceipt.asp

 

The following link is from the SET which shows the tax on domestic equities acquired in Thailand. Whilst it is possible to escape capital gains, it is not possible to escape with holding tax on interest or dividends. If it is true that  investing in a "foreign investment fund or Depositary Receipt" inside Thailand, escapes all tax, I'm left asking, why?

 

https://www.set.or.th/en/market/information/tax

 

There is a final possibility that I can imagine and that is that the article is not complete and isn't adequately specific about what that exemption might involve. I can imagine there might be some classes of DR or investment funds that might be made tax exempt, BOI related companies is one. But the idea that all foreign funds are exempt, doesn't seem credible. 

 

If anyone can see any other likely options, I will be interested to hear them.

 

 

 

 

I am glad you now agree that it appears to be very strange what Siam Legal is saying.

2 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

What that says is that there is an exemption from Thai tax, as long as the funds remain overseas or the taxpayer is not Thai resident. So no, it's not contrary to anything else at all.

No, they are saying there is no taxation as long as one of the three conditions mentioned by them below is met, namely either not tax resident OR not remitted to Thailand OR foreign investment.  So according to them a foreign investment on its own would be sufficient to avoid taxes.

Siam Legal appears to claim that investing in a foreign (non-Thai) investment fund or depositary receipt is tax-free even for Thai tax residents who bring the income back into Thailand:

“However, there is an exemption from being subject to income tax in Thailand by meeting one of the following conditions:

1. The individual must not reside in Thailand for 180 days or more in a particular tax calendar year.

2. Invest on a foreign investment fund or Depositary Receipt.

3. Does not bring an income from overseas into Thailand.“

(https://www.siam-legal.com/thailand-law/thailand-new-tax-on-foreign-income-an-overview/ )

This seems very strange and contrary to everything else written on this at least as far as I have seen.  Any thoughts?

18 minutes ago, Northstar1 said:

Great place to retire!😂🤦🤷🏻‍♂️
still  those that defend it. Must have made the mistake of buying there!

As you will die much earlier because of the air pollution, you have much more money in each of the years still left.  Simple mathematics 🤣

5 hours ago, jvs said:

Not only in Bangkok,i have never seen it this bad in Cha-am.

Went out shopping this morning and the hills we can normally see very clearly are not visible at all today.

Sore eyes yesterday already and even worse today.

Sadly, if you value your health, things have deteriorated so far in recent years that you now better also decamp to somewhere else Feb-Apr even if you live in Hua Hin / Cha-am

20 minutes ago, Polar Bear said:

DENV 1 used to be the most common in Thailand, followed by DENV 2, then it switched, and DENV 2 became dominant. DENV 4 is usually the least common everywhere, but it is also potentially the most serious and the one most likely to cause hemorrhagic fever in a subsequent infection. Also, for unknown reasons, people seem to be more susceptible to DENV 4 after having had a previous infection of another strain. DENV 4 is still the least common strain in Thailand, but it's rising and fast, and Bangkok is considered to be one of the highest-risk locations for it globally. There are at least 3 different genotypes of DENV 4 circulating in Bangkok. 

What is the source of your statement on DENV 4?  I am not at all saying that it is not correct, but I have for example seen a Thai study from 2010 which says the opposite:

"DENV-2 appears to be marginally associated with more severe dengue disease as evidenced by a significant association with DHF grade I when compared to DENV-1. In addition, we found non-significant trends with other grades of DHF. Restricting the analysis to secondary disease we found DENV-2 and -3 to be twice as likely to result in DHF as DEN-4."

(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2830471/ )

See also this from Brazil: https://bmcinfectdis.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12879-016-1668-y ("The present study found that cases of DENV-2 had a higher proportion of severe dengue than among those of DENV-1 and DENV-4")

3 hours ago, oldcpu said:

With perhaps, the exception of the LTR allowing one to self insure for Health insurance.   Being able to show the equivalent of $100K US$ in cash, in a bank account anywhere in the world,

True, but even there the BOI appears to be kind of immune to economic logic.  If you show them a brokerage account worth a zillion dollars, they will say this does not meet the self-health insurance criteria since it needs to be in cash even if you could easily sell the shares at any time or take out a margin loan against them hugely exceeding $100k USD.  Also, they even reject if the $100k USD in cash is in a brokerage account in cash, insisting it needs to be a bank account as far as I know.  So they just love to tick boxes and if the situation does not fully meet this they will reject things even if they are economically vastly superior.

1 hour ago, MistyBlue said:

"Greeting from LTR Visa Unit.

If your income does show in your tax report such as SA100, then it is possible to accept it as part of your passive income."

 

As only the interest part of a purchased annuity shows up on a UK SA100 tax return  (a tiny % of the overall income amount of a purchased annuity) then it would seem to rule it out.

 

If there are any reports in the field of anyone applying and attempting to use a purchased annuity would be interested hear of experiences.

I would recommend you to talk to them again about this.  They should accept an annuity.  Regarding their answer whoever wrote this just did not get that since this is already your money, you of course will not pay tax on the capital part being returned to you.  Point this out to the BOI - politely - and see what they say.  Best to visit in person if that is possible for you.

If you need an additional argument, tell them that they also accept Roth IRAs in the U.S. as far as I know and they are also tax-free.

P.S.:  The only problem with annuities is that they tend to be awful investments.  But that is a different topic.

Try Malaysia.  The problem in Thailand is that government hospitals probably will have a long waiting list and private hospitals might well charge you more than in many Western countries outside the U.S.  So just search on Google and you will find a lot of good offers in Malaysia.

8 hours ago, Pib said:

BOI would probably need to see the balance of your pot of money "after" you made those stock sales to see if that pot is still larger enough cover a 10 years worth of $80K/year sells since an LTR visa is  10 year visa.

Unless the BOI has recently drastically changed its policies, they definitely have no sympathy for just assets.  You can be a billionaire asset wise.  The only thing they focus on is income.  If you do not have the recurrent income, your assets alone will not cut it.

5 hours ago, Pib said:

After you qualify for the 10 year visa there are no annual checks although when you have to reapply at the 5 year point (mid term) to get the 2nd 5 year Permitted to Stay stamp you will basically need to meet the same income requirements that you did when initially qualifying for the LTR visa. 

 

Now it is still unknown at this time if at the mid-term term if BOI/Immigration will require you to prove you met income/insurance requirements for the past 5 years (i.e, your 1st 5 year Permitted to Stay period) or if they will just look at one or two years like when initially qualifying.    I'm guessing it going to be the latter unless they feel a person is trying to game the system.

 

The 80K requirement is "gross" pay (before taxes, deductions, etc).

 

None of the 80K needs to be sent/maintained in Thailand...you can leave it all in another country if desired....or split it between Thailand and another country (ies).    You just need to prove you have the funds somewhere on planet Earth.  

 

If your pension/annuity is only distributed on an annual basis that one each annual payment should be fine.....monthly, quarterly, semi-annually, or annually....the key is it just has to occur each and ever year and be able to prove it.   No skipping a year where you didn't have at least 80K in qualifying income.  You will need to prove the payment is coming from some pension/annuity paying entity (like a statement/benefit letter/etc) versus you or a family member/friend sending you money trying to game the system.     And of course they probably be asking for a copy of your tax return where that pension/annuity might be reported "if" it's a reportable/taxable pension/annuity...tax returns usually provide a secondary form of proof regarding income.

 

Unless something has recently changed the BoI responds/answers questions pretty quick when you send them a Contact inquiry/question....like within a few days or less.  Much, much faster response time than the first six months of the LTR program in late 2022 when they were overwhelmed with applications/questions.    https://ltr.boi.go.th/index.html#contact

 

Good luck.

Maybe worthwhile to add that if your 80k USD or a significant part of this comes from non-recurring things like capital gains, one-time distributions or payments from your own company, then things might get difficult.

7 hours ago, Ben Zioner said:

This is from Mazars report of the event:

 

"However, if the income is eligible for tax exemption under the general rules, such income from abroad will not be subject to tax under DI. Paw. 161. For example, income regarded as a gift from parents, descendants, or spouses in an amount not over Baht 20 million per annum is exempt from personal income tax."

Would you have a link for this, please?

3 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

On 23 January 2024, the RD was asked and answered as follows, paraphrased:

 

Q: If I'm not resident in Thailand for a year and I earned foreign sourced income in that year, is it taxed when I bring it into Thailand?

A: It is not taxed because you were not resident in Thailand in the year it was earned.

 

Q: What types of foreign source income is assessable income and subject to PIT under Section 41, Para 2 law?

A: ....those prescribed in Section 40 (1 to 8 ) but not including income that is exempt or on which tax does not have to be paid under the Revenue code.

 

Q; a lengthy question about tax paid on income overseas.

A; There is no double taxation in Thailand, tax paid overseas can be credited against tax payable.

 

https://sherrings.com/foreign-source-income-personal-tax-thailand.html

Thank you for posting the Sherrings note which is very useful. In there the following is also quoted from the Q&A from the Thai Revenue department:

"Question: If, yearly, I invest abroad and I bring part of it back into Thailand, is the part I bring back into Thailand determined as investment capital or as assessable income?

Answer: For monies that are brought into Thailand, taxpayers have a duty to self- determine based on facts and evidence that the monies brought into Thailand are capital or assessable income."

Does anybody have any idea what this means in practice?  The answer is really not answering the question as they do not say what methods are supposed to be used for the separation of funds.

1 hour ago, Mike Lister said:

3) Where tax has been paid on pensions overseas, they will not be subject to re-tax here.

Where does it say this in the Sherrings note, please?  If the respective double taxation agreement does not prohibit Thailand from taxing the overseas pension, then the only thing which can be done is to credit any foreign taxes to any Thai taxes due, but if the Thai taxes are higher, then an additional payment is due.

2 minutes ago, Polar Bear said:

It has not been seen (yet?) with Qdenga, and there have been numerous studies on it since the problems with Dengvaxia.

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/rmp-summary/qdenga-epar-risk-management-plan_en.pdf
 

The totality of data on virologically confirmed dengue (VCD), hospitalized VCD, and severe forms of dengue, along with the clinical characteristics of these cases, as assessed in Trials DEN-301, DEN313, and DEN-204, did not reveal an identified risk of increased disease severity or disease enhancement attributable to vaccination in the post-vaccination follow-up period. 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893923000583

No indication of disease enhancement has been seen in the TIDES study up until 4,5 years after the second vaccine dose. 

The links cited by connda indeed concern Dengvaxia, but a sufficient number of eminent scientists having reviewed the Qdenga data has concluded that there is really insufficient data to decide if Qdenga does not cause the same problem for dengue-naïve people that one should be careful IF one has never had dengue yet.  This is for example discussed in the Nature article I quoted above, this is also the concern of the Germans, this is the concern of Mahidol and I have also seen an article of some renowned Swedish scientists (from Karolinska if I remember correctly) pointing out the same.  Now of course there are also other opinions, but I personally prefer to be on the careful side as a dengue-naïve person.  Moreover, the first time you get dengue the likelihood of it killing you is very very small, so the risk is quite small, and the vaccine is more effective if you already had dengue as well.   

9 minutes ago, jayboy said:

Also -and it's probably a silly question - how is it possible to know that Qdenga is effective at preventing 80% infections?

The manufacturer did a study, but again if you look at the data closely things do not look as great as they might appear:  https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03546-2