K2938

That is indeed what the guidance issued so far implies

Currently undefined, but likely

1) You do not have to pay taxes in Thailand based on this scenario if all your income is non-Thai. How the situation is in other countries depends on the tax laws of these other countries. 2) Giving your Thai address to your foreign banks also does not change that you are not taxable in Thailand. With this now for the first time actually being reported to Thailand it might however be that Thailand will at some point of time report back to them that you do not really live in Thailand which might cause you some trouble with your banks.

It is not know yet, but it would appear that at the minimum they will ask again for proof that you held this deposit for at least one year and it might well turn out to be five years, i.e. since the start of your visa.

Here, as I have for a long time now. However, I have never been a tax resident. And I do not plan on becoming one. How are you NOT a Thai tax resident if you do spend the majority of the year and thereby more than 179 days p.a. in Thailand?

Moreover, if you are paying yourself a fictitious salary via a UAE company while permanently living in Thailand, then this fictitious salary will most likely be considered to be Thai income anyway, regardless of where it is paid. People got away with this in the past due to lack of reporting. But these times are probably over. So this is unlikely to work for many reasons.

Indeed. But it is a shame that you had to do this. And the more unnecessary hurdles they erect thereby, the less people will apply for an LTR visa.

What you can do is use some of your funds to buy annuities of the appropriate amount. This would then meet their criteria. But as this is probably a really poor investment, you are likely to save money by just forgetting about the LTR visa and buy an Elite visa instead.

And they also do not like gains very much if they are significant. They will then ask to see the gains for many years and given market volatility the gains were probably not constant or at some point of time were even losses and then they will hold this against you.

I respectfully disagree. My hypothesis is that they just could not intellectually grasp that somebody can be very rich without having a huge taxable income and that the really rich people moreover generally have lots of opportunities to structure things such that they do not pay a lot of taxes. These criteria were defined by some bureaucrats very remote from all this.

Unless something changed, deleting things does not remove them from the servers of the BOI even if it might appear like this.

Yes, thank you for this. But if I may ask you, @Guavaman, your conclusion that dividends, capital gains from financial investments and bond interest are not covered by the Royal Decree is something you worked out yourself based on your understanding of the document or this has also been confirmed to you by some tax advisor?

Let's see what @Guavaman says about his sources. He might well be right. Or maybe this is another area where just nobody knows.

This link is to the Royal Decree No. 674. But is the Royal Decree dealing with LTR visa holders not Royal Decree No. 743 (https://www.pkfthailand.asia/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Royal-Decree-743.pdf) (not sure what its link is for the rd.go.th website)? I think you are still quoting from the correct Royal Decree, but the link is incorrect. As @Thailand J above, I am not sure if your interpretation of what is included / not included is correct. But if it were - and prima facie you might well be right and I just always did not pay proper attention to this - this would be a rather unpleasant surprise. If I may ask, is this only what you came up with yourself reading the documents or was this also confirmed to you by some tax advisor?

This is really useful. Where is this from, please?

Please kindly note that this answer refers to the situation BEFORE the announced planned changes in the taxation of foreign earnings. How things will be afterwards is therefore not really addressed in there.

And that is not only good advice for Thailand, but for any country really!

Thank you very much for your highly useful insights on Malaysia. Could you kindly elaborate what is meant with "unless you remit it to Malaysia from a non DTA country", please? Does this mean that (1) the mere and sole fact that there exists some double taxation agreement between Malaysia and country X makes all funds remitted from country X tax free in Malaysia for a foreigner or (2) it depends on what the DTA precisely says about these funds (which is how things normally work in the realm of DTAs) or (3) this is unclear? Thank you.

So what would you consider to be the "safest" banks in Thailand from a fraud/bankruptcy risk point of view?

It will not even appear in any gazette as it is not a law, but just a new interpretation of existing regulations

In the UK it is basically such that once you have mixed funds it is often impossible to separate them again and so you are taxed

Have a look at the UK non-dom remittance rules for mixed funds and you will see that things could also get hugely worse than what apparently happens in Malaysia.

Would Thai courts actually be independent enough to make such a ruling against a determined government? P.S.: This is not a rhetorical question.

Highly unlikely except for those income categories where the DTA unequivocally states that the EXCLUSIVE tax authority lies with the UAE which is usually only very few or even no income category at all. You can check the DTA. For all other income categories Thailand most likely will fully tax you and kindly give you a tax credit in the amount of any tax you have paid on this income in the UAE (zero) so you will de facto get fully taxed in Thailand. Welcome to Thailand

Wrong. Qdenga is now also approved and is the much better vaccine for those who did not have dengue previously.