Jingthing

He won't get it back.

I'm sure that she still believes he is a fascist but there is nothing in the constitution about a way for a VP to avoid the peaceful transfer of power if the voters happen to elect a fascist.

Perhaps. But I wouldn't bet the house on the interpretation.

You have a point. Both dates would qualify.

Lame whataboutism. Those riots had NOTHING to do with a concerted attempt by Mr. Trump which had been planned for several months to overthrow the results of a presidential election if he lost, which he did lose and still to this day insists that he won.

Not sure what you mean by crystalized. But any amount that you withdrew from a retirement investment account (or all of it) and put into a bank account before December 31, 2024 would be exempt if remitted. But I was obviously not talking about that.

Never forget. Never forgive. Incoming soon to be convicted felon demagogue president elect Mr. Trump is actively trying to rewrite history. That's what authoritarian leaders always do. Don't let him get away with it.

Yes prior savings as of December 31. 2023. In that case the source of those savings is irrelevant and can be remitted at any time in the future. Generally talking about bank account funds. Some members here have asserted that the value of retirement accounts (such as U.S. IRA accounts) on that date is also excluded. I find that extremely hard to believe.

Clinton was impeached in the house. Clinton was not convicted in the senate. So he's a president that was impeached one time. Trump is a president who has been impeached two times.

Update and some clues. In the last few days BOTH Panda and Grab are refusing my Bangkok Bank debit card which works elsewhere for scan payments, transfers on Lazada, etc. Grab is saying contact the bank which I haven't bothered with as yet. I tried entering the card again on Panda and with the second set of four digits got a problem with my card message so no point in proceeding. Quite weird. Surely this must be a widespread thing by now. I'll eventually call them, paying cash for now, maybe I'll try another card, but if you have called Bangkok Bank on this issue, what's up?

Rules are rules.

The key is that the Thai recipient could decide one day not pay for stuff and all of it would still legally be all her money.

My understanding is that would be irrelevant IF the wife is actually paying for living expenses for both. If she wants to pay the rent, make car payments, pay for dinner, why not.

But what do you think about the Wise angle? If it's true that funds are hitting the forienger's Wise account "in" Thailand before going to the wife, isn't that the same as getting the remittance himself first?

Oh, I do see the distinction now as far as using Wise is concerned. That might represent what not to do -- move it Thailand in your name, then send to wife. Sorry I didn't pick up that detail. That was unwise (ha ha).

You can't generalize about American pizzas. The classic Neopolitan pizza is quintessentially Neopolitan.

I have some knowledge now but I don't think the OP should listen to EITHER of us and it would be stupid to do so. So again in this case the advice that we both agree with to seek professional advise TOTALLY is the point here.

No. Just stop it. An impeachment trial in the SENATE is a POLITICAL trial. PERIOD.

It kind of is the point in a case like this.

If Trump had lost he would have incited a violent sheit show of unpresented proportions for another effort to subvert the constitution.

He should seek advice outside this forum. I stand by my understanding of the situation but for such sums it would be pure folly for him to take any action without professional guidance.

You're just playing a silly game that shouldn't fool even one knowledgeable person. The proof again is that a conviction carries zero possibility of CRIMINAL penalties.

If I understood him correctly, he's remitting from a foreign account in his name directly to a Thai account in his wife's name. I think he's excluded from tax in the case. If it hit his named account in Thailand for one minute, then moved to his wife's account, then taxable.

You are lacking a fundamental understanding of impeachment. There was a big unintended error in what you quoted from me. It said with conviction. I corrected that to say WITHOUT conviction. Of course conviction brings removel from office but ZERO criminal penalties.

My understanding is excludable from Thai tax for both. However, don't trust what you hear on this forum. At that level, seek the advise of a Thai tax professional.