Jingthing

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.

Both Pence and Harris did their duty as clearly prescribed in the constitution even though Trump tried to strong arm Pence to not do his duty. Normally no special congratulations should be needed for a high official doing their job correctly. Peaceful transfer or power. A key value of the American democracy that fascist Trump tried very hard to violate.

Oh, no, he's triggered now.

No. It is outside the justice system. If a Senate impeachment trial was a real legal trial a person convicted could possibly place jail time, fines, probabtion, etc. But no. The only consequence is removal from office. As far as impeachments themselves WITHOUT a conviction, the only consequence is it being recorded in history that the impeachment occurred. Trump has two. A record I daresay that will never be broken.

Pot kettle black. The funny thing I find about your POV is that you pose as fair and objective while your bias is totally obvious. I always prefer when people don't play such transparent games.

The majority of the activities in Washington D.C. like any other American city do not revolve around partisan politics. For example it's the best place out of Addis Ababa for Ethiopian food.

The work of fascism.

Cheap disingenuous deflection from the facts about impeachment. If convicted there are no legal consequences different from a trial in the justice system.