Mike Lister

Holy mackerel, the driver must be a real trout.

You appear to have misunderstood the analogy. The Pub Forum is the Dogs Bollocks, the Economics Forum is the Legless Arms. I am not suggesting that economics is discussed in the Pub, why would anyone even consider it. The statistics confirm there is significant member interest in Thai economics, budgets and the Baht. Just as there is a significant member interest in a wide and diverse range of topics spanning many subjects. It's all about choice and allowing members the freedom to choose which forum they want to reside in.

It isn't, but it's only prescribed by hospitals. It's hard to tell if he was carrying a lot of it or he couldn't prove where it came from.

"Have you ever asked yourselves why you post on the Farang Pub?" I don't, but I see several who do. I think it's because the rules in the Pub are relaxed and they can engage in the sort of banter, name calling, verbal abuse, boundaries stretching behaviour they might with their mates in a real pub. The Dogs Bollocks on Soi Yamoto was never my thing although I used to enjoy walking by and seeing the circus. I much preferred meeting Nick in the Legless Arms and discussing economics and politics, and so it is with the forums, each to their own.

Flames have been edited out of two posts. Editing you posts to make them acceptable is not a great way to start my day!

Dear god no, don't encourage him any more, please.

A meme has been removed...they are not allowed, I keep saying this but you don't pay attention! Also, a vulgar post that was highly disrespectful of the leader of the Catholic church has been removed. Catholicism may not be your religion of choice but it is for over 1.3 billion other people, many of whom are forum members. Please find a more mature and eloquent way to express your feelings rather than flaming other members via their religion.

You need to read what I wrote again. I said it, "can" be voided, I did not say it "will" be voided. No, you do not detect "a foreigner always loses assertion", in my statement, you have only imagined that. No, I am not saying, "that a court will always act on that request", you imagined that also. Yes, I do, "think that they would consider the circumstances". I responded to an earlier poster who said that the safest way to obtain an usufruct was in marriage. I disagreed with that statement, for the reason stated at the time, because "it can be voided upon divorce" whereas an usufruct obtained outside of marriage carries no such risk.

Unless you are Thai or the circumstances are unique, I doubt the first part....are you sure, and if so, why?

See eligibility in the link below https://www.pdmo.go.th/en/bond-knows

Link below to Mazars 2023 tax guide, including latest foreign income rules. A more comprehensive brochure and easier to read than the others: https://www.mazars.co.th/content/download/1176493/59841085/version//file/Personal-income-tax-return-PND-91-A-closer-look-November-2023.pdf

Flame post removed.......be polite! And another, And a meme!

I have rewritten an earlier post citing an article in Mazars, regarding Capital Gains, because it was incomplete and misleading. An example that paraphrases extracts from Mazars regarding the sale of stocks and shares vs Capital Gains and savings: "Mr. A, a Thai tax resident, had income from selling shares in a Singapore company in 2020 and kept the share consideration, including the capital gain in a bank account in Singapore” Under the old rule, those funds would be regarded as savings that were earned in a previous year, hence, they would not be taxable here, if imported into Thailand, in say 2023. The reason they are exempt is because the gain was earned in a different year from the one in which the funds were imported. In the second scenario, the funds mentioned above, are imported after 1 January 2024, in which case they are once again not assessable to Thai tax, by virtue of the 1 January, 2024 rule whereby only remitted foreign income earned after that date is potentially taxable. In the third and final scenario, entirely post 1 January, 2024: if those shares had been sold and banked as cash and then imported at some later date, regardless of the years that took place, the key issue is whether the tax payer was tax resident in Thailand, when the shares were sold. (see Q:7 in link below). The date of the sale establishes a taxable event but not necessarily a Thai taxable event, which for foreigners, requires the funds to be imported into Thailand, before that occurs. Up until the point of importation, the Thai taxable event can be avoided. https://sherrings.com/foreign-source-income-personal-tax-thailand.html Selling the shares any time after 1 January 2024 and banking the proceeds overseas, in a year when the tax payer was tax resident in Thailand, means the funds become assessable to Thai tax, if and when they are imported to Thailand. If the tax payer was not tax resident in Thailand when the shares were sold, there is no liability to Thai tax, if and when they are imported here. Importing the funds described above, in a year in which the tax payer is tax resident, is straight forward, those funds are assessable to Thai tax. Delaying the transfer, however, until a tax year when the taxpayer is not tax resident, does not negate the Capital Gain which remains assessable. (the operational aspect of filing and tax collection in this scenario are unclear at present). There are two points to consider here: The first is that the Capital Gain can remain outside Thailand and only the principle transferred to Thailand. If that principle was derived from savings or taxed earned income, no further tax will be due in Thailand, as long as the levels of tax in the two countries are the same. (Important to remember that Thai CG is assessable to PIT which is scaled) Note: there is a risk that the Revenue may not allow separation of the principle and the gain and may instead view imported funds as a proportion of the total gain, we shall have to wait and see what practise is adopted. The second is, the source of funds used to acquire an asset such as savings, versus the dates of Thai tax residency, are important, not merely the fact that money exists in a bank account in cash form. Again, using the example above, if Mr A had sold his shares in a year when he was not Thai tax resident, he would be deemed to be holding cash savings in his bank and share ownership and Capital Gains issues would not be relevant. But converting a Capital Asset to cash, storing it as cash and then importing it, all whilst Thai tax resident, may not negate the Capital Gain. Key Take Aways: 1) Keep Capital Gains and principle amounts separate for accounting purposes, where ever possible and practicable. 2) Sell any overseas Capital Gains in a year when you are not Thai tax resident. 3) Importing a Capital Gain, in a year in which the taxpayer is not Thai tax resident, might not negate the Thai Capital Gain.

If realised AND remitted whilst not Thai tax resident....hmmmm! I'm fairly sure that would be safe but I cannot say with 100% certainty, although technically it appears sound.

Flame post removed

Your timing is perfect, we're just finalising a related piece and one of the main points of concern that jumped out (again) was the issue you raise. A taxable event occurs typically at a single point in time but in the case of expats in Thailand, there are two separate points, both of which must be met before the event becomes real. The first one is when the capital gain is realised, and your tax residency at that time. If you happen to be in Thailand when the you sell the capital item and realise the gain, that's Stage I of the Thai taxable event. Stage II depends on whether or not you remit the gain to Thailand, if you do not, it never occurs, that's not to say it wont occur somewhere else! But trying to escape the Capital Gain by remitting the funds to Thailand, in a year when you are not Thai tax resident, does not nullify the Capital Gain. Exactly what the RD mechanism will be for this is unclear but previous discussions on this point, accompanied by reviews of tax consultancy reports, pretty much confirm the gain still exists. Our working assumption on this aspect has been that the gain must be reported in a subsequent year, as soon as you become tax resident once again..

Trolling meme hidden...stop it, they are against forum rules! and, A post containing an over sized and very large font, has been removed, that's against forum rules also. Same poster, both issues! Here, read the rules: https://aseannow.com/forum_rules/

The Thai Revenue does not consider the purpose of imported funds, only their source and whether they are assessable or not. Whilst trying to keep this thread focussed with the dialogue and chat at an absolute minimum, it's worth reminding that the Revenue has only made one small change to the Thai tax code. There is therefore no reason to expect a big announcement from them.

I'm going to take that Mazars post example down and rewrite it more logically and completely, the fault is mine and the way I've tried to express it. Sorry for the confusion.

Bickering posts removed. Thread closed //

The taxpayer needs to understand and be able to prove (if asked) the breakdown of the 2 million and what it comprises. If it comprises a mixture of assessable income and exempt funds, only the assessable funds should be declared on a tax return, (as the rules stand at present).

Do NOT post any more political memes about the US election, this is not a place to promote your political beliefs.

Trust me, it can be voided, if your ex requests it.

He's referring to sub-prime.

I fail to see where this thread has any benefit to members either factually or entertainment wise. The thread appears to have been created for the sole purpose of bashing the British royal family from afar, which is neither interesting, entertaining nor beneficial. If I've got this wrong, please state your case asap, otherwise it will be closed.