Mike Lister

The main reason I opted out of the very long tax thread in January was because several posters were attempting to interpret tax law, even though they weren't lawyers and didn't have formal training in Thai tax law. There is absolutely no reason why posters shouldn't debate those things and apply their own interpretations of the law, that is after all the basis of social networking forums such as this plus it's intellectually stimulating and fun.....have at it I say! The problem for me however is that the debate can never end because nobody is capable of deriving the definitive answer hence the 6.500 post long thread that went on for six months. These reasons are also why I moved this debate out of the Simple Tax Guide thread in order to keep it easy to read for newcomers. I hope that helps explain why I'm not going to join in the debate, despite having started it.

Bickering posts removed, please keep it civil and remember that a human being lost their life.

What's your definition of quality tourist, presumably not anyone from those countries on the list?

She collapsed in the restaurant, I doubt very much that she ordered anything further! Allergic shock reaction tends to be immediate, the autopsy already confirmed her CoD was a 'severe allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis", or allergic reaction.

The spirit and intent of the new ruling is to close loopholes and create a level playing field. All of that seems to be negated if a non-citizen is able to take six months and one day outside the country before opening up the tax free sluice gates! The only reason those funds are not taxable is because the taxpayer wasn't physically in the country in order to file the tax return and wasn't deemed tax resident, even though the funds were earned when they were. Not only does that not pass the sniff test, it doesn't pass any test other than the strict interpretation of tax residency which in this instance may not be enough.

The article in the op says: "Disney and Raglan Road have said that accommodating those with allergies is a top priority and that customers can consult with staff members about specific ingredients". I think it's inappropriate that you question her medical skills, which smells a lot like victim blaming to me.

My opinion on the above is that taxpayers cannot escape prior year (post 2023) Thai tax, solely by remitting earned income to Thailand in a year when they were not tax resident. Had they been tax resident when the funds were remitted, the funds would be assessible. If the taxpayer left for overseas, worked for a year and then remitted those funds to Thailand and returned here to live, they would not be assessible because they were earned in a year when the taxpayer was not resident in Thailand. But by earning the funds whilst they were tax resident here, delaying the remittance and then leaving the country, does not negate the taxable event. I accept that, given the circumstances above, the tax payer would not be tax resident when the funds were remitted and that this is something of an anomaly. The alternative however is an obvious loop hole that far exceeds the magnitude of the tax law that was recently neutralised, which makes no sense. @Yumthai @JohnnyBD @Klonko @JimGant @UKresonant

I've removed a dozen or so posts, mostly by the same member. Some were in a very large typeface, some were personal attacks, some were of a stalking nature, others were inflammatory and trolling nature. Think very carefully before you make your next post. Other posters wishing to post in a similar fashion should also reconsider their actions.

I have once again removed a series of posts, aimed at decluttering the thread and keeping it easy to read for newcomers. I have also moved a developing discussion regarding assessible income, to the thread below:

Poster A According to the current rules, if the tax payer is not TH tax resident in 2025 he can remit any amount of offshore money tax-free in Thailand because he doesn't have to fill any tax declaration in Thailand in 2026 regarding the foreign-sourced money he remitted in 2025. Whether the remitted money has been earned during a year he was Thai resident for tax purposes or not is irrelevant. Poster B I do not agree. The key is whether or not you were tax resident in Thailand, when the money was earned. If you were, regardless of when it is remitted, it is assessible here. Question: Which scenario is correct?

I'm moving this discussion to this thread so as to keep the simple tax guide thread free of debate and easy to understand for those seeking known factual answers thus far. The issue is this: One poster believes that he can remit any amount of money to Thailand in a year when he is not tax resident here and that it will not be taxable, because he is not tax resident. Another poster believes that when the money was earned is key to the determination whether or not it is assessible but the first poster thinks the earnings year is irrelevant. Because it was not a quick matter to resolve the issue, I put it on the list of unknowns, pending a conclusive answer. It seems like a worthwhile debate to have so over to you.

That's because SGD is pegged against a basket of currencies which will include USD.

I have updated the list of unknowns in the document with the following. L) - income that is earned in a year when the taxpayer is tax resident but not remitted until a year when they are not tax resident, is it later tax assessible in Thailand? As per the rules of the thread, there will be no further debate on this topic until a clear unambiguous answer arises. Readers should however feel free to discuss it in other threads, if they so wish, leaving this one clear of clutter and ambiguity.

That's fine, we can disagree and I'll put it back on the list of unknowns at the end of the document (I think it was there once already as I recall). That means no more discussion on this point, until further information arises to confirm the situation, one way or the other, those are the rules of the thread as you will recall..

I've just removed 75% of the posts in the thread, including a very stupid and childish meme that attempts to compare monkeys and Bitcoin. The OP came here and started this thread because he has questions about Bitcoin mining. If you don't want to read the thread please go and read something that interests you but do not flame and post childish comments and disrupt and inflame.

I tried to find the connection between coffee makers and the trade deficit with China but I just couldn't get there I'm afraid, so I had to remove the posts, as interesting as they were.

Interest rates are only one part of the picture, they change and can equalise very quickly. The other part of the picture is the exchange rate. Being able to get 5% interest on Sterling savings in the UK is pointless if the exchange rate changes in the meantime and wipes out that 5% and then some. I personally would go for currency appreciation over daily interest rates, every time. GBP/THB has traded in the range of 38 to 45 in recent years, it can be very volatile at times. That range represents a 15% movement whereas the interest rate premium on the UK vs Thailand is only 5.25% minus 2.5% of 3% net. Also, bank stability doesn't really feature in the equation, neither sets of banks are even close to failure.

I do not agree. The key is whether or not you were tax resident in Thailand, when the money was earned. If you were, regardless of when it is remitted, it is assessible here.

Thank you for telling us that and for sharing. As said, it only makes sense that something similar would exist, at least now we have a form of proof to confirm that is does.

Yes.

We can agree to disagree, that would be ok. I suspect it would take a UK lawyer, government minister or DWP official to conclude this matter without doubt.

UOB Thai customers are instructed to go through UOBAM to be referred to their current broker of choice, of which there are several choices in Thailand. However, UOB themselves will not have any dealings whatsoever with anything related to the US markets or financial institutions, they wont even settle US treasury tax refund cheques! I believe in Thailand, UOBAM refers to Kim Eng Securities which is part of Maybank.

I don't see anything in that link that says benefits which cannot be reduced or stopped, cannot be diverted to pay a fine Are you aware of such a ruling or is that a case that English law takes precedent over benefits rules? Simple common sense alone tells me there must be some form of enforceable ruling somewhere that prevents state pension recipients from living overseas and claiming an increase they are not entitled to, otherwise, everyone would do it. Losing benefits if you’re convicted of benefit fraud Your benefits can be reduced or stopped for up to 3 years if you’re convicted of benefit fraud. The amount of time they’re stopped for depends on how many times you’ve committed fraud. Only certain benefits can be reduced or stopped. These are called ‘sanctionable benefits’. But if you commit fraud on a benefit that cannot be reduced or stopped, your other benefits can be reduced instead.

Not really that different, inside or out, probate is still required.

Holding any ASEAN currency, preferably SGD, as the previous poster said, is one reasonable alternative since ASEAN members are required to keep their currencies within a range of each other. Holding USD, if you can buy at the right price (say 36+) and hold it, is another. But historically, THB at 29 is not unknown. If you want to get serious you can but forward contracts or even take out an option for a future date, BOT plays the forwards market quite extensively. But that requires some market savvy and tech knowhow so not for everyone.