Mike Lister

You need to rethink that strategy because it's tax evasion..

Yes, it would

It's true that the receiver of the gift owns the money and can do what they wish with it. But the giver of the gift must not receive any benefit from the gift, otherwise it's not a gift.

JPM's quarterly asset allocation outlook, always a great read. https://am.jpmorgan.com/us/en/asset-management/adv/insights/portfolio-insights/asset-class-views/asset-allocation/

Perhaps one of the eggspurts can help explain to me why the following fund has not attracted more investment? It's run by Paul Niven who manages the F&C UT and is immensely well qualified and experienced. It's an unconstrained 40-85% fund, well positioned across all the sectors, nicely spread geographically and not overweight anywhere and it's cheap at 0.29%. It's returned 24%, 1%, 10% and 19% over the past four years, why is it only subscribed to under 100 mill.? Answers on a postcard please, there'll be a grand prize drawing for the winning answer later. https://lt.morningstar.com/1c6qh1t6k9/snapshotpdf/default.aspx?LanguageId=en-GB&Id=F000014AZY&ms-redirect-path=%2F1c6qh1t6k9default.aspx https://www.hl.co.uk/funds/fund-discounts,-prices--and--factsheets/search-results/c/ct-universal-map-adventurous-accumulation

I think you're being concerned about this aspect, unnecessarily. It used to be that, as a Green Card holder in the US, I had to apply in advance for a tax clearance certificate, every time I wanted to travel outside the country, it was a pain in the rear at times. The odd part was that, living on the border with Canada, no such certificate was required if I wanted to go to Toronto (or similar) for a holiday, from there I could have flown overseas unrestricted. In the US case, showing that I had an employer and a bank account, was enough to obtain the certificate,regardless of whether taxes had been filed that year or not. Typically, a tax clearance cert would only be with held, if something was amiss, rather than having not yet filed..

Conservative health insurers consider anything that has been tested (even blood) that has shown an abnormal or out of range result, to be pre-existing and may limit or exclude that part of the body for a period or permanently.

The issue you constantly seem to get hung up on is, the difference between what is required in law and whether what is actually required is sensible, in your opinion. I don't think you can make these subjective assessments of what is sensible, on behalf of others. All you can do is to set out the facts and let them make their own decision how to proceed.

Ouch! I've run into a similar but smaller scale problem several times. The issue seems to be, is what is found, medically relevant and not, is what is found the cause of the patients problems. Conducting a test and finding something, isn't always grounds to take drastic action and doesn't always mean the problem has been found. Similarly, running a test and not finding anything, doesn't mean there isn't a problem. I gave a second opinion doctor a CD containing a very recent MRI to evaluate, despite the CD, he insisted on also doing an xray of the same area and charging far more for it than an X-ray should cost. When I challenged the hospital, they said the x-ray was, "medically necessary". In a hospital bed after my thyroid was removed, I was in pain because of a back problem. The ever so helpful surgeon called a "friend" who specialised in back issues and an MRI was done. An hour later I got the diagnosis, back surgery required, 300k, it could be done the next day, no mention of risk, alternatives etc. Meanwhile the thyroid surgeon hovered and asked several times over two days, was I going to proceed. (I didn't). three weeks later the back problem resolved and has been good ever since. It seems to be loss of face if something isn't found and a diagnosis given, regardless of whether it's the right one or not. If the wrong thing is treated and the original problem persists, it can always be claimed it was, "medically necessary", regardless. It's a mine field out there.

Tax clearance certificates have been in active use for several categories of visa, including work permits and temporary stay workers.

I don't think so. They used to send me blank paper copies which I would often ignore. Some years I file, some years I don't, nobody says anything when I don't.

Perhaps. The problem with that logic is it assumes they don't know who you are or where you live, until you tell them. I don't know about anyone else but both my banks and the Immi Dept know very well where I live because they write to me at my home address plus I give them copies of loads of documents each year that confirm that. And since my banks send electronic details of tax with held on my savings interest, I'm pretty sure they already have records on most people.

The threat of back audits is a power tool, something to wield if anyone gets too stroppy or uncooperative, I don't see it being used widely. But you have to ask yourself, would you want to be in that situation where, just because you didn't file a simple return, you opened yourself up to that much scrutiny. Personally, I think it's a serious deterrent.

Inconsistent enforcement is, in my world, one of the very best reasons for wanting to follow the rules, as they are laid out in law.....but each to their own.

With your selective recall, you like to forget, conveniently, that not filing when supposed to, also exposes you to 10 years worth of back audits, rather than the statutory 3......a minor point of course, probably not worth mentioning, eh!

Some people, the vast majority I guess, want to live their lives according to the rules, that's especially true of retirees living in a foreign country where they are dependent on a visa to spend their remaining years. That's especially true when it comes to income tax, because most mature reasoned people understand the power pf the Revenue departments. In order to do that, they need to be informed, so they can make reasoned decisions. That others don't like the laws of the land is a different issue, that's their prerogative of course but shouldn't interfere with those who are happy to play by the rules as they understand them. Now, you can troll me if you wish, I really don't mind but I do think you're going to find yourself in a minority on this point so I'll check back in a few hours and see how it all worked out for you..

TRD employee number 2546A, guilty as charged me lud.

Here ya go, some light reading, come back to us with any questions:

Damn, my disguise has been rumbled.

Gee, that's a tough one, let me think for a mo. Hmm, try to explain to others that the tax laws have changed and there's a new emphasis on foreigners filing returns and declaring income. Why ever would anyone want to do that, in a country where official communications are often poor and visa surprises are often announced at short notice ......I give up, it's got me stumped. What's the answer? Will there be a big reveal?

Exactly, that's the entire issue.

I agree, it sounds like s phishing expedition.

If I was Wise I'd close his account on the basis his AN posts are too long. 🙂

Bizzare understanding....no, very wrong!

Went to a well known hospital chain yesterday to try and get a lesion removed from my back, I asked the doc how much. 4K he said so I said fine, go ahead. At the last moment the nurse hands me the quotation which includes the hospital charges, 10K baht!. You're taking the pith I said, goodbye. Today I went to Dr Siri's clinic, Assist. Prof Siri that is....15 mins., job done, 980 baht, including meds. No biopsy I asked? No, he said, there's no need. Good quality health care doesn't have to be expensive.