Mike Lister

If somebody is silly enough to remit income, in order to buy property here, they deserve to be taxed. Only they know what it is is, savings, exempt or assessable, it's not difficult to say what it is and to prove it using statements etc. Also, same year remittances starts to be taxable January 2024, anything prior to that is taxed under the old rules or is free of Thai tax.

Does your agent supply the proof of money required in the bank or do you have that? If you have the money in the bank required for the visa, those charges are outrageous.

Just saw this, sorry. I'm pretty certain there are no non-Thai insurance companies operating in Thailand, like the foreign banks, they are all at least 51% Thai owned. Also, it's against the law for non-Thai insurance policies to be sold in Thailand and illegal also for brokers in Thailand to discuss non-Thai products.

More word games! The position cannot automatically be assumed to be that every remitrance is income, that's ludicrous, if anything it;s the obverse position. Fortunately, self assessment solves the problem, what's not clear about that.

"If it is not remitted it is not taxable in 2024" That's your quote. I'm not playing your word games,

A remittance is considered to be whatever the taxpayer says it is, there is no default position or automatic assumption that a remittance is one thing or the other.

Jim is correct, self assessment is the only viable answer to that quandary.

That's not vaid, the default has to be that they are savings or exempt, otherwise everyone is guilty until proven innocent.

I didn't think he was even a little bit pretty.

Off topic, the subject is taxation.

The way in which the money is received in Thailand makes a difference as to whether it's assessable or not.......I never knew!

You would!

I don't believe that.

DWP Blackpool! You probably knew Parkinson, head of IT at one time?

Thank you John, I appreciate your effort, as do I'm sure many others.

No, not you, not even close. I was offered a job with EDS in the US in 1972, the question that cost me the job, just after it was offered, was, are you OK to wear a white short everyday.

Don't think for one minute that you can come on here using logic and common sense and get away with it, it just wont wash. :))

This business of being a tax partner in a law firm and their related expertise, needs further comment I think. People become partners in law firms that deal with tax, those same firms also deal with visa's, import export, residency and all the other things that law firms try to sell and know something about. None of that makes a partner in a law firm, automatically a tax expert, anyone who knows anything about partners in such firms know that their primary role is to sell products and services. Similarly, people who claim to be investment bankers are most likely to be those who have worked for a bank, most probably in IT, but they are by no means investment bankers, as we mostly understand the title. I hired a guy years ago whose resume said he was a Managing Director of Abbey, turns out it was a title that was conferred on some employees in lieu of promotion or salary. He also went overseas and freelanced and traded heavily on his old title. In my experience, I know when I'm communicating with a real deal Director or expert, it usually shines through, there are a few on this forum but not very many, Walts however are a different story.

It's not about what you purchased, it's about the source and origin of the funds used to pay the CC bill.

The question of whether those remittances are assessable income is far more complex because the answer depends on the nature, source and origin of funds, in the home bank account from which the remittance was made. If savings, no, if income, probably yes.

I'm guessing when I say I think a lot of these things are probably new territory for the TRD, things they probably winged it in the past but now need real and proper answers, that's why there's so much confusion, silence and mixed answers.

I agree, it doesn't matter to me either, except in the context of understanding whether the source of the information is reliable or not......I say not.

That's the picture I am left with, albeit a reasonably well connected one.

I did some digging into the qualifications of the "tax expert", his CV on Linkedin says: He graduated from the University of Wales. His current role is that he's head of a food and beverage company! He's a member of various groups that are open to many people, ie, three Chambers of Commerce. The staff numbers at his business are not shown anywhere. And that's it, the rest is just words without specifics. https://www.linkedin.com/in/luca-bernardinetti-750b9654/?originalSubdomain=th

I paid 6.3 mill for mine in 2004, at a time when GBP/THB was 70, I sold five years later when it was 52, in the meantime I lived rent free plus I made 12% on the purchase price. Who owns all those condo's? SMart people who don't pay rent, that's who.