Mike Lister

To add: I think too many people are trying to be perfectionists about what is intended/required and to emulate the level of details provided by home tax departments, they've forgotten where they are.

I think it is, because the interest on the CD was paid away into a second account and kept clearly separate from the principle. ergo, the value of the CD on the maturity date is the same as the value on the date it was invested.

I agree completely. But I do think that what gets lost on readers some times is that there are implicit assumptions in all these threads that don't need to be repeated with every post. Many members have forgotten what they were or never understood them in the first place. e.g. posters are not experts in Thai tax law; much is not known or understood about what the TRD intends in practise.

I have no reason to believe the TRD will ever do that, there's especially no reason to believe there will someday be an epiphany moment, the clouds will part and this all seeing all knowing announcement will be made that will magically make everything clearer. The Thai tax code has existed for decades, the TRD made only one small rule change to it, their position is very likely to be, what's so difficult to understand! Enough is known at present for people to understand the basics of the tax system but that's probably not enough for the average expat with above overseas earning's, other than basic things like savings or pensions. There will likely be some trial and error in all of this with many people erring on the side of caution, rather than trying to file a complete fully tested return the in the first year. We've already seen ample evidence that people are withholding remittances', until they see first hand experiences reported. That is likely to be the way this proceeds, if it proceeds at all.

The current law doesn't say that! The current tax law requires the taxpayer to assess their income to determine what is tax assessable income and what is not. Merely remitting funds to Thailand is not the sole basis for taxation, the remittance must comprise assessible income. The current law also does not say that tax paid can be deducted against income due. The tax law states that some funds are assessible and some are exempt, the law also says that dual tax agreements (DTA's) will specific which country has the primary taxation rights to certain types of income and is a secondary taxation right exists. I suggest you read the following and come back to us with questions:

An interesting but directly related diversion here which now becomes necessary to avoid confusion by those members not familiar with the terminology. HSBC defines offshore banking as, “An offshore bank account (also known as an overseas or non-resident account) is one you open in a country or region other than where you live”. An article in USA Today below provides a reasonable overview of the subject. Historically, offshore banks were located in territories that provided higher than average secrecy laws, which meant that customers could shield their wealth from the gaze of tax authorities. Times have now moved on hence the account secrecy aspect is no longer what it was, although the concept of offshore banking remains valid and in most cases, legal. There are many sound reasons why people hold offshore bank accounts, tax efficiency, product availability, legal threat shielding, funds seizure and convenience are just some of them. It therefore follows that offshore banks remain popular, legal and widely available, offered by some of the biggest names in banking. The message here is that offshore banks are generally safe, depending on the jurisdiction in which it is located. https://www.usnews.com/banking/articles/what-is-offshore-banking https://internationalservices.hsbc.com/international-banking/what-is-an-offshore-bank-account/. In most cases, offshore bank accounts were never illegal, only the way in which they were used and the failure to report transactions was. Worldwide reporting and information interchanges have ensured better reporting for tax and legal purposes but such systems don't guarantee detection in every instance. Which is why some customers will continue to under report such accounts, in the continued hope of evading tax in their home region. Thai onshore banks offer Foreign Currency Accounts for customers who are not Thai tax resident (as well as for residents) and these have some characteristics of an offshore account in that the tax treatment of those accounts represents and agreement between the bank and the TRD, onshore. It is therefore not true to say that those foreign currency accounts, are offshore accounts.

I've done that too, come across a post by somebody who I really thought wrote something interesting and then found out it was an old me....funny actually.

People under 50 should have jobs and be working and making money in the West. 🙂

There is no basis on which to think the first two points would occur. Honest people with lots of income have an easy out with the tax exempt LT visa. Dishonest people are unlikely to be more to move in to a country where tax laws have been strengthened.

179 is safe, 180 is not.

Thais who evade taxes by maintaining offshore accounts that are unreported.

Not so, address can be anywhere, only pre-requisite is that you must be in the UK, when the account is opened, even if only visiting.

Take a trip back and open an account with Hargreaves Lansdowne, you only need to be in the UK temporarily to do it. Then turn round and come back! I trade weekly and it works well.

Excellent.

Please go find somebody else to bicker and argue with, I have no interest.

I think the master plan as you call it is to expand the tax base and make more people pay tax, but to do so without generating mass upset or creating huge amounts of new bureaucracy. Think, low hanging fruit but only where the fruit is a decent size.

I'm comparing like for like, the tax system here versus elsewhere, nothing more, nothing less. If you want to compare other aspects of life here, go right ahead.

My remarks referred to the cheaper tax option, not where the better benefits exist! Personally, I see these things as trade offs, lower or higher direct taxes, higher or none existent indirect local taxes, free immediate health care versus a long waiting list, higher crime versus lower crime, good weather versus bad, and so on and so on. I only commented on one aspect, the tax rate, not on everything else.

Please help prevent competition, please help drive the foreigners towards the more expensive option, don't give them choices whatever you do! Says it all really.

It would be premature to fret at this stage but it's worth being aware of. I'm only looking into it now because of timing, my visa extension is due in November so I don't have a lot of reaction time, in a worst case scenario.

The other bits and pieces would more than compensate for me personally but we're all different.

That is the current scenario but I am told there are attempts underway to expand the scope, I do not know how reliable they are.

Usually very reliable sources inform me that there a review of visa terms and conditions underway with results and changes expected to be implemented by September. There is, by all accounts, a mismatch in expectations between the Foreign Office and Immigration, the former wanting a relaxation of the rules, the latter wanting health insurance as a prerequisite for all long stay visa's. Since I wasn't in the room whilst the debate was being had I can't comment further with certainty. I've long believed however that a mandatory requirement for health insurance will be imposed at some point, the only questions are when and whether or not existing visa holders will be grandfathered. So I'm just covering myself by anticipating what might happen and making myself aware of options and costs.

I just covered my bases and checked to see how much CIGNA (Close Care) from CIGNA International will cost me, in case somebody springs new rules on me. Aged 74 with a $1,500 deductible and 30% co-pay ($5,000 out of pocket max) is quoted at USD 430 per month. Increasing the deductible to $5,000 reduces the premium to USD 363 per month. I know from experience that a further discount may be available, probably 5% or 7%. We haven't begun talking about pre-existing conditions, which I have in abundance, one of the downsides of having regular health exams and fixing even minor things as you go. But I'm hopeful that potentially, 50% of my body might be covered! I might start looking around to see what inexpensive options the Thai insurers have, TBH I'm only interested in the policy for visa extensions purposes, if it comes to that, hence a 400k insured limit with a 400k deductible, at a low price, works for me. This is not for everyone of course and I wouldn't recommend it to others, unless you have options and some capital to back you up.

There's no downside to the Revenue or the Thai government, nobody too much cares that some overhead is imposed on wealthier foreigners, in order to make them pay tax. It's up to them if they want to leave, I doubt they will pay less tax "back home".