Mike Lister

Most countries have to report deposits above a certain level, especially cash deposits. Those are money laundering laws, not tax based laws. If you would have read the tax guide that I wrote, you would have seen para 99 which reads thusly: 99) "It cannot be entirely ruled out that at some point, a link may be established between tax filings and visa extensions. A law already exists that requires foreigners to apply for Tax Clearance Certificates before being allowed to depart the country. The rule is not being enforced currently for a majority of visa types but it is in operation for some. These things are possible because similar things have been adopted in several countries in the past, including the US". I acknowledged the possibility that could happen in the future, but since it has never been mentioned in an official context, I haven't felt the need to mention it since. Many people are too focussed on what steps must be taken to make the tax rules work and haven't considered that very possibly, nothing much will be done at all. The Thai approach to rule enforcement is to allow organic growth over time. This may seem counter intuitive to Westerners who come from societes where efficiency and effectiveness have become art forms, but the pace of change here is very slow and we've seen this repeatedly. Coordination between government departments is also not great. If one department wants to implement change that requires the active cooperation of another department, nothing will happen quickly, if at all. I have to keep coming back to the 89% of the workforce who don't file a tax return. If the Revenue wanted to tax income, that would be an obvious place to start and the return would be far greater because of the large volume of people involved. Whilst that is no easy task and has potential political ramifications, it is not impossible to think that some measures could be adopted periodically over time yet none have been, except the new offshore income rule tweak. In fact, the trend over the past two decades has been for successive governments to give back to the people using handouts, rather than to enforce taking from them by way of tax. Does the above mean that targeting the resident foreigner is more politically acceptable and easier? Possibly, but improbable I suggest, the bureaucratic complexity and the inefficiency of the bureaucracy, combined with the downside risk of losing foreigners who move away as a result are the main reasons why. As for using the banks as proxies to establish if overseas remittances are assessable or not: all the banks can do it to provide a list of overseas remittances for each of their customers, that ability exists today and is used by many people. But then what, the TRD is highly unlikely to ask foreign customers to state their tax residency status and state whether each of those remittances was assessable or not and prepare a report for the TRD to sign off on, in order to authorise Immigration to issue a visa.....goodness me, that's an exercise in futility if ever there was one. My crystal ball tells me that nothing much will happen. There will be a significant increase in foreigners and Thai nationals filing tax returns in 1Q25 and reporting imported income but that will be because of momentum and news sharing in forums such as this. That increase alone may be sufficient for the TRD to consider the rule change a success and to do no more for a while. The fact is, TRD will be swamped and inundated with queries they are ill-equipped to handle.

It's important to note that I don't have a view on this, only a challenge to test what it is. Right now my sniffometer is vibrating alarmingly.

Thanks, noted, this is going to be fitted vertically as in a fence which appears durable for the purpose, unless a branch falls off a tree and hits it. I like the wood slats I have now but they just don't last, I replace around every each year. Even hard wood dipped in preservative and coated, they just don't survive the elements and the wildlife.

Once again we're into the realm of differing views on this, Mike Teave and Klonko both hold strong views on this subject and Mike's arguments appear logically correct. One of the conclusions that came out of a lengthy debate was that it was safest to make the Gift overseas and for the receiver to remit it as gifted funds. I'll let Mike and Klonko argue their respect views and/or for you to join that debate if you wish. In the meantime, I'll leave the matter open and on the list of unknowns.

It's not that the repayment might be considered assessable income, it's more that the loan and its repayment offshore, could easily be seen as avoidance, which is why I questioned its non-assess ability. See the simple example I set out for Jim Gant.

Fortunately, the cement board I'm going to use comes in 10 cm wide lengths that are 4 meters long so it's only a single cross cut, albeit 525 of them!

I'm going to replace the wooden picket boards on my garden walls with Shera/SCG Cement Board. I know from having worked with cement board previously that it can become weak when it gets wet so I'm trying to find out the best coating for it. My guess is that a good quality acrylic outdoor house paint such as Dulux Weathershield should work? In the past I've used an angle grinder to cut cement board but this time I need about 500 70 cm lengths which is a lot of work. Suggestions? BTW the pickets are 1.2 cm thick.

https://www.hl.co.uk/shares/shares-search-results/w/wisdomtree-copper

Another aspect of this is that foreign currency loans are often very high risk, borrowing in one currency to fund spending in another, unless you're involved in the carry trade which is also very risky. The Thai's know this only too well, it was the cause of the 1997 crash. So when a foreigner in Thailand tells them that assessable income is really borrowed money, expect them to wonder if the foreigner is as foolish as they were back then or is something else going on. Which is why I wonder is loan money really is not assessable.

A simple scenario: I live in Thailand and I need money to live on but am afraid to remit money here because it would be assessable and I might have to pay Thai tax. I have money in the US bank back home but still, I don't want to pay tax. I call back home and arrange a loan which is accepted, 50k USD is deposited into my US account which I then remit to Thailand. That money is accepted in Thailand as a loan, which according to earlier statements is not assessable. The week after the 50K USD has arrived, I call the US loan company back home and tell them I want to make early redemption on the loan, they agree. I transfer 50k USD from my US bank account, to the loan company which is now fully paid. Tell me that's not tax evasion! The only way to avoid that is for the initial remittance to be assessable, despite it being a loan. Meanwhile, I'm sat here in Thailand holding the USD 50K that came from the loan company originally and TRD is non the wiser because it's a loan and I have the paper work to prove it is so.

You have failed to understand what is being said, again. The issue is not whether the money involved is assessable or not. The issue is, whether the scenario I set out represents contrived tax evasion.

What you seem to be missing is that by remitting loan proceeds from overseas, instead of assessable income, and then paying off the loan in the home country, the very next day/week/month with that assessable income, means the nature and the status of the loan that was remitted has now changed. Once the loan money has been remitted and is understood to be a loan, there is no further Thai reporting requirement on those funds, even though the status of them may have changed, the following day/week/month. In other words, this scenario has all the hallmarks of a contrived tax evasion process, ergo, the loan money that is remitted would need to be considered assessable, to avoid that scenario. Agreed?

Here's that same post again, this time, read it and ask any questions before passing judgement or answering. R) An offshore loan remitted to Thailand is not assessable income. There are many instances of this. If a foreigner takes out a loan in their home country and remits those funds to Thailand and says they represent non assessable income, because the funds are borrowed, that might be the end of the matter as far as taxpayer and TRD are concerned, ot it might not. If the foreigner subsequently pays off that loan, in their home country, using income that would have been assessable to tax in Thailand, had it been remitted, there is no requirement for the loan repayment to be reported in Thailand. Yet the status of those funds has now changed, they are no longer borrowed funds and the foreigner has just committed tax evasion......or has he? According to the above, no, my sniff test says yes. @Dogmatix Before anyone has a go at me for discussing tax evasion, according to an entirely credible post above, remitting a loan in this manner is not assessable, the purpose of this post is therefore to determine is that is true or not.......I say it is not.

I think you are being deliberately obtuse and trying purposely to muddle the questions and avoid the scenario I'm questioning. If you continue to play games I will delete this exchange because it adds no value to the thread, it only subtracts from it.

The withholding tax on bank accounts has been in place for many many years but doesn't seem to have had much positive impact on the number of people who file tax returns, The grey economy is estimated to represent 49% of the workforce which in turn comprises 38 million people. The entire thrust of your argument is that the TRD will use proxies such as the Banks or the Immigration Dept to enforce the filing of returns. If that were true and likely that that they would do that for the 300,000 or so foreigners in Thailand, why haven't they already taken comparable steps already to ensure the 15.6 million native Thai's in the work force, file also?

Using your logic. That the TRD won't do nothing, what action have they taken to make the 89 percent of the population who don't file returns, file them?

Highlighted parts of the above are nonsense, do you not understand the difference between assessable and not assessable, tax resident and not tax resident!

R) An offshore loan remitted to Thailand is not assessable income. There are many instances of this. If a foreigner takes out a loan in their home country and remits those funds to Thailand and says they represent non assessable income, because the funds are borrowed, that might be the end of the matter as far as taxpayer and TRD are concerned, ot it might not. If the foreigner subsequently pays off that loan, in their home country, using income that would have been assessable to tax in Thailand, had it been remitted, there is no requirement for the loan repayment to be reported in Thailand. Yet the status of those funds has now changed, they are no longer borrowed funds and the foreigner has just committed tax evasion......or has he? According to the above, no, my sniff test says yes. @Dogmatix Before anyone has a go at me for discussing tax evasion, according to an entirely credible post above, remitting a loan in this manner is not assessable, the purpose of this post is therefore to determine is that is true or not.......I say it is not.

Yes agreed, the actual rate takes precedent, that's true for individual transactions but the BOT/TRD prefered rate is perhaps useful where valuations are required.

I make it a point to always go to the aid of a damsel in distress, especially the good looking ones.

There is an extensive discussion and review of Gift Tax in the following link, the answer is not as as straight forward and clear cut as you might imagine.

All savings accounts are subject to a withholding tax on interest earned, except children under age 18, this is not just a rule for foreigners. You can defer that tax by presenting the bank with your tax ID number, Thai nationals already do this because their tax ID number is their ID card number. Doing so will mean that the first 20k of interest is not subject to the withholding tax. https://sherrings.com/interest-income-personal-tax-thailand.html

Everyone is taxed the same way, just as everyone pays VAT and sales tax. Everyone is able to reclaim that tax withheld on savings interest at the end of the tax year, by filing a tax return.

Sorry, I missed this. No, once remitted it stays remitted and cannot become unremitted!

Several of these points have bounced backwards and forwards, onto and then off and then back onto the list again. I'd like to see a consensus on them or substantial proof from an independent source, before taking them off and closing them out. Which is why they have been posted here yet again. A part of the problem now is that debates are running in two separate threads, on the same subjects, Gift Tax for example has been heavily debated recently in the ways to reduce tax thread and still hasn't concluded decisively. Ditto cc transactions vis a ve remitted income. Whilst I support that they are assessable, there's hardly anyone else that agrees, despite the French video. .