retiree

I'll usually just take half the cetirizine or loratadine tablet; works for me.

Mine was EMS (popped for the 1,550 because I was cutting it close). Mailed at a small station in Bangkok. Was "Processed Through USPS Facility ISC NEW YORK NY(USPS)" then on to "USPS Regional Facility JAMAICA NY INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTION CENTER" the same day. My one-line summary is from the e-mail they sent me, but pretty identical to the USPS tracking site.

Thanks for following up. I'd interpret that as probably having gone to Wilkes-Barre and then delivered, for a total of 11 or 12 days. Just guessing, but at the last stop they're probably hand-scanned, so it's possible if the tag was marred, or two were stuck together, or there were a lot of you timely guys that day, or if the mailman was running late, it might not have been entered. I guess we'll find out if you get a follow-up 7162 request in the fall.

Have you tried both the Thai and US tracking sites?

So 7162 form, using airmail with tracking, took 16 days from Thailand to Wilkes-Barre, including a 10-day layover between US airport and delivery. No stopover in Scranton Distribution Center shown. Thanks.

Sent 7162 via EMS (1,550 baht) on Tue July 30 - Received in Wilkes-Barre Mon Aug 5. I think this was day 60 (notice was dated June 6, but not received for several weeks). Latest Update: Your item has been delivered and is available at a PO Box at 12:17 pm on August 5, 2024 in WILKES BARRE, PA 18767. Tracking works fine using both https://track.thailandpost.co.th/ and https://tools.usps.com/go . I also got e-mail (clicked send updates on the USPS page). About a dozen incremental steps along the way -- longest blackout was 2 days. Page had been saying signature required, but it was accepted without a sig.

My question was when day 60 occurs, not day 1. If it is after the day the return letter is postmarked it matches all government deadlines I know of, including taxes and voting. It would seem unusual to me if they were to require receipt by day 60, particularly because they have to go to much more effort to verify a death than to check a postmark. But it's their process, so ... 😉

Thank you for this link. The SSA procedures do not specify date of receipt vs postmark for the 60-day limit (or the 45-day limit for the second notice). The SSA will not inform you of successful receipt and processing. What is clear is that while it is fairly easy to have benefits suspended (the following January) by missing one of those deadlines, it is difficult to have them cancelled, and takes a full 7 years (unless you actually are dead). The SSA goes to some lengths to determine if you are still alive, including simply checking if you are still making SS / self-employment tax contributions. They will also accept phone calls at this point. If you are still alive, benefits are restored from the suspension date. See https://secure.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0202602320#c C Procedure – FO actions after efforts to locate 2. Beneficiary or representative payee responds to suspense action If the beneficiary or their representative payee responds to the suspense action, follow these steps: ... c. Reinstate benefits effective with the first month of suspension using the guidelines found in SM 03005.160, if applicable.

Will post update. I guess the most informative result will be if it arrives there on day 61. Am I informed of receipt within the time limit anywhere? or will I just get another form in the fall?

Thanks Pib. I just used EMS 1,550 baht. I think FedEx something priority would have been 1,400, probably do that next year. Or mail / registered mail if I'm more on the ball. My 60 days is next Monday, so might make it -- or more likely 60 days means postmarked by -- any idea? and do you know if they reject a late response to the first notice?

Same story, but I did get the letter this year. How do people mail it back? EMS via Thai Post? FedEx? lol I have a week left for my 60 days.

Note that this was an observational study; the mechanism is not clear. Not clear how the benefit was distributed (i.e. mostly average, vs. some little, some folks much) -- have to wait for a more detailed report on the full article. https://www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/dementia/111252 Dementia Risk Drops With Shingrix Vaccine Key Takeaways The recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix) was associated with a 17% increase in time without a dementia diagnosis, compared with the live vaccine. This translated into 164 additional days without a dementia diagnosis. The findings support hypotheses about shingles vaccination and dementia prevention. Taquet, M., Dercon, Q., Todd, J.A. et al. The recombinant shingles vaccine is associated with lower risk of dementia. Nat Med (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03201-5 There is a link to a preprint, but I couldn't get it to fully load: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-024-03201-5.epdf?sharing_token=MzU7BhG2gmTGLXj4ijnrfdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MWVzS3OFxW79q3WomDJxB3y6xBCVUar8J1P4JKNdWXQue0SMFhuKV7_ywG5ahb5xmjguPbCEni3RzKZUbdflXePM8wtNcGqDF89ZFbTAxL6NItemE6s8T9cdQA1STBKPA%3D

Reporting on this only because I tracked down the app details. The "Omron Evolv" is on Shopee / Lazada for about 4K baht. It is the HEM-7600T-Z model. I bought Shopee / TSMactive because they looked bigger than the other guy; probably same owner lol. This is the model that works with the Omron app from the US Google Play store (which my Android phone uses -- you can only change once per year). The Thai alternative HEM-7600T, which is sold by the "official" Omron store, costs about 900 baht more, and I was told will only use the Asia version of the app. The US version is cheaper on Amazon, but they won't ship it to Thailand. Readings are very close to the Omron Series 7 wrist guy I bought almost exactly 10 years ago, and which is now getting a little balky about starting. I put my left hand across my chest so the device is over my heart, at about the same height as the arm unit. Both seem to have good repeatability; wrist is typically a few mm higher just like the Interweb says. If I had to do it over again I'd just get the cheaper, non-Bluetooth wrist version -- it seems to be just as accurate but is easier to put on & take off.

If that were the case, a DTA would not need to include details about different taxation rules for different types of income. It could just say "we have a DTA, so use the lowest rates." Rule 5 ('favor the taxpayer when "the rate of tax stipulated in the Revenue Code is different from that of an agreement" ') would seem to apply only when there is genuine ambiguity. I think this is a general RD principle. Otherwise, as that same FAQ says: 9. What is the method for elimination of double taxation provided in the agreement? - In a double taxation agreement, there are credit and exemption methods.

You are absolutely right. I jumped to the conclusion that you were referring to GDP, and not income (unlike Schneider and my other citations, who are referring to GDP) -- I guess I'm just used to seeing words like "gray" and "shadow" so frequently used in that context. My apologies for getting this wrong. Your explanation of 48% makes good sense. I just don't see where the figure comes from, or how close it might be to this X or Y ? X% of Thai earnings are below or barely above the limit for reporting and taxation. Y% of unreported Thai earnings would yield significant taxes if discovered. I'm open to a side bet on the fraction of Y that should be, but are not, showing up on tax returns that are currently filed, and which (I think) the RD has its sights on ;)

As noted in this post, the figure that is most often cited in this thread -- 46.2% -- is based on admittedly "poor" evidence that is one step below "use with caution." https://aseannow.com/topic/1306896-thai-government-to-tax-all-income-from-abroad-for-tax-residents-starting-2024/ Prof. Friedrich Schneider is another key reference; he estimates 40.9% in 20141. For what it's worth, he also repeatedly quoted 70% -- and was himself very widely cited -- for 1998-1999, so this seems like a remarkable recovery2,3. The problem with all of these numbers is made plain in a typical newspaper analysis: Visible informal business in the country is widespread and consists of street vendors, food stalls, souvenir sellers, repair shops, makeshift entertainment venues and so forth, ... "if this revenue was just taxed by the general 7% value-added tax, the Thai government could have brought in ..." (quoting an anonymous Thai economist)4 Recall that a) income distribution in Thailand is extremely unbalanced, b) 20% of the population receives 50% of the income, c) the average wage in Thailand is 15,400 baht/month, and d) low-income workers and low-revenue businesses are not subject to personal income tax or VAT (all references provided in the link above). It is intentionally illusory to imagine the income that could be garnered from these folks if only they were "just taxed by the general 7% value-added tax" -- they have intentionally been excluded from such taxation. And it is equally misguided to assume that the government has not carefully considered the effect that applying such a tax would have on a large population that is barely getting by as it is -- more than a third of Thailand's population is either below the poverty line (6.3%)5, or faces food insecurity (28.6%)6. Thailand is not Italy, where so many large and profitable businesses have historically evaded reporting that years ago, tourists were advised to hold onto their restaurant receipts -- the police were known to demand them to ensure that restaurants were charging VAT. Thailand does have a shadow economy (which many posters on this list seem to be eager to participate in). And in cases of corruption, as well as the problems every country faces in taxing drugs, prostitution, and the like, large sums may be involved. But these cost far less than I think is commonly imagined in terms of GDP. Corruption is estimated at $1.5-3 billion of $500 billion of GDP in recent years -- a painful bite of the budget, but only a small fraction of the economy. Similarly, prostitution is not taxed, and is also likely to involve billions of dollars, concentrated in a manner that could reasonably yield tax revenue. But (perhaps unlike corruption) that money is spent in ordinary activities (raising families, building houses, etc.) that boost GDP and are taxed. Overall, I find it hard to see how all of these add up to anything close to the unsupported 40-50% of GDP figures commonly cited. This is a quite interesting topic, though, and I would be grateful for links to any more detailed and accurate assessment of the role the shadow economy plays in Thailand. 1 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-59846-8_3 New Estimates for the Shadow Economies of 11 Asian Countries from 2000 to 2014 Friedrich Schneider 2017 2 https://www.elibrary.imf.org/display/book/9781589060968/ch01.xml Shadow Economies Friedrich Schneider and Dominik Enste 2002 IMF 3 https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/issues/issues30/ Hiding in the Shadows Friedrich Schneider and Dominik Enste 2002 IMF 4 https://www.gulf-times.com/story/448401/Thailand-s-shadow-economy-among-biggest-worldwide Arno Maierbrugger Gulf Times Correspondent, Bangkok. 2015 5 https://www.adb.org/where-we-work/thailand/poverty Poverty Data: Thailand 2021 6 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1071814/full Socio-demographic and geographic disparities of population-level food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic in Thailand Sirinya et al 2023

I agree. This is far, far from a done deal. Nor is global taxation (particularly for non-citizen tax residents) something that can be effected with the stroke of a pen. The US, UK, etc. tax codes (each thousands of pages) and guidance (each tens of thousands of pages) took a long, long time to get that way as necessary details were filled in over the years. Note that if this report is accurate, remittance in 2024 will only be taxable for 2024 income. 2023 and prior assessable income will be protected under the safe harbor rule, and the old interpretation of the code. The earliest remittance that might be affected under the Sept 15 rule won't occur until Jan. 1, 2025, for income earned in 2024. On the face of it this suggests that the RD would have time to defend a legal challenge. Hopefully this is something a disinterested Thai legal authority, or an expert in procedural law rather than tax law, will comment on.

A longish response to this important post is on the "short" thread: https://aseannow.com/topic/1311285-change-in-the-tax-law-does-target-expats-living-in-thailand-and-extends-reporting-obligations/?do=findComment&comment=18491090

Thank you Dogmatix for posting this important article: https://www.prachachat.net/finance/news-1432180 My interpretation would be slightly different. As expected, the RD is beginning to issue guidance and "safe harbor" rules on tax law enforcement. To clarify, a safe harbor rule typically establishes simple documentary evidence needed to establish that one is not subject to a regulation. If the article is accurate, the first safe harbor rule is that money remitted from an account that was: funded in 2023 or earlier, and has not had additional funds credited in 2024 or subsequent years, will be assumed to be non-taxable income, regardless of when it is remitted. Presumably an account statement that shows the pre-existing funds from 2023 or earlier, and a remittance to Thailand from that account that matches your Thai income will be accepted as the safe-harbor evidence. I imagine that it would be advisable for residents to maintain these accounts as-is, and establish new accounts for income and expenditures in 2024 and beyond. The question of whether Thailand will move to taxing global income of tax residents is non-trivial, and will not be settled by a quick and easy revision of Thai law. I expect that at first there may be an attempt to apply this to Thai corporations, and Thai overseas investors -- long before there is any consideration of taxing the home-country income of individual tax residents as it is accrued, and regardless of whether it is remitted. Please note that I have no particular expertise in tax or law, besides paying it and obeying them, and any corrections are welcome.

And, of course, Anatole France, almost exactly 100 years later: The law, in its majestic equality, requires both the rich and the poor to pay a very fair tax, and forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.

But Louis, chéri. It is a très, très fair tax! Do they not pity the poor baker? If we have no money, who will buy his cakes?

No comment, really; just wanted to let that sit there.

Continuing my comment from here: https://aseannow.com/topic/1306896-thai-government-to-tax-all-income-from-abroad-for-tax-residents-starting-2024/?do=findComment&comment=18485075 Recent figures given for tax filers and tax payers (and inferences about the number of tax scofflaws) may be misleading for at least two reasons: temporary decline in employment due to Covid-19, as I've pointed out previously, the likelihood, based on income distribution, that many non-payers are de minimis scofflaws, whose evasion is on minimally taxed (5%) income that is not worth the cost of collection. Consider a Thai taxpayer who: supports his wife, his own parents, and two children, and makes the mandatory contribution to the SS fund (6,300 baht), does not deduct provident fund, government pension, life insurance, home loan, or up to 30% of income to invest in RMF or SSF funds. If he had fewer mouths to feed he could offset his lost "support" deductions through these. His tax obligation on an income of 41,000 THB / mo, or 492,000 per year, is zero. The next 150,000 of income would only be taxed at the lowest marginal rate, 5%. This is a substantial income in a country whose average wage is 15,400 / mo. Finally, I'd note that the published estimates of Thailand's tax-evading shadow economy (46.2% here) are based on data the publication itself rates as D "poor" (on a scale of A-E). It is worse than their C rating: "use with caution." I would assume that any reliance on such figures is reckless, if not irresponsible. https://www.worldeconomics.com/Country-Reviews/Thailand/ Pointers to any reputable research and publication on the actual distribution of Thai taxpayers and tax scofflaws would be greatly appreciated.

Most Thai taxpayers who have tax obligations file tax returns and pay taxes. The link given above (and below) to the NESDC article pdf (Thailand Social’s Outlook of Q4/2022 and overview of 2022) yields these relevant statistics: "The total number of personal income taxpayers was 10.8 million persons, while only 4.2 million persons with net income subject to tax (disposable income after deducting expenses, allowances and donations)" "There are a total number of 38.8 million persons employed, of which 18.6 million receive wages and salaries, but only 10.8 million reach the tax filing criteria of the Revenue Department." https://www.nesdc.go.th/nesdb_en/ewt_dl_link.php?nid=4495&filename=social_dev_report Note that the average wage in Thailand is 15,400 baht/mo -- well below the amount that would require tax filing. https://tradingeconomics.com/thailand/wages This is partly explained by the fact that about 32% of the population is in the agricultural sector, in which some 45% of all households have negative annual income. https://www.pier.or.th/files/dp/pier_dp_204.pdf (Financial lives and the vicious cycle of debt among Thai agricultural households Chantarat et al, 2023). Note that almost half of all debt is due to direct agriculture costs, e.g. fertilizer; see Table 3 p47 sub B col 1, also Table 4. As a consequence, income distribution in Thailand is extremely uneven: The top 20% of earners receive 50%+ of national income, while the bottom 40% receive just over 15%. (Income distribution in Thailand is scale-invariant Sitthiyot 2023, citing data for 2021 from The Office of National Economic and Social Development Council: Poverty and income distribution statistics; 2023.) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10335671 Given this distribution -- a flat line, with a very sudden rise at the high end -- I would guess that many tax scofflaws (including some retirees on this list) owe only minimal amounts, and are not cost-effective to pursue. Again, most Thai taxpayers who have tax obligations file tax returns and pay taxes. Finally, I would point out that the Thais spend a lifetime contributing to their country by contributions and service to Buddhism, availability for military conscription, care for their children, and providing an absolutely essential social safety net for the disabled and aged. Support for the country, and with it the right to enjoy the benefits of citizenship, does not derive solely from paying taxes or VAT.

Do I understand you correctly? Do you mean no tax, but a 200 baht fine for each year you failed to file? Underrated post, imho.