retiree

My impression is that the Thai Examiner article is a rewrite of this Sept. 29, 2023 article by Special Professor Kitipong Urapeepattanapong (in Thai, translate this page works fine), which I think was posted by Dogmatix (and copied to this thread by me) at the time.

From my own experience: gabapentin is a go-to here for patient is complaining about a pain that doesn't have any obvious cause. It may be favored because it is somewhat soporific -- this got better during the day, but I always got a terrific night's sleep -- and sleeping well often helps people feel better. Finally, the two capsule sizes may be provided because the standard advice is to increase and reduce the dosage slowly, and spread it out over the day. There is a great deal of interesting literature about uses of and dosage recommendations for gabapentin on line. It is also available OTC at finer drugstores everywhere.

Please note that I am not an accountant or tax lawyer. This writeup reflects my understanding of how the Thai tax law affects me, and is how I would explain it to the rubber duck sitting on my desk. The law regarding what is assessable (as distinct from taxable) income has been in place for decades. It has not been changed. No bill has been introduced to change it. Only Thai tax residents are Thai taxpayers, and only taxpayers can have assessable income. Income earned in years in which you are not a Thai tax resident is not assessable because you are not a Thai taxpayer. A simple guideline for my rubber duck: -- were you a Thai tax resident when you earned it? If so, the income is assessable (section 40), -- were you a Thai tax resident when you brought it in? If so, the income may be taxable, depending on DTA (section 41), -- was either answer "no" ? It is not taxable. The main unclear issue is this: What documentation will a tax resident need to differentiate between assessable income and "other funds" when we bring money into Thailand? This is the exact same question our accountants ask our home countries or states when we liquidate assets, borrow money, or acquire other income that shows up in our home-country bank accounts: how much of that was capital? how much was income? how and where was the income portion taxed? And it still isn't always 100% clear (ask anybody who walks a fine line on state residence in the USA). Nevertheless, I would assume that there will be guidelines and "safe harbor" rules for showing the source of funds remitted to Thailand (and whether or not they are assessable and taxable), just as there are in every tax jurisdiction in the world. ------------------------------------------------------ Section 40, below, defines assessable income. I have elided most of it for brevity. https://www.rd.go.th/english/37749.html#section40 Section 40 Assessable income is income of the following categories including any amount of tax paid by the payer of income or by any other person on behalf of a taxpayer. (1) Income derived from employment, whether in the form of salary, wage, per diem, bonus, bounty, gratuity, pension, house rent allowance, monetary value of rent-free residence provided by an employer, payment of debt liability of an employee made by an employer, or any money, property or benefit derived from employment. [... sections 2 through 7 ... ] (8) Income from business, commerce, agriculture, industry, transport or any other activity not specified in (1) - (7). The amount of tax under paragraph 1, which is paid for by the payer of income or by any other person on behalf of taxpayer on any category of income or in whichever tax year, shall be treated as income of the same category and of the same tax year as the income where payment of tax is made. ------------------------------------------- Section 41, below, defines taxable income. The bracketed numbers and meaning notes are mine, as explained to my rubber duck. Note that in paragraph 2, the RD has said (Sept 15) that the English translation of the underlined phrase "in the previous" should instead be understood as "in a previous" .... Whether or not this will require legislation to change the underlying Thai text of the law will probably be determined in court -- if it does, the current reading will stand for now. https://www.rd.go.th/english/37749.html#section41 Section 41 [1] A taxpayer who in the previous tax year derived assessable income under Section 40 from an employment, or from business carried on in Thailand, or from business of an employer residing in Thailand, or from a property situated in Thailand shall pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Part, whether such income is paid within or outside Thailand. Meaning: if you generate income in Thailand it is taxable, no matter where the income is paid, and even if you are not a tax resident. Meaning of the meaning: if you fly in, work 1 day for a Thai company, then leave, that day's income is taxable. [2] A resident of Thailand who in the previous tax year derived assessable income under Section 40 from an employment or from business carried on abroad or from a property situated abroad shall, upon bringing such assessable income into Thailand, pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Part. Meaning: if you are a tax resident of Thailand your overseas income is assessable per Sec 40 and any DTA, and will be taxed only when it is remitted. Meaning of the meaning: other than paragraph [1] income, money that is not in Thailand is not taxed in Thailand. [3] Any person staying in Thailand for a period or periods aggregating 180 days or more in any tax year shall be deemed a resident of Thailand. Meaning: you are a tax resident only if you are here for 180 days or more in any tax year. Meaning of the meaning: if you are not a tax resident you will not be taxed as a resident. Please let me know if you see any factual errors, as I do not want my rubber duck to be misled.

In August I got a Samsung 4TB T7 external for $219, with $25 import fee and free shipping from Amazon (on Prime, yes, this is not an internal SSD). It was far cheaper than the Thailand price. I also noticed that over the course of a month the Amazon price jumped up and down quite a bit (about $35 if I recall). This kind of variation seems much more common than it used to be -- I guess that wholesalers are more sensitive to the cost of carrying inventory than they once were. I've seen the same thing happen with 18TB Samusng external drives, whose Thai price has been more reasonable.

Lord, if you are listening, please please please open an Expats will leave Thailand proposition on a hard-money prediction market so that I can short it. Judging by the number of times it has been raised I'm sure it will be a well-capitalized market, and worthy of Your indulgence.

Move on to grinders? I recently got this via Shopee: Cuisinart Automatic Burr Mill coffee bean grinder model DBM-8 https://shopee.co.th/Cuisinart-Automatic-Burr-Mill-เครื่องบดเมล็ดกาแฟ-รุ่น-DBM-8-i.29967969.402279111 3,992 baht domestic, a bit cheaper from Korea, vs. $59.95 Amazon, but +$64.50 shipping / VAT so no savings. I got it because it was the only brand on Lazada / Shopee that a) I recognized, b) could find reviews of, and c) wasn't astronomically expensive. My impression is that it's a great little $60 grinder, although not not quite so great as a 4K baht grinder. Does a reasonable job: fairly consistent, and pretty fine (but not as fine as a pro grinder, like the pre-ground coffee from Cafe Roma on Shopee). However, it has a high RPM / low torque motor, and I'm concerned it will conk out in a few years. Does anybody have any moderately priced alternatives for fine grind / durable? I usually grind about 50gm, so not teeny tiny.

The collective wisdom of Quora, Reddit, and the sources they pointed suggest that when measured by weight, light and dark roasts have practically the same amount of caffeine. By volume, the dark roasts are a little puffier and hence a particular volume will have slightly less caffeine. Is there a source or lab test that takes the other position? Perhaps that the heating process reduces the amount of caffeine? I think what we can all agree on, though, is that dark roasts do not have more caffeine.

I add a second mesh screen; might help but I'm pretty sure the littlest bits are sneaking around the edge rather than through the filter per se. I poured though a paper filter exactly one time before I came to my senses -- decided to man up & just let the grounds settle in the coffee cup, like Clint Eastwood probably does (assuming he's not straining them out with his teeth). My liver laughs at cafestrol.

Another vote for คาเฟ่โรม่า (Cafe Roma) on Shopee. They have all kinds of beans & roasts, extremely reasonably priced, and arrives within a day or two. I get the dark Italian espresso and grind it fine, even though I also use a French press -- I respect a cup of coffee that can stand up and fight back. This stuff will put lead in your pencil, even if you don't have anybody to write to.

In regard to the 123 pages specifically, many individuals realize that they are tax residents who may have to begin filing Thai tax returns; like many first-time filers in new jurisdictions they have questions about the application of longstanding regulations (which have not been altered), and may seek tax accountants (or alternative tax jurisdictions) in the coming year.

An agency of the Thai government announced a simple, straightforward change in the interpretation of a single phrase in a single clause in a single sentence of a single paragraph of a single section of a simple and straightforward tax regulation: ... ในปีภาษีที่ล่วงมาแล้ว. In the past it was interpreted as "in the past tax year", but as of January 1, 2024 it will be understood to mean "in a past tax year "; note that Thai does not rely on the definite article "a" or "the" in the way that English grammar does. The revised interpretation will primarily impact Thai nationals, and a legal challenge to this change in longstanding practice is expected in the coming year.

Thanks for the response. Yes, I used to get an email 2FA with an 8-digit confirmation code, most recently September 9 (but still can't get on now). Still no idea why it doesn't work now, unless my e-mail or IP is on a block list, which occasionally happens with other international service providers. And yep, if they give me an e-mail confirmation / appointment time, that's great. I have been concerned I'd miss any attempted phone call (which I generally don't answer or notice, since all I ever get are junk marketing calls).

Another data point, with questions re logging in, and normal waiting time for SS application (I applied in July). I have a "legacy" SS password account, and a linked ID.ME account. I have successfully used both in the past, until a month ago. For the past month both fail during open US hours. The legacy SS password appears to be accepted, but goes to a "We cannot process your request at this time. Please try again later." page. Similarly, the ID.ME account sends me the two-factor ID number, accepts it, then returns me to the original login.gov / id.me / password login page. I have tried both Chrome and Edge browsers, and both True fiber and leeching off the old lady's phone connection, and both direct and VPN. Same result every time. I called SS USA yesterday. They said: your legacy account doesn't work because there's no two-factor authentication. We can't fix that, but we can remove it, and you'll be able to log in via id.me. I'm not sure I believe this. Question: Has anybody had this experience? Should I have them delete the legacy password account? Fwiw I'm trying to get on to check the status of my (completely ordinary) application for regular benefits, which went in 3 months ago. US SS office says still pending in Manilla. One other data point: the application let me enter a mailing address in the US (separate from my Thai residence address). However, SS operator said that they will only send any info or request mail to my Thai address (which I'm trying to avoid, 'cause my Medicare bill regularly arrives on or after the due date). Question: should I continue to be patient? Is 3+ months normal(ish) ?

I've ordered from these guys for years. They may be willing to special-order for you. https://www.ta-to.com/en

See https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/shingles/public/shingrix/index.html -- it's an awfully good vaccine. And public service message for all you oldsters out getting Shingrix shots: strongly consider getting the pneumonia series as well (two different mixes, one year apart). If you ever wind up in the hospital -- especially if you're on a ventilator -- pneumonia is what'll kill ya'. Available at Thai Travel Clinic and fine hospitals everywhere. https://www.thaitravelclinic.com/cost.html

Thank you for this update. Available by appointment at the Thai Travel Clinic. Per CDC, two shots are required, 2 to 6 months apart. https://www.thaitravelclinic.com/ Recombinant zoster vaccine (Shingrix®) 5,199

Can you point to any place that sets out the Thailand penalty for failure to file independently of tax being due? or when no tax is due? Or to a publicized instance of somebody being penalized when no tax was due?

Time Traveler, you may wish to consider not ... My understanding of your disagreement -- and please let me know if I have misunderstood -- is that you believe that the Thai government can now, or intends to, tax non-remitted income of non-citizen tax residents. I believe that Sheryl demurs, as do I. Your opinion seems to be based on this phrase from the US DTA section 20(1): "... taxable only in the residence State of the recipient." From this, you infer that: "For Thailand that is Residence based taxation of global income. Nothing in the code says the income must be remitted into Thailand before it is taxed. " But remittance is exactly what the code requires. If I understand you, you are conflating the word "taxable" in the DTA 20(1) with the word "assessable" in the Thai tax law section 40. Below: -- paragraph [2] says the assessable income must be remitted before a "resident" can be taxed, -- paragraph [3] defines "resident" as "tax resident" in this context. https://www.rd.go.th/english/37749.html (numbers added) Section 41 [1] A taxpayer who in the previous tax year derived assessable income under Section 40 from an employment, or from business carried on in Thailand, or from business of an employer residing in Thailand, or from a property situated in Thailand shall pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Part, whether such income is paid within or outside Thailand. [2] A resident of Thailand who in the previous tax year derived assessable income under Section 40 from an employment or from business carried on abroad or from a property situated abroad shall, upon bringing such assessable income into Thailand, pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Part. [3] Any person staying in Thailand for a period or periods aggregating 180 days or more in any tax year shall be deemed a resident of Thailand. Again, my apologies, and please let me know, if I have misunderstood your premise.

Always happy to be corrected. However, the relevant law appears to single out residents for taxation of income earned abroad (paragraph numbers mine). Is there an alternative? https://www.rd.go.th/english/37749.html Section 41 [1] A taxpayer who in the previous tax year derived assessable income under Section 40 from an employment, or from business carried on in Thailand, or from business of an employer residing in Thailand, or from a property situated in Thailand shall pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Part, whether such income is paid within or outside Thailand. [2] A resident of Thailand who in the previous tax year derived assessable income under Section 40 from an employment or from business carried on abroad or from a property situated abroad shall, upon bringing such assessable income into Thailand, pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Part. [3] Any person staying in Thailand for a period or periods aggregating 180 days or more in any tax year shall be deemed a resident of Thailand.

No. Form 709 is the IRS gift tax exemption form filed by the giver. It might be used to argue that the money belonged to the wife as soon as that form was filled and filed, even though it remained in the husband's account. It is due Apr 15 of the next year, and I think it is filed in that year as well.

It can only be taxable to you if you: -- are a Thai tax resident when you earn it, -- are a Thai tax resident when you remit it. If the answer to either is no, it can be a non-taxable gift to her. If the answer to both is yes, and if one of you is audited, there are arguments earlier up re why it might or might not qualify as a gift to her. Choose your fighter. You can probably ensure that it will be assessed as income to her by hiring her from overseas to do some kind of consulting. For this small amount (1m) she doesn't have to be a business or collect VAT. I think she'd get the automatic 30% deduction as an independent contractor -- see the guides here: https://www.rd.go.th/english/63902.html

What? I was very much looking forward to the no-show job and no-show wife that Klonko might provide me to test his contention. Let's not be hasty here.

As I noted twice, I was giving my opinion, based mainly on the fact that this type of gift can't be deducted from the giver's income. I might alternatively opine that: 1) when husband sends his wife the gift, the money is his until it is actually in her account. It might be refused by the Thai bank -- and never leave his US account -- if: -- he gave the wrong purpose of payment (PoP) code, or -- if they suspected his wife was money laundering, or -- if his wife failed her bank's know your customer rules triggered by the large amount (this happened to me once at a US bank I had used for decades), or -- if there was simply some inconsistency between the name and account number he provided for her. Note that the IRS 709 form verifying the gift is not filed until the next year. In my opinion, when the money enters Thailand it is still the husbands. If it is assessable, and if he is resident in that year, then it is taxable to the husband (subject to DTA). 2) the prosecutor might also present a reductio ad absurdum argument to the judge: if the gift is legitimate, then the money belongs to the wife. She can do with it what she will, including making a gift to her husband. From the prosecutor's point of view, and in my opinion, from the judge's as well, her gift is no more or less tainted than the husband's. Perhaps I can make a modest proposal? If you were to give me a no-show job that paid 20,000,000 baht, and a no-show wife to give it to, I'd be happy to be the test case.

In my opinion, the first sentence refers to a single taxpayer (but is poorly phrased / translated). As you read it, It would allow the wife to then make a gift of that money back to her husband without tax consequences for either. If your interpretation were correct, then we'd expect there to be a "gift deduction" entry on the husband's tax return that would let him exempt this portion of his assessable income (just as there is a "charitable contribution" entry). There isn't. In my opinion, the only circumstance under which he can transfer to his wife without one of them being liable for taxes is if either a) it wasn't assessable income for him, or b) he wasn't a tax resident when his assessable income was remitted to Thailand. Back in the day, when I gave my US accountant a hypothetical, his first question was always Will this pass the sniff test? We each have our opinions about gifts, but I'd imagine a Thai accountant would say much the same before agreeing with either of us.

In the US, giver pays tax on gifts. The limit for no reporting is $17,000 per recipient per year. However, the giver has a lifetime exemption of $12.9 million, indexed to inflation. You must file IRS form 709 to calculate and claim the exemption. Conveniently, form 709 also gives the recipient proof of a gift's origin. In Thailand recipient pays tax on gifts, with a 10 or 20 million baht exemption depending on circumstances. If I: -- remitted 20 million baht to my wife from overseas, and -- we were both Thai tax residents at the time, and -- she was audited, and -- she truthfully said that it was a gift from her spouse, using form 709 as evidence, then -- I would not be surprised if I were audited, with the presumption that I had used the gift (instead of just remitting the money to myself) to evade (not just avoid) taxes on assessable income.