retiree

This is the 1938 code. It has Section 41 paragraph 1 (local income), but not 2 (overseas income), at the bottom of page 39, to wit: Section 41. 104 A person who has made assessable income as defined by section 40 in the past tax year, be it by reason of employment or operation of a business situated in Thailand, or from an employer who is situated in Thailand, or from assets situated in Thailand, shall pay tax in accordance with the provisions of this Part, whether such income is paid within or outside of the country. Any person who is in Thailand for a period or periods, aggregating to a total of one hundred and eighty days or more in any one tax year shall be deemed a resident of Thailand. 104 Section 41 was amended by the Act Amending the Revenue Code (No. 8), B.E. 2496 (1953). An additional section 41 bis is about immovable property. I think the two current questions are: -- what is the text and/or history of 2/2528? -- is the current text of Section 41 (2) the same as the Act Amending the Revenue Code (No. 8), B.E. 2496 (1953) that footnote 104 refers to, or was the 1953 text different from the current text?

Not to the year "dot," but rather for the years the individual was a Thai tax resident and had assessable income. > ... they surely would have made that clear by saying ... As you know Thai officialese never uses one word when 10 words ... I am reluctant to tell native speakers of another language how they should write, and I do not know how many words they prefer to use. > if parliament intended open ended taxation of past earnings, there would have been no need to even mention "previous tax year". I believe a parallel construction was used in both paragraphs to indicate a) when and where the work was done, and b) when and where any income was received. > They could have just stated that foreign sourced income is taxable. but using the phrase "in the previous tax year" We might just as reasonably say that if Parliament had intend to either a) only include current year income remitted in the current year, or b) explicitly exclude all prior years' income, they would'a could'a should'a stated that. > Resolution 2/2528 (1985) ... clarify that the Article 41 only referred to the previous tax doesn't appear to detract from the interpretation that parliament only intended to tax to tax the previous tax year We will only know this if we can look at the text of 2/2528 and/or the arguments that prompted it. I assume that in the mid-80's a taxpayer argued one way, the RD argued the other, and the taxpayer won. But we don't know why. Re Kittipong's more general argument, I think this will be resolved when a large Thai taxpayer takes the RD to court, and argues that individuals and companies have entered long-term contracts, and engaged in long-term tax planning, on the basis of a long-established interpretation, and that it would cause unjust harm to undue the 2/2528 ruling. That said, I have zero knowledge of the weight of administrative ruling precedents (such as 2/2528) in Thai law, and of whether or not they may occasionally be overturned, as with US stare decisis precedents. The phrase unjust harm sure sounds like a winner, but it might not carry legal weight in cases like this. I do assume, though, that if this year's RD ruling is denied, and if the government is serious about this issue, that Parliament can and will vote to modify the tax code, as governments around the world do all the time. PS: Thanks, Dogmatix, for posting the link to the itax website just now, and thanks even more so for the Kittipong article the other day. And I am with you -- it's all Lalisa's fault.

It is based on remittance. The Thai-language announcement is here: https://www.rd.go.th/fileadmin/user_upload/kormor/newlaw/dn161A.pdf The relevant phrase is และได้นำเงินได้พึงประเมินนั้นเข้ามาในประเทศไทยในปีภาษีใดก็ตาม . It can be translated as ... and has brought that assessable income into Thailand in any tax year. The current pre-September interpretation would be current year's assessable income in the current year.

The RD's (non-binding, but looks accurate to me) English translation of 41 para 1 and 2 of the actual tax law is given here: https://www.rd.go.th/english/37749.html#section41 Section 41 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. 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. (emphasis added) I don't see the second paragraph as waiving prior years' taxes -- it just delays their collection. The definitive Thai phrase for "in the previous tax year", used in both paragraphs, is: ในปีภาษีที่ล่วงมาแล้ว , which I think could also be read as "in a previous tax year" or "in previous tax years". It does not say "the", and neither the Thai nor English say "... only if remitted income was earned in the current year." (I'm assuming the Thai phrase is not a "term of art", or wording that is always used in legislation to refer to only the prior year.) Now, Baker McKenzie et al have said that the pre-September interpretation was provided by Resolution 2/2528 (1985), which appears to be a type of tax court ruling -- not a piece of legislation. https://insightplus.bakermckenzie.com/bm/tax/thailand-offshore-sourced-income-brought-into-thailand-from-1-january-2024-onward-will-be-subject-to-thai-personal-income-tax/ According to paragraph two of section 41 of the Revenue Code, Thai tax resident individuals, i.e., any person who stays in Thailand for at least 180 days in any calendar year, shall pay Thai personal income tax on the offshore-sourced income when they bring that income into Thailand. The Resolution of the Committee for the Consideration of Legal Issues and Appeals or Petitions of the Revenue Department No. 2/2528, dated 21 February 1985 ("Resolution No. 2/2528") ruled that the offshore-sourced income that was brought into Thailand after the calendar year of receipt was not subject to personal income tax. Can you provide Thai text of Section 41 paragraph 2, or elsewhere in the code, that supports your belief that the original legislation was always intended to apply only to assessible income if remitted in the year it was earned? Or, can you find something in the text of 2/2528 (which I don't have) that would indicate that this was a term of art, and the legislature did intend to waive taxes on assessible income from earlier years?

The US taxes a fraction of the Social Security benefit on a slowly rising basis if you have enough additional income, see below. SS is a pay-as-you-go system intended to help the lowest-income folks in society, including people who become not only old, but also disabled, orphaned, and/or widowe(re)d. It is not a personal retirement investment scheme. https://www.annuityadvantage.com/calculator/social-security-taxable-benefits-calculator/

Yes. Y'all want to get the Technical Explanation, which is actually somewhat less technical: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/thaitech.pdf Article 20 begins on page 63. This quote is from page 64. Article 20 Pensions and Social Security Payments ... Paragraph 2 The treatment of social security benefits is dealt with in paragraph 2. This paragraph provides that, notwithstanding the provision of paragraph 1 under which private pensions are taxable exclusively in the State of residence of the beneficial owner, payments made by one of the Contracting States as a social security benefit or similar public pension to a resident of the other Contracting State or to a citizen of the United States will be taxable only in the Contracting State making the payment. This paragraph applies to social security beneficiaries whether they have contributed to the system as private sector or government employees. The phrase "similar public pension" is intended to include United States tier 1 Railroad Retirement benefits. The reference to U.S. citizens is necessary to insure that a social security payment by Thailand to a U.S. citizen not resident in the United States will not be taxed by the United States.

Yes, curious, and hoping some lurker on this list has access to a law library. Not sure that Baker / McKenzie does pro bono legal research, or that I could afford them otherwise. Given the wording of the law, the 2/2528 ruling seems counterintuitive to me -- but I don't know the argument that were advanced in its favor. There was turmoil at the time. The baht was untethered from the dollar and tied to a (dollar-dominated) basket of currencies in 1984, which led to an immediate devaluation from 23 to 27 baht / dollar, and considerable pain for those who had not hedged dollar-denominated loans, as well as those who had planned US purchases, including military equipment. It was followed by an attempted coup in 1985. One would imagine that the 2/2528 ruling was influenced by the political situation of the times, and how it might be advantageous to some hurt by the devaluation, but I'm not seeing exactly the reasoning the Tax Court might have followed (which I think will be helpful in predicting where the new ruling will go). A new post in another thread refers to the topic, and points to this article (Chrome translate works pretty well). However, the background of 2/2428 is not addressed. The article does note that there will probably be taxpayers who disagree and take the case to the tax court. And in my opinion implies that the expat community is a minor player in any turbulence ahead, in comparison to overseas investors in Thailand, and to Thais with investments overseas. https://www.bangkokbiznews.com/finance/investment/1091100 https://aseannow.com/topic/1306896-thai-government-to-tax-all-income-from-abroad-for-tax-residents-starting-2024/?do=findComment&comment=18385407

If an American retired to Thailand ... Did not work, no investments in Thailand, did not own a house and only lived off savings .... they would pay less in VAT than folks in 88 US cities pay in sales tax. And no, this isn't a high California taxes thing -- there are plenty of Texas / red state cities on the list. https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/sales-tax-rates-by-city-2021/ (showing place -- state -- city -- total sales tax) Tacoma, WA 6.500% 3.800% 10.300% 1 Chicago, IL 6.250% 4.000% 10.250% 2 Fremont, CA 6.000% 4.250% 10.250% 2 Long Beach, CA 6.000% 4.250% 10.250% 2 Oakland, CA 6.000% 4.250% 10.250% 2 Seattle, WA 6.500% 3.750% 10.250% 2 Birmingham, AL 4.000% 6.000% 10.000% 7 Baton Rouge, LA 4.450% 5.500% 9.950% 8 Memphis, TN 7.000% 2.750% 9.750% 9 St. Louis, MO 4.225% 5.454% 9.679% 10 ... (71 more rows) Jacksonville, FL 6.000% 1.500% 7.500% 82 Wichita, KS 6.500% 1.000% 7.500% 82 Charlotte, NC 4.750% 2.500% 7.250% 85 Lincoln, NE 5.500% 1.750% 7.250% 85 Raleigh, NC 4.750% 2.500% 7.250% 85 Toledo, OH 5.750% 1.500% 7.250% 85

In my experience the convenience of a fixed deposit account is that -- at CW at least -- you don't have to go through the rigmarole of making a deposit the day of your extension application every year. My account posts interest quarterly, and my most recent passbook update is usually 2 months before I do the extension. Any interest is automatically transferred to my ordinary savings account at the same bank. Note that the very first time I did this many years ago the IO suggested that I also have an ordinary account with "some" money in it (I interpreted this to mean 80-100 K). They looked at that book the first time only. I get the balance letter the day before -- my Kbank does it in about 10 minutes for 100 baht. -- Retiree

I'm having trouble understanding why there is a "current-year-only" rule in the first place. Does anybody have a fact-based explanation for why Resolution 2/2528 was promulgated? Can somebody with access to the Thai legal texts provide a brief comment on the actual decision? The non-binding English translation of 41 para 1 and 2 of the actual tax law is given here: https://www.rd.go.th/english/37749.html#section41 Section 41 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. 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. I don't see the second paragraph as waiving prior years' taxes -- it just delays their collection. Note that the definitive Thai phrase for "in the previous tax year" is: ในปีภาษีที่ล่วงมาแล้ว , which I think could also be read as "in a previous tax year" or "in previous tax years". (I'm assuming it is not a "term of art", or phrasing that is always used in legislation to refer to only the prior year.) The refs I have for Resolution 2/2528 are: https://www.belaws.com/thailand/stricter-regulations-for-taxing-foreign-income/ Per Section 41 in the Revenue Code, Thai tax residents must pay Thai personal income tax on income earned from offshore sources when repatriating it to Thailand. However, Resolution No. 2/2528, issued by the Committee for the Consideration of Legal Issues and Appeals or Petitions of the Revenue Department in 1985, announced that any offshore income or assets brought into Thailand after the year of its accrual would not be subject to personal income tax. https://insightplus.bakermckenzie.com/bm/tax/thailand-offshore-sourced-income-brought-into-thailand-from-1-january-2024-onward-will-be-subject-to-thai-personal-income-tax/ According to paragraph two of section 41 of the Revenue Code, Thai tax resident individuals, i.e., any person who stays in Thailand for at least 180 days in any calendar year, shall pay Thai personal income tax on the offshore-sourced income when they bring that income into Thailand. The Resolution of the Committee for the Consideration of Legal Issues and Appeals or Petitions of the Revenue Department No. 2/2528, dated 21 February 1985 ("Resolution No. 2/2528") ruled that the offshore-sourced income that was brought into Thailand after the calendar year of receipt was not subject to personal income tax. Since then, the Revenue Department has issued numerous rulings following the interpretation under the Resolution No. 2/2528. Thai tax residents will be subject to Thai personal income tax with respect to the offshore-sourced income, only if that income is brought into Thailand in the same calendar year in which it is received. I'd imagine that these points will be raised when the new ruling, 161/2566 (2023), is challenged in court by a Thai taxpayer. And again -- I'm hoping that somebody can provide a factual explanation of why Resolution 2/2528 (1985) was issued in the first place (and not simply more opinions about what the government should or shouldn't do).

I also fretted about ID.me until I went down the long list of acceptable secondary ID forms (with passport as primary). I think I just used a 1099. In the end it was awfully easy (we used something like gmail video on computer for the face to face). -- Retiree

The hilarious scene in Belle du Jour where Pierre Clémenti, who is not exactly what you would call a handsome man, meets and rejects Catherine Deneuve has stuck in my mind for 50+ years (just before the two minute mark in this short clip). Clémenti's persona seems oddly reminiscent of some of the more prolific posters on this site.

And another: https://aseannow.com/topic/1301299-report-on-cw-trifecta-new-passport-transfer-extend-retirement-and-pay-90-day-fine-in-under-2-hours/ I brought the full rental / ID / TM-30 paperwork package (because I was also changing passpart) but wasn't asked for any of it. -- Retiree

800K+ in a fixed account for many years. -- Retiree

( Also answers Will CW extend retirement if I'm behind on 90-day report ) Yes -- they didn't ask for it. I replaced my passport several months early to get a full year extension. US Embassy delivered in 5 weeks 4 days by mail as advertised. I missed two 90-day reports by the time of my appointment. Made two advance online appointments: one for retirement (go directly to the "L" window, no check-in number), and another 1.5 hours later for 90-day report. For new passport transfer, I used the IM checklist: form with picture, pages from old passport, ID page from new blank passport, letter from US Embassy explaining they don't provide letters from here: Notification-of-cessation-of-linkage-letters.pdf To extend retirement: form with picture (using new passport number), pages from old passport, ID page from new blank passport, Google map, all pages of old, filled, bankbook, and of a brand new (just 3 entries) bankbook. It's fixed deposit account, so the last updates (just entered in the new book) are dated 2+ months ago, per last interest payment. bank letter from prior day. For 90-day report: form (used new passport number, no picture or copies needed), 2,000 baht. I was processed first at the Elite window (B-65, I think), then paid the fine in the little office on the left side of the "A" 90-day room. She was very nice, but basically said that even if I had proof aliens had abducted me, it would still be a 2,000 baht fine. The transfer and extension IO did not ask for: anything else from the Embassy, 90-day report receipt: I had been concerned I'd have to do this first, so I had my online appointment confirmation ready to plead for mercy, but it didn't come up. I had my most recent (from last December) but didn't have to show it. TM-30: I had my apartment update my TM-30 the week before, so it must've been online. The apt. gave me a full packet (their TM-30, owner's ID, letter, lease, etc.), but none of these were asked for. the IO copied, and had me sign, one additional passport page -- went by very quickly, but it might have been the one with the extension in effect at the time of my last entry into Thailand some years ago. Later it was stamped and I had to sign it again. All in all a very easy & professional process. -- Retiree

I called the US number (1 800 772 1213 / 8am - 7pm M-F) given on the main SSA contact us page a number of months back (I had an account set up previously, but needed a new password). They were very helpful, and were even able to tell me my likely benefit amount. If a pre-existing account isn't required, this may be the easiest way to find out if one has the required number of quarters in the system. -- Retiree

Not terrified. Or worried -- have never had a problem here just showing a cellphone pic or Xerox copy. After 5 weeks I got an e-mail from the Embassy (with tracking number) saying they'd mail my new passport in a couple of days. Arrived 3 days later. Start to finish: 5 weeks 4 days as advertised. -- Retiree

OP here, re-upping my hope that somebody can post their actual experience with the BOI re using a current balance statement from an "official" retirement account (such as a US IRA), even if for tax reasons one is not currently receiving any yearly distribution. Would $800,000 IRA assets alone do the trick, even without passive income? Is there some combination guideline? Yes, this is discussed clearly in the YouTube video (see first page of this thread, at 14:05 Can you qualify with retirement savings?) but afaik still isn't mentioned in any of the online or print documentation. -- Retiree

Thank you Pib for the screen capture, and my apologies to Lost Nomad -- I confess that I did not last through the entire YouTube video, which contains this link at the bottom of its Show More section. I have transcribed a minute of it, below (light editing for clarity): 14:05 Can you qualify with retirement savings? Chris: ... but they have a big stock portfolio in an IRA or RRSP ... [but] haven't started to take that money out yet. Ms. K: So, if you don't have that regular flow of cash coming in every year, but instead you have this big amount of money ... it's your pension fund, basically, so what you need to do is show us that the total amount of the fund covers the 10-year period. Chris: So say $800K or a million ... even if it's in your home country. Then you might still qualify. Ms. K: Exactly. But let me stress that it needs to be a pension or annuity fund. Chris: That's fantastic. Bearing ThailandRyan's cautionary comment in mind, it does appear that this is an informal way to qualify, on a case-by-case basis, that is not listed on the BOI site. Has anybody reading this thread made use of this method for closing the $80K gap yet? -- Retiree

Thank you for posting this thought, which describes the path the BOI does allow for meeting the insurance requirement. At the same time I accept that if the BOI wanted to let some kind of asset minimum be used to meet the income requirement, they could have done so in the same way. It may be that: 1) it is not permitted by the government's enabling legislation founding the program, so it isn't on the table, 2) it was considered by the BOI, but was rejected for reasons we are not privy to (and which are their internal business, not ours). Possibly they felt the $250K investment alternative was reasonable, preferable, and easier to vet. 3) it is being allowed informally, on a case-by-case basis, after a review of the applicant's situation. Has anybody reading this thread ever asked the BOI if showing a sufficiently large balance in a retirement account (say, $400-800K to meet a $40K yearly passive income shortfall) would be acceptable to close the $80K gap? -- Retiree

Thanks again. I may have been over-thinking this because single-payment, immediate, fixed-term annuities (as opposed to the deferred, long-term, retirement kind) seem to be a rare exception in Thailand. And nobody has mentioned using one for LTR. That said, this discussion has helped clarify the specific question I'll want to ask BOI before buying the instrument and applying. Presumably they will confirm that if I (or my IRA) buys an immediate annuity (to be paid at the end of each year), the contract alone will be sufficient evidence for that part of the $80K income stream. -- Retiree

Thank you for your detailed response. The particular problem I'm trying to solve is this: -- I'd like to apply next year, 2024. -- I'll only have 1/2 year Social Security this year, 2023. I'm hoping that it will be clear to BOI from my SSA award letter (and part-year 1099-R) that 2024 SS will be over $40K, even though I won't have that full-year 1099-R until 2025. -- I won't have any required (and taxed) IRA distribution for a few more years. I would think that many (US, at least) retirees in the 62-73 age range are in a similar position. Topping up to $80K by buying an immediate annuity that pays $40K/year with after-tax cash earns a few percent, whereas withdrawing $40K/year of taxable money from an IRA each year would cost a few times that. But I'd think that I'll only get something like a 1099-INT that shows the taxable portion (<5%) of each annuity distribution -- not the full amount of each check -- in 2025. I'd hope that the BOI would recognize that the return of the investment portion (specified in the immediate annuity statement) is guaranteed, passive income as well. But, I guess it's possible that nobody on this site has used (or tried) an immediate annuity yet. -- Retiree

My thinking stands corrected, thanks ???? I see that Bangkok Bank transfers bond book income to one's Bangkok Bank savings account, but whether or not that can be an either-signature joint account (some banks allow, some do not), I imagine that the bond owner dying would gum up the works. Can anybody who has done this please comment on what, exactly, they gave the BOI to verify overseas annuity income? I'm completely ignorant on this. When you buy an annuity, do you get a document stating the payout and duration that the BOI accepts? I'd assume they want a 5-year term. -- Retiree

Thank you. I guess the takeaway is that one should go to the main Bangkok Bank branch if purchasing the BOI alternative of US$250K, with (I think) 5 years minimum to maturity. Am I correct in thinking you can name a Thai beneficiary for this type of bond? And if anybody could name the specific department or person at the main branch to deal with, as well as any other requirements, that would be great. For example, can a foreign resident on retirement extension, without a tabien baan, make a cash purchase using local funds? -- Retiree

Please: do discuss methods, please don't complain about the rules. I'm starting this thread to try to create a central reference for folks who: - meet the minimum LTR $40K passive income requirement with Social Security or pension, - have money in the bank, but need to show additional passive income to get to $80K, - are not looking for well-meaning advice about why they shouldn't, - do not want to read complaints about procedures, BOI, banking, rules, etc., - do not want to buy condos or invest in companies, - do not yet have RMD / required IRA distributions, and want to avoid taxable IRA distribution for now, - may have other considerations, e.g. make it easy for a Thai partner to inherit the asset in case of one's death, - just want to get it done simply, even if it costs a few bucks more. There has been some discussion about the difficulty of buying Thai gov bonds buried in the big LTR thread, but it seems to be "know a guy who knows a guy ... ". There are also occasional discussions of annuities in the business forum, but afaik there is still no simple version of an immediate annuity for sale in Thailand. Some basic questions are: - is there an easy way to buy Thai government bonds that satisfies the BOI? - is there a Thai company that will definitely sell a five or 10 year immediate annuity? - is there another in-country alternative that satisfies the BOI, and can have a Thai beneficiary? - is buying an immediate annuity overseas still the easiest way to create passive income? - does anybody have any out-of-the box solutions? For instance, a regular IRA can buy an immediate annuity and receive payments within the IRA, so there's no tax consequence yet. Does this work for the BOI, even though it wouldn't generate a 1099-R ? Thanks in advance for any specific methods for solving the Wealthy Pensioner top-up to $80K problem. And please, let's try to stick to productive discussion of this one topic -- Retire