retiree

Folks with plenty o' plenty, They got a lock on the door, 'Fraid somebody's gonna rob 'em while, They're out a'making' more ....

I'm guessing it might be prudent simply to open a separate account for income from 2024 and beyond, and to make any transfers to Thailand from your current 2023 account(s), assuming you can afford it. I realize it might not be quite so simple if you have complex investments and such, but think of it like this: on January 1 2024 you're getting married to Thailand in a community property state! Take the same basic steps you and your partner might take back home to clarify what your pre-existing assets are. Actually, it's just the inverse of community property. In case of divorce you typically want to show that you only spent post-marriage community property income, minimizing what's left to haggle over. Here, you want to show that you only spent your own preexisting income during your tax residency in Thailand (and all the money you made while you're here is still in the bank or investments).

One would think so. Or simply keep a copy of your bank statement, have future withdrawals match any remittance to Thailand, and put 2023 and future income into a separate account.

This thread should be retitled: More details on taxation of remittances to Thailand There is no plan to tax overseas income. Overseas income is only taxed for Thai residents who work in Thailand, but happen to be paid overseas (41(1)). 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.. https://www.rd.go.th/english/37749.html#section41 If you do not work in Thailand, only the portion of any overseas income you bring into Thailand (starting with income earned in 2024) might be subject to tax, if it is not already reduced by local exemptions / deductions, or offset by credits or exemptions specified by a country-specific DTA.

Yes, there are a variety of standard deductions and exemptions. Google is your friend ???? No, the "amount taxed in the source country" is not an issue. It is the amount brought into Thailand, if it was generated in a year (2024 on) in which you had "assessable income" (tbh pretty much all kinds of income). Summary: -- It has to have been assessable income from 2024 on in the first place (this is the new rule). -- Only the amount of that income brought into Thailand is taxable. -- Both standard and itemized deductions, and any existing DTA, are available to help reduce or zero out your Thai tax bill.

Apologies for the long post. Section 40, below, defines assessable income. I have removed the footnotes and added bullet points to make it easier to plow through. Some of the divisions (such as (6) Income from liberal professions,...) are presumably laid out explicitly because they are allow specific standard exemption / deduction rates (e.g. for (6) it's 30% except for doctors, who get 60%). See sections 42 though 48 bis for more details on how exemptions are calculated; some of the exact figures are found elsewhere. Section 42 paragraphs 27 and 28, which define the gift exemptions, may be of particular interest. https://www.rd.go.th/english/37749.html#section42 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.4 (2) Income derived from a post or from performance of work, whether in the form of fee, commission, discount, subsidy, meeting allowance, gratuity, bonus, house rent allowance, monetary value of rent-free residence provided by a payer of income, payment of debt liability of a taxpayer made by a payer of income, or any money, property or benefit derived from a post or from performance of work, whether such post or performance of work is permanent or temporary. (3) Fee of goodwill, copyright or any other rights, annuity or annual payment of income derived from a will, any other juristic act, or court decision. (4) Income that is: (a) Interest on a bond, deposit, debenture, bill, loan whether with or without security, the part of interest on loan after deduction of withholding tax under the law governing petroleum income tax, or the difference between the redemption value and the selling price of a bill or a debt instrument issued by a company or juristic partnership or by any other juristic person and sold for the first time at a price below its redemption value. Such income also includes income assimilated to interest, benefit or other consideration derived from the provision of a loan or from a debt-claim of every kind whether with or without security. 5 (b) Dividend, share of profits or any other gain derived from a company or juristic partnership, a mutual fund or a financial institution established under a specific law in Thailand for the purpose of providing a loan in order to promote agriculture, commerce or industry; the part of dividend or share of profits after deduction of withholding tax under the law governing petroleum income tax. For the purpose of income calculation under paragraph 1, if a lawful child who is a minor derives income and the marital status of the parents exists throughout the tax year, the income of the child shall be treated as income of the father. However, if the marital status of the parents does not exist throughout tax year, the income of the child shall be treated as income of the parent who exercises parental power, or of the father if both parents jointly exercise parental power. The provisions of paragraph 2 shall apply mutatis mutandis to an adopted child who is a minor deriving income. (c) bonus paid to a shareholder or partner of a company or juristic partnership; (d) a decrease of the capital holdings in a company or juristic partnership which does not exceed the total amount of profits and reserves; (e) an increase of capital holdings in a company or juristic partnership that is determined from the total amount of profits or reserves; (f) a benefit derived from the amalgamation, acquisition or dissolution of a company or juristic partnership and having the monetary value which exceeds the capital; (g) gains derived from transfer of partnership holdings or shares, debentures, bonds, or bills or debt instruments issued by a company or juristic partnership or by any other juristic person.6 (5) Money or any other gain derived from: (a) rent of property, (b) breach of a hire-purchase contract, (c) breach of an installment sale contract, where the seller regains the property sold without paying back the money or gains already received. In the case of (a), if an assessment official has reason to believe that the taxpayer underreports the amount of income, he shall have the power to assess the income according to the reasonable rent of property under normal circumstances, and the amount so assessed shall be deemed assessable income of the taxpayer. In such case, the taxpayer may appeal against the assessment and shall apply the provisions on appeals under Part 2, Chapter 2, Title 2 mutatis mutandis. In the case of (b) and (c), all the money and gains received from the date of entering into contract to the date of breaching the contract shall be deemed assessable income of the year of which the contract is breached. (6) Income from liberal professions, namely, laws, arts of healing, engineering, architecture, accounting, fine arts or other liberal professions as prescribed by a Royal Decree; (7) Income derived from a contract of work where the contractor has to provide essential materials besides tools; (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.

I think this overstates the case. With all due respect, can you point to a section of the tax code (or other RD announcement) that says that tax residents who do not bring post-2023 income into Thailand must file tax returns detailing their world-wide income? Or that those who do have to report anything other than actual remittances? (additional info might be required to take advantage of a DTA, of course). Not to split hairs, but a person who does not work here, has no income here, and brings no money into Thailand may be a tax resident, but is not a taxpayer. S/he has no tax liability, because there is nothing to tax or charge penalties on. It's certainly possible that there may be an explicit ruling or law requiring this in the future, but I don't see any reason to think we're there, or anywhere near there. It would be prompted if Thailand eventually asserts that, like the US, it has the right to tax current world-wide income regardless of how it is disposed of. The tax code is online in English here: https://www.rd.go.th/english/38306.html "Who must file?" is here: https://www.rd.go.th/english/37749.html#section56 "Section 56 Every taxpayer except a minor or a person adjudged incompetent or quasi-incompetent shall, on or before the last day of March every year, file ... " There is no reference to an upper age limit (reps for minors and incompetents are dealt with in section 57).

Social Security is explicitly excluded from Thai taxation under the Thai - US DTA. Note, however, that every country's DTA has its own rules for handling of other types of state and private pensions (I think the Brits are particularly unhappy about this). > Speak English nationwide at a large percentage, You say that as though it's a good thing ????

At last! a comment that looks at this in the Thai context. I assume in this case your hypothetical business owner was able to claim that this consulting was a "business carried on abroad", per section 41 (2). If you happen to speak with your accountant again, would you mind asking him or her if it seems likely that taxpayers with overseas income will simply turn to other methods of legal tax avoidance, such as the use of gifts and loans, to continue to uhh... shield income? It would seem to me that as long as the phrase: ... shall, upon bringing such assessable income into Thailand, pay tax (Sec 41(2)) is in the code, both Thai and foreign tax residents will always be able to avoid ever bringing income into Thailand directly.

As the post notes I only quoted paragraphs 1 and 2 of section 41. I think the third paragraph re 180 days tax residency dates back to the 1938 law. > 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 I only mention this 'cause the RD website is indeed up to date and very useful.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/grammar/jerry-built-vs-jury-rigged-vs-jerry-rigged-usage-history But in the mid-19th century another word came along: jerry-built means "built cheaply and unsubstantially" as well as "carelessly or hastily put together." The origin of this word is unknown, though there is plenty of speculation that it's from some poor slob named Jerry, which is a nickname for Jeremy or Jeremiah. While one named Jerry may reasonably disdain the word, jerry-built is not considered to be a slur. Jerry was used in British English around the time of the First World War as a disparaging word for a German person, but jerry-built predates that use: Before things were jerry-built, it seems that some things were built in the "jerry" style:

https://vertebrate-zoology.arphahub.com/article/109854/ Abstract We describe a new species of pitvipers from Trang Province of Thailand, near the Thailand–Malaysian border, based on morphological and molecular (2427 bp from cyt b, ND4, and 16S rRNA mitochondrial DNA genes) lines of evidence. Morphologically, Trimeresurus ciliaris sp. nov. is distinguished from its congeners by the following combination of morphological characters: a long papillose hemipenis; first supralabial and nasal scale fused; three to four small supraocular scales; internasals not in contact; small scale between nasal and the scale formed by the fused second supralabial and loreal present; dorsal scales in 17–17–15 rows across the body; ventral scales 172–175 in males, 171 in female; subcaudal scales 59–63 in males, 61 in female, all paired; in life an emerald-green dorsum with reddish-brown bands; creamy-white venter lacking dark dots or stripes on the lateral sides of the ventrals; white vertebral spots present in both sexes on every two or three dorsal scales; dark brown spots forming discontinuous pattern present on 1–3 lateral dorsal scale rows; males with reddish-brown postocular stripe. The new species forms a distinct clade on the phylogenetic tree of the genus Trimeresurus and differs from the morphologically similar species T. venustus by a significant divergence in cytochrome b mitochondrial DNA gene sequences (p = 12.5%). The new species is currently known from a small karstic area in the Nakawan Range spanning the border of Thailand and Malaysia, in particular in limestone forests in Trang and Satun provinces (Thailand); it likely also occurs in the adjacent parts of Perlis State (Malaysia). Our study also suggests that the taxonomy of T. kanburiensis species complex requires further studies; in particular our study suggests that the status of populations from Chumphon Province of Thailand and Pulau Langkawi Island of Malaysia should be re-assessed.

Thank you for locating and posting this article. a) I think we all know how to form plurals in Thai. However, translating 41(2) as below does not require a plural. Afaik it can -- and I'm certainly willing to be corrected -- reasonably be read as: A resident of Thailand who in a [not 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. b) the explanation you cited is consistent with the pre-September interpretation of 41(2), and may offer some insight into the reasoning behind 2/2528. It appear to address a specific framing of the question: - a foreigner has just become a tax resident of Thailand. He lives on prior years' income, remitted to Thailand this year. Is this taxable? No, those are savings. - a foreigner has just become a tax resident of Thailand. He lives on his current pension, remitted to Thailand as it accrues. Is this taxable.? Yes, this is income. c) It does not address the framing that the RD is surely asking, or will ultimately present to, the Tax Court: - a Thai national has been an overseas consultant for many years. Each year he is careful to remit only the prior year's income. He lives in Thailand at least 180 days per year, but he has never paid Thai taxes. This would appear to be a unique and unfair treatment vis a vis the ordinary Thai taxpayer. Is it the intent of Section 41 paragraph 2 that each prior year's income never be taxed, and that he will never pay Thai taxes, even though he is a Thai tax resident the entire time? Or is the legislative intent that the tax is only deferred until the assessable income is finally remitted, and then allowed credits or exemptions derived from any double-taxation agreement? Me, I'd sorely d'ruther the first version stood. But I can't help thinking that the second phrasing holds more water.

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.