dinga

For OAP recipients, you may find it interesting to compare the size of your payments with the entitlements for the Thai Social Security Old Age Allowance (OAA) - and reflect on who's hard done by: The amount payable under the OAA ranges from ฿600 to 1,000 per month, depending on the recipient’s age. Payments are not taxable, and the current rates are as follows: 60–69 years old: ฿600 per month 70–79 years old: ฿700 per month 80 to 89 years old: ฿800 per month 90 years old+: ฿1,000 per month

See comments/response in CAPS below: The Thai revenue code has no specific provisions relating to foreign income. CORRECT - APPLIES TO ALL TAX PAYERS/RESIDENTS REGARDLESS (NO DISCRIMINATION) However most DTA's, including the Australia / Thailand one, have what's known as a non discrimination clause. That means Thai and foreigners are treated the same for tax collection. Therefore, the income equivalents, in terms of social security are exempt for Thais; and remitted social security is exempt for foreigners. DISAGREE - BEFORE RESORTING TO THE DTA, THE PROVISIONS OF THE THAI TAX LAW MUST BE FIRST CONSIDERED. IN RELATION TO THE LATTER, SEEMS THERE ARE ONLY TWO POSSIBLE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 42 THAT EXEMPT ASSESSIBLE INCOME FROM TAX: (12) Special pension, special gratuity, inherited pension or inherited gratuity. (25) Compensatory benefit received by the taxpayer from the social security fund under the law governing social security. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S GENERALLY ACCEPTED THAT AUSTRALIAN SOCIAL SECURITY PAYMENTS - ESPECIALLY THE OAP - DO NOT FALL WITHIN (12). IN MY VIEW, (25) CLEARLY DOES NOT APPLY TO AUSTRALIAN S/S PAYMENTS AS (A) OAPs ARE NOT 'COMPENSATORY BENEFITS'; (B) THEY ARE NOT PAID FROM 'THE SOCIAL SECURITY FUND UNDER THE LAW GOVERNING SOCIAL SECURITY' IN THAILAND, OR INDEED AUSTRALIA [THERE IS NO SUCH FUND]. WITHOUT GETTING TOO FAR INTO THE WEEDS, ON A CURSORY READ I COULD ONLY SEE ONE REFERENCE IN THE THAI SOCIAL SECURITY ACT THAT MENTIONS 'COMPENSATION' PAYMENTS - AND THIS ONLY APPLIES TO COMPENSATION FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS. CLEARLY AUSTRALIAN OAP PAYMENTS ARE ASSESSIBLE INCOME, SO THE DTA DOESN'T COME INTO PLAY UNTIL IT'S DETERMINED THAT REMITTED AUSTRALIAN OAP PAYMENTS ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THAI TAX. MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE DTA CLEARLY PROVIDES THAILAND HAS THE RIGHT TO TAX OAP REMITTENCES. IN THE EVENT BOTH COUNTRIES HAVE TAX RIGHTS ON INCOME, DTA'S PROVIDE PROTECTION FROM DOUBLE TAXATION BY ENSURING CREDITS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE RESULT THAT ONLY THE HIGHEST TAX AMOUNT IS PAYABLE - AND NO MORE The TRD offices, based on multiple real world reports, are simply considering the Australian Old Age pension social security ( which it is) , therefore exempt for tax in Thailand. I DON'T HAVE A DOG IN THIS FIGHT, BUT WHILE BENDING TAX PROVISIONS TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF "DEFENSIBLE" POSITION MAY BE A STRATEGY, I FEAR IT IS BUILT ON QUICKSAND. AGAIN, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT A BUNCH OF TAX ADVISORS HAVE REACHED THE SAME CONCLUSIONS AS ME. ALSO, I WOULD TAKE LITTLE CONFIDENCE FROM HOW DIFFERENT TRD OFFICES CURRENTLY INTERPRETE THE TAX LAWS - NO COMFORT AS I SEE THE REAL POSSIBILITY THAT A CLARIFYING EDICT WITH UNIVERSAL APPLICATION COULD BE ISSUED IN A HEARTBEAT, WITH NO PROTECTION FOR THE PAST. Nothing absurd about it. Makes sense. NOT TO ME. BUT I WISH EVERYONE WELL IN THESE SOMEWHAT CONFUSING TIMES

The following is courtesy of well known and credentialed lawyer Sebastien H. Brousseau • 1st • 1stFounder and CEO | Legal Services ProviderFounder and CEO | Legal Services Provider1d • 1 day ago In the recent Supreme Court Case No. 4655/2566, the court invalidated ‘automatic’ 30-year lease renewals, emphasizing that any pre-agreed automatic renewal of a lease beyond the statutory 30-year limit is unenforceable under Thai law. Understanding the implications of automatic renewal of a lease is crucial for lessors and lessees alike. Full article at this link: https://thailawonline.com/automatic-renewal-of-a-lease-in-thailand/

Thanks - but the Thai Revenue Code is a Thai Law. You'd have to be a cretin to selectively interprete that Paragraph (and all the others In Section 42) as relating to any happenings that occur outside of THAILAND. No wonder TigerandDog has slunk off into the ether. For mine, is so absurd that it's not worth even considering getting a legal opinion from a credible Thai law firm.

TigerandDog I'm waiting anxiously..... Well, what are the provisions of the Revenue Code that you claim "clearly stated that social security payments are NOT assessible income".??????? If you are deluded, just admit it and your incorrect statement will not mislead anyone else.

Please provide the Revenue Code provision (the specific Clause) that "clearly stated that social security payments are NOT assessible income"

I have no interest in an LTR Visa, so at the risk of being accused of scaremongering, I call BS on the claim that dissenting tax advisory companies have not clarified this issue with the TRD. Suggest you look at the material on the Expat Tax Thailand website - here's an extract: Can you please confirm that Wealthy Pensioner LTR Visa holders are exempt from tax on foreign source income remitted to Thailand Yes the Wealthy Pensioner LTR is exempt from foreign sourced income if remitted the following tax year. Category: Visa and Tax Declarations Tags: LTR Visa, Pension, Tax Exemption Amongst that website material is a recording of an interview ETT had with a Senior Lawyer from the TRD Legal Section. My recollection is that the above extract is 100% consistent with the verbal advice from that Lawyer. I just suggest LTR Holders clarify the tax position to their own level of satisfaction.

More, that you need to turn 65 DURING the Tax Year (ie. during 2024 - not in the 1st 3 mths of 2025)

We've all overdosed on your asinine comments - pray that you go away and find something useful to do. While I have successfully ignored most of them, I can't ignore the "No extra use of infrastructure...." So who do you think pays for all of the infrastructure & benefits that you expect and use in Thailand? A Freeloader who whinges about making any contribution - no matter how modest - is a powerful advocate for the opposite of what he/she espouses

Crossy - see answers IN CAPS below: Are you saying that you see 39V at the input side of the breaker when it is off (open) and that drops to 7V when you turn it on (closed)? YES That would suggest that your pump is now pulling too much current for the panel, or possibly you have a bad connection in your wiring panel to breaker 😞 WHAT IS THE 'WIRING PANEL'???? IS THIS AT THE SOLAR PANEL???? I HAVE NEEDED TO ATTEND - A COUPLE OF TIMES NOW - TO THE MC4 CONNECTORS I'VE PLUGGED INTO THE PANEL CONNECTORS. ....[THINK LAST TIME THERE WAS VERY LOW VOLTAGE AT THE PANEL-SIDE OF THE BREAKER - NOT SO THIS TIME] COULD BAD CONNECTIONS BE THE CAUSE ???? Do you have a couple of car/bike batteries you can connect to get 24V and feed the pump directly? GUESS I CAN TRY AND GET A COUPLE - HOW ARE THE BATTERIES CONNECTED - +VE TO +VE; -VE TO -VE???

UPDATE - Help/Advice still Needed! 1. The problem (non-working) pump was retrieved and sent for check by the supplier. Supplier reports the pump is in perfect working order - and attached a video clip to show that. Also confirmed the waterproof seal is intact but there was mixed/no advice about the maximum submerged depth [I had located it at about 11.5 metres] 2. In the meantime, I bought another sub pump [3SYDC 24V / S2.0 - 40 : DC 24V, 300W] which I connected to the existing 340W panel, and which is positioned at a maximum depth of 7 metres in the Wet Season (more like 5 metres now). The pump worked faultlessly for 2 weeks until it stopped pumping 2 days ago. My trusty multi-meter records 39.7 Volts at the input side of the breaker when closed - but this drops to 7Volts when the breaker is opened. Seems to be the problem as before.... Any ideas, guys????

ALL YOU HAND-WRINGING CHICKEN LITTLES...... take a look at today BP where the TRD talks about reducing Income Tax collections globally providing the impetus for countries to move towards comprehensive tax reforms - in the Thai context = including progressively raising the 7% VAT and imposing Wealth Taxes on Thai's who previously had escaped the RTD net by stashing wealth offshore. The latter is the context for the push for disclosure of WW income. Farangs may (eventually) suffer collateral damage but we ain't the targets....

What an extraordinary video [and admission] by Hart. The OP's correct summation that 'After a fiery battle Benjamin of "Integrity Legal" seems to have finally been beaten down by the tax debate and came the final conclusion. If Thailand won't enforce laws regarding foreigners operating in restricted occupations why are they going to enforce these tax laws?' I'm flabbergasted that any advisor with years of experience in Thailand can provide professional advice without regard to/understanding of the local - including enforcement - environment. There's a very important takeaway here, folks.

That makes 2 of us that don't understand....... My understanding of ETT;s advice re. LTR visa holders: 1. If income was earnt overseas in (say) 2023 but remitted to Thailand during 2024 - No Tax Payable on such remittances 2. If income was earnt overseas in (say) 2024 and was remitted to Thailand during 2024, such income is subject to Thai Tax and likely needs to be reported in the Tax Return to be lodged by 31 March 2025.

LTR VISA - may not be the panacea folks seem to be assuming. One takeaway from yesterday's ExpatTaxThailand Webinar was that the old Rules (pre-2024) on remittances continue to apply to LTR Visas ie. in order to be Non-Taxable, remittances must be made in any year other than in the year the income was earnt. It will be Taxable if remitted in the same year it was earnt. Must admit that I have not been closely following LTR implications so my takeaway may not be entirely accurate. But it seems to me that there may be widespread misunderstanding based on ETT's clear advice yesterday.

I hate the moron, but to be fair he DID NOT say he will deport ALL Immigrants. He said he would deport all ILLEGAL Immigrants. Truth Matters

Just to recap.......the Sub Pump is 250W, 24V and 8A. The Solar Panel is 340W, 24V, Imp 8.84A Attached is a page from the Pump manual which recommends a single 275W Panel for this Pump. Based on this recommendation, I shouldn't need a second Panel. Could it be that I need to buy a 275W Panel to replace the current (sic) 340W Panel????

Thanks - apols but I'm struggling to understand why there is such a drop-off in Voltage between when the Breaker is Closed and Open. This morning (it was very overcast), and I got the following measurements: * Breaker Closed: Voltage +40.6V; -4.25A [172.5W] * Breaker Open: Voltage: +3.7V; -4.27A [15.8W] If there likely something else at play here??? (realise I need to go back and relook at Fruit Traders Youtube link). Is there anything odd about the Amp readings showing Negative Numbers??? Seems like you're dead right about needing another panel to deliver the 8 Amp to the pump. But if I get another one, am I still going to fall way short Voltage wise (ie. 3.7 V X 2 = 7.4V). Today's readings from my Fountain Pump [0.5HP = 370W; 24V; 13A] are also confounding - and this pump is performing well. * 31V; 3.3A = 102W. Begs the question why the low Amp reading hasn't caused any problems. Sorry to be a pest

No - I was too dumb to do that. As I said - hubris about the pontoon mounting of the panel, and confidence following the success with the fountain pump

Thanks. Must admit to being a bit at a loss as to why the pump is designed to not require a controller..... Also, my floating solar fountain pump operates direct from a solar panel, with a breaker in between.....[Confused!} So what do I need - something like these??????? https://www.lazada.co.th/tag/solar-power-controller/?q=solar power controller&catalog_redirect_tag=true Any specific recommendations given the info I've provided above? Am I correct in assuming that the Breaker is no longer required if a controller is used????

I'm pretty well ignorant of this stuff, but I don't think that's the problem. Correct me if I' wrong here.... The Specs say the Pump has * Power 250W; * Current: 8A; * Voltage 24-36V. The Panel's sticker says * 340W; * Max Power (Vmp) = 38.5V; * VoC: 46.4V * Current Imp: 8.84V I relooked at the Pump manual which says the Power from the solar panel should be 1.5 times the solar pump power ie. for a 250W solar pump, the panel should be rated 375W. As indicated above, the panel is actually rated 340W. It's only a 10% difference - could that be the problem???

1. The pump is still down the bore (I'm hoping I won't need to pull it out...). Best I can do at this stage is to attached photos of the box it came in and the following Specs from a couple of sales sites https://shopee.co.th/C.T.L-ปั๊มน้ำซับเมอร์ส-DC-12V150w-24V250w-36V300w-บ่อขนาด-3-นิ้ว-ท่อออก-1นิ้ว-i.897800305.25755007784 https://www.amazon.co.uk/NDNCZDHC-3SYDC24V-Electric-Submersible-Fishing/dp/B0C9QQYFZ2 2. There is no controller 3. I also attached a photo of the pond set-up FYI (hubris got me until I've continue to fail to get the pump working...) Any more thoughts????

PS Confirmed by multimeter!

Pretty well due south (with a panel angle of some 15-20degrees)

Tks Oracle Crossy!!! 1. Don't think so - the pump stopped operating as soon as I moved from ON to OFF - and the Volatage drop-off occurred immediately I returned to ON. 2. Yes - my new multi-meter confirms all OK at the Panel and the pump-side of the breaker (at least as far as the reduced voltage is concerned. As far as the pump is concerned. I've relied on the red wire and the tag that confirms it's the +ve lead. 3. Sh*t - maybe that's the problem... I thought I ordered the two together but didn't (there were 2 different suppliers). * Panel: 340W; Voc 46.4V; Vmp 38.5V; Imp 8.9A; Max Series Fuse: 15A * Will need to confirm from the pump box tomorrow, but looks like: DC 24V; 250W; 8A. The leads from the sub-pump are 20 metres, and some 20m from the Breaker to the panel. Is my problem the panel and pump are mismatched? If so, how best to proceed - (a) replace either the pump or the panel (assume pump); (b) any other options???? Thanks & best regards