dinga

G'day I just had a solar fountain pump repaired and it's been returned without its original MC4 connectors - just Light Blue and Gray electric cable wires. Appreciate which of these wires is +ve????? (it's made in China...) Tks!

True - he'd still be talking under 6 feet of concrete

He was challenged on this point during (I think the last) webinar and said he would re-confirm the TRD accepted those methods and would put the confirmation on his website. Has that happened???????

EDIT UPDATE: Informal advice just received from a close contact is that the TRD officer had never heard of anyone paying Income Tax on Gold CGs. The officer said people just sell their gold and put the money in their pockets - and that's what I should do!!! The Purchase/Sales Receipts from the Gold Shops have to do with the Gold Traders Association - nothing to do with TRD. Sounds like folks need to make decisions based on their risk tolerances

Thanks Node - that confirms my suspicion that Income Tax on Gold CGs is a reality

Was a Receipt issued by the shop - with your full identifying details (ie. Full name; address; Passport Number)???

For other than the most mentally less-blessed amongst us who can't grasp the simplicity of the gold CGT/Income Tax issue: * Based on my experience with Gold Purchase Receipts, I assume any receipts for my Gold Sales would bear my identification details also. * If this is so (appreciate real-life experience from folks who have sold Gold) , there is ZERO need to enter the Twilight Zone with fantasies akin to the use of satellite & foot surveilance; foreign intelligence services; (bar)stool pigeons; confessions by the deranged etcetcetc * If identification details are already available on the Sales Receipts, there is an incentive for the TRD to identify individuals making at least significant Gold Sales, and target them for compliance audit. * Whether or not that happens now is frankly far less relevant since the risk generated by CG from Selling Gold remains

Drongo troll - crawl back under your rock

What deluded comments. Don't waste our time if your ignorance has nothing to offer. First - the Principal. Seems clear that where there is a monetary gain realized from the resale of 96.5% gold bars bought & sold in Thailand, Income Tax is due on the Capital Gain. My interest relates to the Practice. Based on some purchase receipts which in all cases show the personal details of a buyer, I'm assuming any sales receipts will show the same details. In reality, does the TRD currently monitor sales of gold bars to ensure that Income Tax - where payable - is actually collected on the Capital Gain????

Hhhhhhmmmm - back to the drawing board [just looked at some purchase receipts and all have full personal identifying details]. Dunno if sale receipts will show similar but suspect they will (at least from this shop). Any others (a) in my boat; or (b) Dante99's ???

Simple - my Thai wife opened a CBA Account earlier this year. We both are non-residents of Oz - but you need a good reason for wanting the account and it probably helped that I've had CBA accounts for decades

not a coffee machine from China? (had a similar experience)

Every breathing person is his superior (man's as dumb/stupid as a rock - as Tillerson said "a <deleted> moron"

Thanks - found it. What a crock - that Article mixes up the Remittance Change with Worldwide Income. No wonder I missed the Remittance example - look at the bl**dy headline: New overseas income rules proposed Adoption of 'worldwide income' principle could have major implications for taxpayers There has been much speculation about the uncertain treatment of Remittances of comingled accounts, Savings Vs Income etc - but this is the 1st (assumed) definitive position of the TRD - and it's a shocker unless Daddy intervenes

Please re-confirm the date of the claimed article (I've looked at the 5 June Edition and there is no such article)

First I've heard this - it's not sufficient to establish (say) Bank Account balances as at 31/12/2023 but according to this report there is a need to track the actual sources of those funds for perhaps many years in the past. Also can't recall any discussions here about such

CATS AMONGST THE PIGEONS Here's an extract from today's BP article - apparently a quote by the Director-General of TRD: Previously, if an individual met the 180-day tax resident requirement and had foreign income, they paid personal income tax on that income only if it was brought into the country within the year it was earned. This rule was revised effective from Jan 1, 2024. Tax is now payable on foreign income regardless of when it is brought into the country. To give an example, Mr A sold shares in an overseas company in 2020, realised a capital gain and banked the money in an overseas account. If he brings the proceeds from that capital gain into Thailand in 2024, he must report it as assessable income when filing a tax return.

For mine, as far as Remittances are concerned what matters is the source(s) of the funds - at present, it matters nought about all the other offshore accounts/investments and their performance unless they generate monies that are remitted to Thailand. The simple approach would be to evidence (1) the balance of the account source(s) as at 31/12/2023; (b) the balance of that/those accounts at the time the funds were remitted to Thailand. My simple example tries to illustrate how the TRD may use LIFO approach to assess the taxability of the remittance(s) - which a poster has said has been already used by TRD, in his experience, in relation to his personal tax affairs. Self assessment is the responsibility of every tax payer - along with justification therefore. Can't see TRD being confused/distracted by such claimed, irrelevant complexities - but let's see....

AHHH - that might explain his pushing to set-up some Hong Kong 'pension' arrangement as the universal tax solution.

Makes perfect sense - a couple of theoretical examples to illustrate potential TRD LIFO treatment where account Balance at 31/12/2023 = $100,000: * On 1/6/2024, account balance remained at $100,000. $50,000 remitted on 2/6/2024 - the whole $50,000 is NOT Assessable as treated as Savings - remaining $50,000 balance remains to be treated as NOT Assessable Savings if remitted * On 1/9/2024, account balance was $55,000 (reflecting receipt of $5,000 Interest payment). $55,000 remitted on 2/9/2024 - $5,000 ASSESSABLE, remaining $50,000 NOT Assessable as treated as Savings [remainder of NOT Assessable Savings = $50,000 remaining balance - $50,000 = $NIL carried over] In my view, LIFO is likely to be the easiest way for TRD to deal with Savings balances as at 31/12/2023. Plenty of contrary views but the OP's real TRD experience is strong evidence this is the likely approach - let's see if I'm correct and if official guidelines are actually issued.

Sad to say this blog pretty well lives in the contrary Twilight Worlds of (1) Dogmatism based on often assumed approaches used by Authorities in other countries (2) Non-recognition of the Thai environment; (3) Goldilocks naviety and failure to consider possible impacts; (4) Ostrich ignorance; (5) Farang superiority. Better to be labelled a scaremonger (by flagging possible impacts - no matter how farfetched), than to let other folks sleep-walk into severe difficulties. Kudos

Despite strong/dogmatic statements to the contrary, it always seemed to me that LIFO approach was the only realistic and simple option for TRD. In my view, folks should base their calculations on LIFO since for many that is likely to be their worst possible outcome if the new remittance interpretation makes it out of ICU.... (which I doubt)

Agree - some useful info/comments but questionable accuracy at least as far as this non-US bloke is concerned. Therefore in my view the video is NOT to be relied on - but he did have the good grace [ie reserved the right to change those positions] by saying these were opinions based on current TRD practices which (a) have never had to address the remittance complexities; and therefore (b) detailed information/rulings/guidelines are expected to be issued by TRD. For what it's worth, I still reckon the changed interpretation will be reversed/not implemented so can't see any reason for the continued paranoia, hand-wringing, and unnecessary fanning of doom & gloom based on what (may) happen in other jurisdictions. Let's wait to see if Daddy puts his considerable fingers on the scales ....

I would put it another way. Gold preserves purchasing power - nothing more, nothing less

Very likely - but it doesn't matter what she knows, Daddy is The Man - and no way in hell would he want taxes on (a) Remittances to Thailand, otherwise than in the same year as earnt; or (b) World Wide income.