dinga

Wonder how long it took for the pigeon to beat Mike Teavee osted 9 hours ago (edited) Ok, so you're gripe is that we shouldn't discuss UK remitted income on here... Understood.... I'm off for a game of chess with a pigeon... Edited 9 hours ago by Mike Teavee

Just a word of caution - Under the Civil & Commercial Code, I understand property bought during a marriage carries joint ownership (ie. 50:50 regardless of (a) the Chanote registration being in the name of only the Thai citizen; and (b) the Land Office required statement that the land is bought solely from funds 'owned' by the Thai national. Don't think the TRD position on the eligibility of such a 'gift' has been determined at this stage - so it would be prudent to get professional advice before proceeding.

You are delusional (since when have I wanted to discuss remitted Australian Income?) Enough for me - no point in further arguing the bleeding obvious and adding to non-relevant content when I sought to achieve the opposite.

PS. This thread was started by a Brit so maybe you Dingos should go start your own thread... Typical - Poms always the "moral winners". Pragmatism & reality is not a feature - this thread is already 47 pages long, and has been hijacked with longwinded non-relevant commentary. Why expect folks to page through so much irrelevancy on the basis that you think it of universal interest? Simple solution - create a new UK thread [and other countries of individual interest] and let us decide whether to follow or not

Take off the blinkers and re-read the last page of threads (pretty well 100% UK tax discussions). Start your own topic for those of you interested

REMINDER: this thread is about Thai gov. to tax (remitted) income from abroad for tax residents starting 2024 - Part II For goodness sake, most of us have ZERO interest in matters UK. You Poms should start your own thread and not (further) destroy this one for the rest of us.

Perhaps - however I would strongly urge anyone who is assessed significant import duty on a courier consignment to closely check the HS Classification Code that the Company/Customs has used to determine the duty rate. Personal experience with a glaringly incorrect HS Code (and the resulting wrong 30% import duty rate which was properly 0%) took a frustrating long time to overturn - making me very suspicious of processes and motives.

The consistent message is NEVER send goods to Thailand via courier - as assessment of customs duties & taxes is pretty well guaranteed, as well as frustrating clearance processes. Use EMS Post

Thanks - my additional understanding is that the extension to 10 years is (a) only allowed after internal TRD requests & deliberations [not automatic]; AND in any event (b) restricted to cases of believed tax evasion [a position which would seem to be impossible for the TRD to conclude if the usual 2/3 year audit period determined Zero tax was payable for those years]

MIKE Given the entrenched competing views, I'm thinking a simple answer to this simple question may help folks decide what to do...........For a tax resident whose income exceeds the minimum but who has Zero Tax to pay, what is the penalty for NOT lodging a Tax Return?

Simplest way would be to increase the 7% VAT to 10% [which has been put off for decades]. But political realities remain the impediment...

No I don't agree. If I was in the position where (a) I was a Thai tax resident and had never before lodged a tax return as I had no tax to pay; (b) For 2024 & beyond under the recent remitted income interpretation, I continue to have no tax liability despite having over the minimum assessible income; and (c) and in the apparent absence of any penalty for not lodging a tax return in these circumstances; I would continue to NOT lodge a return. I don't see a risk/reward analysis would reach any other conclusion. Two qualifiers though: 1. I have been lodging tax returns for some 20 years so my stated position is theoretical and NOT a recommendation on how others should proceed 2. As necessary, I would get advice to ensure the correctness & supportability of my self-assessment that no tax was payable. But that's just me...

I am merely trying to provide some much needed balance & perspective - not interested in 'challenging' individuals, only the positions espoused

Hair on Fire!!!! Forget about conjecture, what does the Revenue Code prescribe???? Section 37/ 2 A person intentionally fails to file tax returns prescribed under this Title in order to evade or in an attempt to evade tax, shall be subject to a fine of not exceeding 5,000 Baht or an imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or both. Can't see any penalty for other circumstances where a tax return was NOT filed. Forget about conjecture, what does the Revenue Code prescribe???? Again, my quick read is that the audit period is usually 2 years which the TRD can request be extended to 5 years [only in cases of tax evasion, I understand the prescription period is a maximum of 10 years] Forget about conjecture based upon what may or may not happen elsewhere. "Read the words", understand the Thai environment and accept the possibility that different interpretations may be applied by TRD officers. We are not in a risk-free space but common-sense usually prevails

Not so in my case - I have a TIN and a Pink Card with very different numbers. The Number on the Pink Card being my Permanent Resident Registration.

Nonsense - complete nonsense. Will never happen

Shouldn't this read "This years REMITTANCES, due to be reported in the tax return dated next 1 January"?????? The reporting of earnings is not a current requirement - simply a mooted change that I'd expect to be years away if at all

For a while now it has seemed to me folks are tying themselves up in knots, and causing themselves - and others - unnecessary angst by triple guessing/pontificating upon what the TRD may do in applying the new & suggested personal tax changes. While civil discussions about possible implications and differing views are very healthy, dogmatic insistence is not - especially when based on how Revenue Authorities in other countries act (this of course may be useful when considering risk management steps). Some time ago, I related the story of the advice given by a very senior and hugely experienced Thai to "read the words - that's what the law means" - don't apply the typical farang approach of trying to interprete the meaning. For what it's worth, here's a real example of how Thai tax authorities actually apply the Land & Building Tax [LBT] Law - which I reckon is diametrically opposed to how the Tax Department would proceed in my home country. LBT is payable on 4 categories - including: * For Agricultural purposes: Rate 0.15% - but exempt if the tax doesn't exceed 50 mill baht * Left empty or unused: Rate 1.2% with additional amounts of 0.3% if empty/unused for each period of more than 3 years, to a maximum 3% Everyday I drive past what had previously been vacant beachfront land - very, very valuable beachfront land. Some time ago, these blocks were sparcely planted with a variety of plants - cassave; coconuts; gum trees; mangos etc. Those plants being given minimal attention post planting - with the obvious purpose being for the owners to eliminate the LBT liability on land that is really being held for capital appreciation. While acceptable in Thailand ("read the words") it's hard/impossible to imagine a tax authority in any other country agreeing with the agricultural purposes claim. Hope this example helps folks to balance consideration of worst case scenarios

For a while now it has seemed to me folks are tying themselves up in knots, and causing themselves - and others - unnecessary angst by triple guessing/pontificating upon what the TRD may do in applying the new & suggested personal tax changes. While civil discussions about possible implications and differing views are very healthy, dogmatic insistence is not - especially when based on how Revenue Authorities in other countries act (this of course may be useful when considering risk management steps). Some time ago, I related the story of the advice given by a very senior and hugely experienced Thai to "read the words - that's what the law means" - don't apply the typical farang approach of trying to interprete the meaning. For what it's worth, here's a real example of how Thai tax authorities actually apply the Land & Building Tax [LBT] Law - which I reckon is diametrically opposed to how the Tax Department would proceed in my home country. LBT is payable on 4 categories - including: * For Agricultural purposes: Rate 0.15% - but exempt if the tax doesn't exceed 50 mill baht * Left empty or unused: Rate 1.2% with additional amounts of 0.3% if empty/unused for each period of more than 3 years, to a maximum 3% Everyday I drive past what had previously been vacant beachfront land - very, very valuable beachfront land. Some time ago, these blocks were sparcely planted with a variety of plants - cassave; coconuts; gum trees; mangos etc. Those plants being given minimal attention post planting - with the obvious purpose being for the owners to eliminate the LBT liability on land that is really being held for capital appreciation. While acceptable in Thailand ("read the words") it's hard/impossible to imagine a tax authority in any other country agreeing with the agricultural purposes claim. Hope this example helps folks to balance consideration of worst case scenarios

For goodness sake, while the system is based on self-assessment what matters is what the TRD determines (NOT what the taxpayers believe). Can't believe we are in the never-ending loop that some folks continue to believe is terminated by the self-assessment

DEAD RIGHT!

Think both are INCORRECT: 1. You can be double taxed - you need to refer to the applicable DTA to determine the tax treatment of the various income categories. You may be entitled to (say) a credit of the tax paid in one country against the tax owing in the 2nd country. 2. Tax residency has nothing to do with an election/preference by the taxpayer - it is dependent upon the applicable laws in the relevant countries (I think US citizens must lodge US Tax Returns for Worldwide income simply by virtue of their Passports; and US citizens who are Tax Residents of Thailand may well be up for taxes here. But check out the DTAs)

Hope not searching yourself saved you some time

I would caution about seeing that date as being black and white protection. For mine, the lurking danger is TRD may well want to see the Savings Account Balance - if that is the source of funds remitted to Thailand - as at the date of the actual transfer. If that balance exceeds the balance as at 31/12/2023 I fear the TRD will take the LIFO (Last In First Out) view ie. any increase in the balance may be determined to be assessable

I'm in your camp (The Voice of Reason Camp - 'just read the words of the law')