dinga

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')

Dead Right - penny to a pound there will be no detailed TRD explanations/clarifications (as is the norm here)

G'day again Mike. This whole tax mess is a minefield.... At the risk of being pedantic, what if the source of the Gift to a spouse was an overseas bank account in the sole name of the foreigner - with the initial funds being from the foreigner's savings prior to marriage ie. any savings and interest thereon being the sole property of the foreigner. However, after the date of the marriage I understand any interest payments to that account would - under Thai law, if funds were subsequently transferred to Thailand - be regarded as Joint Property. How do you see the implications of that scenario (which I think will be very very common)????

Don't you just need to have documentation to show the closing balance of all offshore investments as at 31/12/2023??? ie. aren't all such balances not-accessable. Agree all investments after that date - and which are the source of transfers to Thailand by tax residents - will need detailed evidence/documentation to support whether assessable or not-assessable Or am I missing something here?

Tks Great shame - guess I'll have to look elsewhere for him.

I found Fletch's insightful posts - especially those relating to investments - to be very thoughtful and interesting. I've missed him as he hasn't posted for such a long time. Does anyone know why????

Recent Webinair for Australians

HOORAY!!!! It's taken a very long time but I reckon you've pretty well nailed it. My only suggestion is that the final sentence really touches upon the criminal burden of proof - which I don't believe is correct. Rather than "beyond doubt" suggest "to the satisfaction of the TRD" is more accurate.

Frankly, in my experience it matters not how any farang/foreign Authority approaches regulatory provisions, their interpretations and the pursuit of compliance. What is critically important is the understanding the Thai environment and especially the experience of how Thai Authorities actually act in practice. Of course, understanding how foreign Authorities conduct themselves may assist to identify risk minimisation measures. I always remember the clear instructions that my very senior Thai boss gave us farang employees 20 years ago - to paraphrase "Just read the wording of the law; do not try to interprete them as is common outside Thailand".

Of course, simplicity is rarely a sound solution. Be dismissive all you want, but in my experience applying a broad brush and sweeping statements in regulatory matters is complete folly (much like expecting the gifting provision to be a panacea for all ills). As always, what matters are the circumstances and detailed evidentiary support thereof - all of which are applicable to individuals and not universal to all the great unwashed.

YES - I for one can see how Gifting can be an important plank for those in more modest circumstances (clearly for the uber wealthy and/or very large transfers it's a non-flyer). Depends on individual circumstances and the structuring but in my view it can potentially address most - if not nearly all - the otherwise adverse outcomes. As always though, as in all aspects of tax planning, the critical consideration is that great care is needed to minimise any possibility that the TRD may claim a linkage of any gift to a subsequent benefit to the giftee. Supporting documentation/evidence also being key.

Nonsence - the spread is 100 baht per 1 Baht Gold Bullion (currently Buy 41,050 Sell 40,950 per 1 Baht Gold) https://goldtraders.or.th/

RUBBISH - I'm a farang with PR Status, and NOT a Thai citizen. I cannot own land in Thailand and if a beneficiary in a WILL will need to sell any bequeathed land within 12 months

Ben Roberts-Smith VC - consult Prof Google before jumping to outrage. Let the legal process proceed and await the determination of the facts, not ignorant emotions

Did you ever get that Ruling???

My understanding is that - provided you meet the eligibility criteria especially both the Assets & Income Tests - you get the OAP immediately you turn up and say you've returned to permanently reside in OZ (the 2 year period relating purely to portability, not eligibility). Did your calculations factor in the receipt of the OAP during the whole of that 2 year period ??