dinga

9 hours ago, Everyman said:

 

We already do, more than Thais because the government collects the bulk of its revenue from VAT, duties on imported goods and alcohol taxes. Foreigners spend more in all of those categories. 

MADE-UP NONSENSE  -  the following facts are from the 2024 Thailand Budget:

Collection of revenues can be classified by types of collection as follows. (1) Taxes (Net) Net taxes of 2,506,589.1 million baht, equivalent to 72.0 percent of the estimated receipts can be divided by direct and indirect taxes as follows.

(1.1) Direct taxes of 1,272,050.0 million baht include:  A.   Personal income tax B.   Corporate income tax C.   Petroleum income tax D.   Inheritance Tax

(1.2) Indirect taxes of 1,784,939.1 million baht include:  A.   General sales taxes - Value added tax - Specific business tax - Stamp duties B.   Specific sales taxes - Petroleum and petroleum products - Excise tax on imports 414,750.0 million baht 811,200.0 million baht 45,300.0 million baht 800.0 million baht 1,004,000.0 million baht 915,700.0 million baht 70,600.0 million baht 17,700.0 million baht 633,505.7 million baht 231,430.8 million baht 113,516.0 million baht 43 - Other consumption tax   - Mining royalties - Petroleum and natural gas royalties - Other natural resources royalties 252,353.2 million baht 2,160.0 million baht 33,979.0 million baht 66.7 million baht 112,700.0 million baht 34,733.4 million baht C. Export - Import duties D. Licensing fees 

9 hours ago, Everyman said:

 

We already do, more than Thais because the government collects the bulk of its revenue from VAT, duties on imported goods and alcohol taxes. Foreigners spend more in all of those categories. 

MADE-UP NONSENSE  -  the following facts are from the 2024 Thailand Budget:

Collection of revenues can be classified by types of collection as follows. (1) Taxes (Net) Net taxes of 2,506,589.1 million baht, equivalent to 72.0 percent of the estimated receipts can be divided by direct and indirect taxes as follows.

(1.1) Direct taxes of 1,272,050.0 million baht include:  A.   Personal income tax B.   Corporate income tax C.   Petroleum income tax D.   Inheritance Tax

(1.2) Indirect taxes of 1,784,939.1 million baht include:  A.   General sales taxes - Value added tax - Specific business tax - Stamp duties B.   Specific sales taxes - Petroleum and petroleum products - Excise tax on imports 414,750.0 million baht 811,200.0 million baht 45,300.0 million baht 800.0 million baht 1,004,000.0 million baht 915,700.0 million baht 70,600.0 million baht 17,700.0 million baht 633,505.7 million baht 231,430.8 million baht 113,516.0 million baht 43 - Other consumption tax   - Mining royalties - Petroleum and natural gas royalties - Other natural resources royalties 252,353.2 million baht 2,160.0 million baht 33,979.0 million baht 66.7 million baht 112,700.0 million baht 34,733.4 million baht C. Export - Import duties D. Licensing fees 

On 6/23/2024 at 5:56 PM, ericbj said:

https://franklegaltax.com/legal-regulations-and-tax-implications-of-cryptocurrencies/

 

Seems from this page that you would likely be liable for personal income tax on the capital gain.

 

A potential problem for you if you cannot prove the gain and the transaction goes through your Thai bank account.

 

I suggest enquiring with the web-site authors, Frank Legal & Tax.

 

And let us know what they say

This link seems to confirm that, in Principle, PIT is payable on the Capital Gain.

In practice, the above advice and the comment by <farangkinok>, taken together, seems to offer a Practical approach.

https://sherrings.com/capital-gains-personal-income-tax-thailand.html 

12 hours ago, sometimewoodworker said:

If you get any benefits from the gift it is no longer a gift and is assessable income.

 

conceivably if your wife purchased land to the value of the gift it would qualify, as long as you never benefit from the purchase.

Herein lies a potential problem - given the 'giftor' has a 50% interest in property obtained during the marriage, under the C&C Code.  Seems to me the TRD may well challenge the bona fides of at least 50% of the 'gifted' amount.  Again - prudent to obtain professional advice before proceeding  

Wonder how long it took for the pigeon to beat Mike Teavee

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

20 million is a lot of money for Thailand (more than half a million USD)  I cant believe that this is true and per year.  Do you have a link to some place where that information is listed. 

 

I found something "Gift tax rates in Thailand are structured to favor transfers to direct relatives. For gifts to ascendants, descendants, or spouses, the tax-free threshold is 20 million baht per year to a single recipient, with a tax rate of 5% applied to amounts exceeding this threshold.  " 

https://www.expattaxthailand.com/gift-tax-2024/#:~:text=Gift tax rates in Thailand,to amounts exceeding this threshold.

 

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.   

2 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

 

How is it non-relevant if we're discussing Tax on remitted income? What part of the thread title said "Australian Tax Discussions Only"?

 

If you want to start a thread discussing "Tax on remitted Australian Income" fill your boots, but why do you want to hijack a generic thread? 

 

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. 

5 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

Sorry too late with my edit, this thread was started by a Brit but thus far has been open to all for discussions, lets not let one page of discussions about a single country spoil it for all of us (Yes I am a Brit but I'm also interested in how US SS is treated & especially dividends in Australia).... Just scroll on if the post is not of interest to you. 

 

It's inevitable that people will go into details about their own circumstances but I think we can all learn something from each other so would be a shame to have this kind of discussion in a country specific thread

 

 

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 

4 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

WTF... We were discussing tax on remitted income (granted, from the UK but we have the same questions as you Aussies) so absolutely on point for this thread. 

 

LMFAO, Australia is one of the few countries that does have a Withheld Tax (Franking) on Dividends so that discussion should have been of interest to you.... Assuming you have any.

 

 

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

11 hours ago, new2here said:

This is true… and there is a reason for this.. PRIVATE carriers like the FedExs and UPS’ of the world MUST pre-notify inbound customs of what’s coming.. regardless of what it is.. they break up shipments into “doc”’or document and “non-doc” shipments … generally doc shipments (commonly letters etc ) can move with no paperwork and clear with minimal fuss and inspection and no fees/duties.. for NON-doc things it can really vary based on the import country, what it is, their tariff schedule etc … Back in the day UPS actually sent a scanned image of actual paper attached to all non-doc shipments electrically from the center where the package was picked up by UPS- so either Louisville, Ontario, Miami or whichever gateway was used could see the docs were in good order AND they were sent onward to the UPS brokerage office at the destination.. and the brokerage arm would work with customs to determine what will pass without inspection, what is dutiable.. that way when the packages actually arrives in country, most of what will happen to what packages is largely known…

 

 that’s where the fee comes from.. the brokerage ….  With public post, for most non-commercial shipments of small value, there is no formal importation process - thus no need for a brokerage per se.. and if needed it’s included - up to a certain limit…  now, if you send a high value shipment commercially, yes, the destination country could deem that a dutiable shipment and may also require a formal entry process - whereby a brokerage would become involved.

 

So.. it’s not so much UPS’ or FedExs fault per se, but more a reflection of the process differences between public post mail and private express couriers.. 

 

 

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. 

5 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

There is a potential fine of 2,000 baht but nobody is aware of anyone who has been made to pay the fine. The other risk factor for not filing is that it exposes the taxpayer to back audits for the past ten years, instead of the normal three years for people who have filed.

 

I expect the situation regarding who must file, to be clarified at some point.

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]   

1 hour ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

I already posted my previous post about some PM exchanges before reading this one of yours. That was not intended to debate this matter with you any further - many people are asking me for my opinion and being a public forum for open discussions that will be what I do going forward.

 

I have clearly conveyed to everyone the reality and truthfulness of what I was advised, and what I am going to do, unless official advice comes from TRD to the contrary.  I will give you this ML, others that accused me of making up that tax advice have all disappeared, and you are the only one who stood up and accepted it - credit to you for that.

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?

19 minutes ago, OJAS said:

 

Personally, I am  now seriously wondering whether one way in which "the Thai Govt could start making Thais and Expats pay more income taxes" with minimal additional effort on the TRD's part in the short term would be through reductions in - or even the complete abolition of - the various generous allowances and exemptions, the continued existence of which we seem, to date, to have taken as read.

 

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

3 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

 

On the one hand we have very recent posters who have argued for over seven months that filing a tax return when there's no tax to pay is insane and unwanted, regardless of what the law says. On the other hand we have me who quotes the law  and Big 4 guidance and suggests the best course of action is to follow it. You appear to agree with my view on this. It wont provide the definitive answer but it will helpful to understand what others think is the entrenched arte to be persuaded.

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...    

2 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

What are the risks of ignoring the law and not filing a tax return, even though no tax was due but the assessable minimum level was breached? I guess the answer must be, somewhere between 0% and 100%, based on the individual, their circumstances and the staff at the local TRD office. For people who want certainty in their lives, that's nightmarish.

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.

2 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

 

In one scenario, the (example) person has assessable income of say 200k per year but doesn't file a return, because there was no tax to pay. Fast forward to some years later when a TRD employee decides to maximise the tax haul or even falls out with the taxpayer over something that was said or done. Perhaps the person legitimately remitted a large amount one year, perhaps from the sale of overseas property. Hmm says the TRD man, this person only filed returns for two of the past ten years, we need to take a closer look at those ten years. Oops, mea culpa, no defense possible and the effort involved would be horrendous, the financial cost would not be small. 

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]

2 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

 

That's what I think the risk is of ignoring the tax rule about who should file.

 

 

 

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

1 hour ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

You have a pink ID card?  That's your tax number.

 

You must go through the local tax office (or call 1161) to have it registered in the system for e-filing, but you do not need to request a separate TIN.

 

No pink ID card?  Visit local office to request a TIN, if needed.

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

1 hour ago, Mike Lister said:

Not really a tax grab, for most people.

 

This years earnings, due to be reported in the tax return dated next 1 January.

 

 

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