makescents

On 1/14/2024 at 11:41 PM, Ben Zioner said:

We were talking about retirement visas, hence the 800,000 deposit. So no job to be lost...

Ah ok. I’m talking about LTR for remote workers. Retirement visa can’t lead to PR I believe because you aren’t paying taxes. 

On 1/12/2024 at 7:14 PM, Ben Zioner said:

Strange, as long as the LTR offers tax advantages I can see why someone would proceed to PR, which looks like a lot of trouble for less.

Having to re-certify every 5 years isn't great. If you lose your job you lose the visa.

For remote workers I'm interested to know the wording of this required document people have been successful with.

It's very unlikely I could get my current employer to agree to this working as it could open them up to tax liabilities in Thailand or elsewhere?

On 3/15/2022 at 2:30 AM, topt said:

Simplistically it doesn't unless the US corp has an entity in Thailand to employ you?

Not sure you can get one on the basis you describe - suggest you start a new thread or perhaps look through and read some back threads.

Exactly!

Even if they did I can't take advantage of the delayed remittance as my employer would have to pay a salary via a Thai corp which would be taxed. It appears as though only PRs and citizens can take advantage of this "loophole".

Edit: Actually PRs require a permit so they can't use this either.

I'm still of working age so not thinking from a pension point of view.

I'm hoping to relocate to Thailand in the near future and work as a W-8BEN contractor for a US corporation.

So if I keep my money in US/Canada and remit it in the next calendar year I won't be liable for Thai taxes? This seems like a gaping tax loop hole to me.

I have to file taxes in Thailand as I need to provide the Canadian Revenue with evidence I am a tax resident outside of Canada and I'm gunning for PR/citizenship.

The problem I see though is how a work permit fits into this...

I’ve read from multiple sources (KPMG, HSBC etc) that Thailand doesn’t tax its tax-residents on income earned abroad provided it wasn’t remitted to Thailand in the same year.

This appears to contract the English language section of the Thai Revenue website which seems all income remitted to Thailand is taxed and doesn’t mention this loophole.

Is this the case? They must be loosing a lot of money from such a provision. 

On 1/7/2021 at 7:11 PM, CH1961 said:

 

Which provider is this?

I may have the opportunity to move back to Thailand sometime this/next year but my job will require a solid internet connection with fast international speeds to North America.

Since I've been away from Thailand for a while and it looks like the country has significantly improved it's internet speeds I was just wondering what are the best residential hookups you can get these days in Bangkok?

On 13/08/2016 at 5:21 PM, andy said:

If she has any sort of valid visa from a western country, Mexico will allow her to enter on the basis of that visa.  They write the details of the visa on the immigration card when entering.  My wife has used her USA tourist visa on the two occasions that we visited Mexico.

 

If that doesn't apply and she has to get an actual Mexican tourist visa, I've no first hand knowledge but heard it can be difficult.

No quite. My wife had a UK visa (FLR-M) but that didn't exempt her from applying for the Mexican visa. Only people with IRL or valid US visa are exempt.

Somewhere else said people holding PR from US, Canada, UK or any Schengen country were also exempt but I couldn't verify this.

She was approved without any trouble. Mexico doesn't share the same concern as other countries that people will not return home. I'd rank it similar to Turkey in that way.

The UK should adopt the Thai spouse visa system renew every year and your not entitled to anything.

If my wife just need to visit a consulate to get a visa and take a trip to Ireland every 3 months it would be ok for a lot of folks.

The visa system in the UK is one of the reasons we came to Canada as it gave my wife a permanent visa. She's also covered by the health system and can claim the dole if needed (employment insurance they call it here).

Bored of the 5 year wait for a permanent visa, the 6 year wait for citizenship.

You do not have to wait for your visa to expire to apply for an extension of stay based upon marriage. You can do it during the last 30 days of any of the 90 entries you get from the visa.

The 400k baht only has to be in the bank for 2 months.

You would apply for the extension at immigration in Jomtien on soi 5.

To be sure of what you need when you apply for the extension it would be a good idea to go to immigration and get their latest list of requirements.

Did you get married here? If not you would have to register your foreign marriage at an Amphoe.

1. Does the extension require re-entry every 90 days?

2. Can the extension be renewed every 12 months or must one return home after the extension has expired?

Edit: Ah should have Googled first - From Siam Legal's website:

• The Thai marriage visa holder is entitled permission to stay for a full year in Thailand without the need to exit the country.
• The visa is renewable every year and the renewal process can be done inside Thailand (requirements for the visa renewal still apply).

So provided I have 400k in the bank I can stay in Thailand indefinitely without border runs.

I am unsure how he got a Thai bank account, but do you think this worked in his favor, jspill?

I got a Thai bank account on a tourist visa back in 2005. They used to be very lax.

As was well discussed in that thread at the time, they were employed by a Thai company, and paid in THB. That's about as diametrically opposed to 'digital nomad' as it gets. I'm not employed by a Thai company, nor am I paid in THB.

It's still working in Thailand which was the violation. Company or no company, baht or no baht. They were processed Mae Ping police station for working without a permit. Do you think if the Boys in Brown gave a toss if there was a company incorporated?

Got a link to the follow up story? I was not able to find anything...

Maybe I'm a Digital Nomad in Thailand and don't want people ruining the free-ride.

As I've said before - I don't mind people doing this. I just take issue when they argue they are on the right side of the law, promote breaking the law to others or advertise they are breaking the law through their blog.

A year ago? There was a raid into co-working space in Chiang Mai. But Immi let everyone go, said it's ok if you work online... we thought you are employees of this business

There were also a bunch of English teachers that got deported for teaching English online (http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/794216-17-foreign-english-teachers-arrested-in-chiang-mai-for-working-illegally/).

Again not taking jobs away from the locals, teaching English to folks in China...

The cops don't make the law - they just enforce it. They choose where and when. They have no power to change the law.

"work" means engaging in work by exerting energy or using knowledge whether or not in consideration of wages or other benefits

http://wp.doe.go.th/wp/images/law/4/aliens_act.pdf

The definition simply says that 'work' is 'work', and it's still 'work' regardless of money/benefits. It is self referential and does not meet the basic standards of a definition since it doesn't define what 'work' is. Given this, it is the antithesis of 'crystal clear'.

Whilst it may be your interpretation, the law does not say that "anything is work unless we say it isn't". If it did say that, then we indeed end up in a position where breathing (or if we wish to be more realistic, sending an email, reading a book, or doing some exercise) must be work, since it is not expressly excluded by any legislation and meets the criteria of 'exerting energy'.

I agree that activities that have been expressly mentioned as not included by the relevant authorities can be considered excluded, but it does not logically follow that any other activity whatsoever therefore must be included. Only 'work' is included but we do not know, logically, what 'work' means for the purpose of legislation - we can only hypothesise as to how a judge would interpret any given activity.

Neither is it true that if they 'made it legal' then digital nomads would 'become liable to income tax' - Clarification of legality has have no impact upon tax liability - it is already the case that people with foreign income are liable to Thai income tax, as with people who are employed in country. For any Thai tax resident, Thai or foreign, foreign income is subject to Thai income tax if remitted to Thailand in the year earned, and zero rated if remitted to the country in a subsequent tax year.

You'll notice in legal documents they tend not to define every word as it would make the document exponentially long. That's also an unofficial translation. Neither of these points refute yours but I'm just putting that on the record.

"work" means engaging in work by exerting energy or using knowledge whether or not in consideration of wages or other benefits

You may think that is open to interpretation. I don't however. But as you said - case law clarifies these things...

You mentioned emailing etc. Well that was originally considered under the act which is why the Labour department released guidelines (http://www.naritlaw.com/Resources/New%20Foreign%20Workers%20Act%20Interpretation_NARITLAW.pdf) (original - http://web.krisdika.go.th/data/comment/comment2/2556/c2_0152_2556.pdf) which liberalise what it considers work. These guidelines almost match the B1/B2 visa exemptions. These guidelines contain nothing on remote work.

It's funny because the above document explicitly states that the organizers of an Nomad event, like the one mentioned by another poster previously, are working and therefore require permits. These are just guidelines however...

I will concede your point on taxes. Even under a tourist visa many foreigners are liable for taxes. My point, which I fudged somewhat, was that they are more likely to collect said taxes if some sort of framework for remote working appears.

Google 'digital nomad summit Chiang Mai' - there've been huge public events like that, where thousands of digital nomads got together, not under the radar at all. Last one was in February. Entire websites and youtube videos about it.

To me that suggests it isn't a legal issue. Or that Thailand has no interest in pursuing them whatsoever. Which makes sense, they're not harming anyone.

I never claimed that Digital Nomads are under the radar. Quite the opposite, they are not under the radar when they should be. Conferences aren't considered work in even the strictest countries, so let's write that example off.

We know it's not legal because the law says so. We know it's not enforced because otherwise people would be getting deported as we speak.

The trend however is more towards limiting tourist visa abuse rather than tackling illegal-workers directly. It's more likely that spending more than 6 months in Thailand will just not be possible in the future without overstaying, which is enforced.

I follow the startup scene quite a bit and I'm always shocked when the so-called Nomads start talking about working in Thailand publicly, mainly because of the legality.

Even big firms like Zapier that have yCombinator as investors have workers in Thailand that are, possibly, not supposed to be working. The worst case scenario is prison, which we seen happen recently to 2 journalists in Indonesia.

If Thailand did turn around and allow remote workers they'd be the first country to my knowledge to do so. I see a lot of hopeful faces thinking Thai authorities will do 'the right thing'. They obviously haven't been here long enough.

I took it to read that they're living in Canada, Canadian PR and posting from Canada.

Macs comments still apply though, ties to Canada and thus a good reason for both to return, I suspect there would be no problem, but as Mac says ensure that she presents evidence of both of your ties to Canada.

Correct. I'm going to get my apartment lease amended to get her name put on it and she will have a letter from her college.

Are you going to be able to get the documents they've requested? My thoughts are that there's no point appealing unless you can come up with more evidence.

So here's the situation breakdown.

• I'm British, wife is Thai
• Both permanent residents of Canada
• Wife still has FLR status from UK
• I work full time and she's in full time education

Wish to visit either San Antonio, Texas or San Francisco, California as part of a business trip, would like the wife to accompany me.

I was wondering if anyone else has applied and had any success?

Still down for me

Money isn't everything. Go wherever makes you happiest.

I'm from the UK, wife is Thai and we're both moving to Canada next year.

The unemployment is higher than the UK, growth is lower but I'm not moving for those reasons.

Like you said - some things matter more than money.