oldcpu

i doubt that you meet the requirements easily, or we have a different definition of easily. So - it boils down to you thinking the amount of money you are willing to set aside in non-liquid asset (ie not in cash) for Self Health Insurance, is superior to the BoI requirement of $100K in a Bank in Cash for self Health Insurance and further, you think your non-liquid asset (ie not in cash) is superior to any Health Insurance. Well - you are not alone there in that view. I know some expats who rejected the LTR for the same reason as you , where they have no Health Insurance and they don't want to lose any penny on putting money in cash for self Health insurance coverage. They are happy to take that gamble, and they are happy to go the Type-O route. My view re: the Type-O, is good for them!! I hope it works out. Further, to be clear, I hope (in all sincerity) that this all works for you. BoI have a different view than you thou, when it comes to what is required for Self Health Insurance. You can argue with BoI. Go ahead. Good luck there ! As for the use and definition of wealthy. its not my definition. It never was ... so your insults in that regard simply re-enforce your handle. It BoI's definition. In my posts its always been about BoI's definition. As your posts have proven, you can't do such $100K US$ equivalent (in cash) self health insurance to BoI's requirements, without the loss of income irritating you. Right? It would irritate you. Which in my case, frankly, is a loss of annual income so small (in my case - ie the difference between 4% and 17% on $100k US$ ) that it is relatively trivial for me - with no affect on my life style - at most it might mean a few pennies less to who ever inherits my money when i pass away. Obviously, it is not trivial for you. Regardless ... Honestly? I actually wish you all the very best. But I note your waiting for some BoI decision about taxation against some not approved wish of the Thai RD to switch to global taxation is wrong. This has NOTHING to do with waiting for BoI. It is the absolute wrong approach IF you wish to live in Thailand. This is not about taxation for you. Its about health insurance (and maybe about whether for you to live in Thailand ). If (in bold) , if there is Global taxation, all Visas will be affected if global taxation is implemented. Your waiting for the BoI ONLY makes sense, if that affects your decision to live in Thailand. Else you would simply decide now, no waiting and no LTR, because you hate the thought of not maximizing an investment on $100K US equivalent (where self health insurance to BoI requirement would possibly reduce the return on $100k US to only 4% per year ). What you state about waiting, is simply, illogical if you decide regardless to live in Thailand > 180 days per taxation year. Simply decide now, LTR or no LTR with Self health insurance to BoI requirements as your criteria.

Yes - however IMHO it is better than the no lease scenario ... where 1 year after the wife meets someone else, falls in love, and kicks him out of the house. This way for 30-years, she can't kick him out of the house. Say the man is age-55 when he signs the 30-year lease. She can not kick him out until he turns 85, if he should be so lucky to live that long. Is that not preferable to having no 30-year lease? Is it ideal ? Obviously not. Would I do that? No. I would (and did) buy a foreign freehold property in a condo in a location where I believe it will retain its value, or go up in value. In fact, it has gone up, significantly. So possibly we agree - except I see that if one wants a house , and if one does not want to rent, AND if one does not want to go against the (currently ignored) law and have a Thai company buy the house, then having the house name in a Thai family member (with a 30-year lease written) , ... suggests to me a lease is better than no lease.

That is also my understanding. ... Its surprising thou, as to how many foreigners do this. ... For them, there is a ongoing risk that some day Thailand may decide to do a country wide crackdown. At present thou, it appears only if one gets in trouble for other reasons, that the local government makes the effort to also go after any such one for the inappropriate setting up of a company for sole purpose to buy a house. I nominally always recommend to my foreign friends, who are thinking to buy in Thailand for the first time, to only go for a foreign freehold condo. For a house with land, having one's Thai wife buy the property is one approach. I know of one couple (Thai wife / foreign man) where the foreign man paid for a Thai-Freehold condo which was registered only in his Thai wife's name. He and his Thai wife then paid the legal fees for a 30-year lease (which is registered at the land office), where she leased the property to him for 30-years for next to nothing. The idea being to protect him, in case their relationship went south. ... while this was for a (Thai freehold) condo, the same approach could be adopted for a house/property.

Nice looking house. Your post reminded me ... a bit off the topic of your post ... but relevant to the LTR visa thread. My understanding is if one is looking to use a real estate purchase as one's investment in Thailand (for the LTR-WP visa), I believe it can only be a freehold condo or possibly a 30-year leasehold (although I am uncertain re;the leasehold). One can not use (as proof of investment in Thailand) the house one lives in, where house has been bought by a Thai company (in which one has 49% share in the company - which is max amount allowed by law). This is relevant to a couple friends of mine, whose passive income just falls short of the $80K US equivalent passive income per year for the LTR-WP visa. They live in a massive, on the beach, villa, purchased years ago by a Thai company in which they have 49% ownership share, purchased of course, with their money provided to the company, to purchase the house. The sole purpose being to let them live in it. Today market value for the villa they live in is around $40-million THB. Because the house is in the company's name, and not their name, they can not use the house as proof of investment in Thailand. The same story is true for another couple. So sadly, its not just an investment in Thailand, but it has to be an investment structured in a certain way to meet BoI requirements.

I believe it is natural for people to meet and hang out in certain circles of a acquaintances who have similar financial circumstances. And then often they will not meet people outside that circle - and eventually they come to believe there is no other expats outside of that 'circle' in terms of finances. When in fact, such is not accurate. Some of us, actually like Thailand. Some may have considered retiring in Germany, or Portugal, or Malta, or Ireland or Canada or USA (like myself for all those places) but in the end chose Thailand, because we liked it, where money was not the driving factor. Possibly also because we have Thai family through our spouse (like myself). In such a case, the amount of money is not a factor. its family and liking the culture where we want to live. In Phuket, the condos in the complex that i bought (which were selling for ~15-million in Thai baht in year 2016 ) are now selling for 27-million Thai baht. Frankly I find the price increase shocking even for a 272 sqm unit (where i live). But about 500 meters down the road is a new condo complex - starting price for units 1/2 the size of my unit is 30-million Thai baht. Crazy high for 1/2 the size of my unit. But that's next to nothing compared to two km away , where the asking price for (very large) new villas is 150-million Thai baht per villa. And there are other places as well in our neighbourhood (but prices only about 40 to 50-million Thai baht per villa) . Why so much? Ok, the places all have sea view and direct beach access - but still that is a lot of money, and yes people pay for it. Expats buy and live here. As you note ... foreigners are still buying, at those high prices. I also note, about 2km away is a condo complex with about 200 units. Prices in that complex have dropped and when i last looked about 5 years back, had fallen to 1/2 of their original price. Prices were only about 5 to 10 million Thai baht back in 2016 for 1 and 2 bedroom units. But why did the price drop? Location not as good, with only a limited view, no beach access, and further, the complex was not well taken care of. It was in bad shape. The co-owners did not want to pay higher maintenance fees to maintain their complex. One thing thou, living in this neighbourhood, is many of the expats i meet have absolutely amazing life stories. Incredible. They are of many different nationalities, and it is fascinating to chat with them, as we exchange our experiences. Exchanging stories about our lifetime experiences with the expats is one of the things I like about Thailand.

No. Not accurate. Clearly you do not know many wealthy foreigners who live in Thailand. But i note "IMO" in your post, so given that word ( IMO ) , ... fine. May I humbly suggest thou, widen your circle of acquaintances in Thailand. What you learn may surprise you.

Nonsense. Clearly you do not know many millionaires, nor do you know many on the LTR visa. Really posting about things in which you know nothing does not reflect well on you.

Nonsense. BoI have a definition for "Wealthy Pensioner" . Not my definition. BoI definition. Live with it. You are griping because you can't meet the BoI definition of wealthy (because to do so would cost you some money that is unacceptable to you). Its YOU who can't meet the BoI definition. i initially too failed to meet their Health Insurance requirement initially, until I restructured my finances. Your assessment re: global taxation impact is also simply wrong if you think Type-O will be excluded and IF your intent is to stay in Thailand for next 10 years. If global taxation were to hit all in Thailand, the LTR visa and Type-O would at worst be hit equally, and at best the LTR (per current Royal Decree) not impacted. So if you intended to stay in Thailand for the next 10 years, waiting for some BoI decision provides you NO ADVANTAGE. NONE. Except - except you can stay with no health insurance and instead 'self insure' , ... insuring with an amount that BoI consider not appropriate for a wealthy person. So your thinking to wait (for some BoI statement on LTR exemption from a non-existent global tax change) serves you NO ADVANTAGE. NONE. Believe it or not - I was actually trying to help you to see the error in your logic of waiting. Waiting makes no sense other than avoiding paying for quality health insurance. You don't like that, so you resort to insult. No worries. Stay with the Type-O visa. It is IMHO a good visa. Lets both hope (1) no increase in Type-O fees, (2) no future requirement for health insurance for the type-O, (3) hope immigration change the 90-day reports to 1-year (like LTR), and (4) hope immigration streamline better the annual process for type-O to annually re-prove finances.

Indeed. My experience based on a number of people i know with a lot of wealth, and assuming they were not born into wealth (which is the case for those that I know), is that they work hard, watched their pennies, and made smart investment decisions to become wealthy. However once wealthy, for many of them, that changed. They no longer had to watch 'their pennies' as much, as their wealth was simply that large. Those who are thought to be wealthy who watch their pennies excessively either (1) can not kick the watch their pennies habit, or (2) are not in fact that wealthy. .

Interesting. Thanks. I do note if on a Type-OA (based on being over age-50 for reason of retirement), one's first extension in Thailand, MUST be for reason of retirement AND one also must purchase health insurance from a Thailand branch of a Health Insurance company. Insurance from the foreign branch of a health insurance company (which worked to first get the Type-OA visa ) won't work for the extension for reason of retirement. However on the second 1-year extension of one's permission to stay in Thailand, based on a Type-OA visa, one can then switch to an extension based on marriage to a Thai. And at that point, Health Insurance (when married to a Thai) is not a Type-OA visa requirement. I know that to be the case because i did such.

My understanding is the foreign health insurance , as stated on the website of Frankfurt consulate, is only good for the permission to stay in Thailand associated with the validity date of the foreign obtained LTR visa. Once one is (inside Thailand) past that Type-OA validity date, then one is into annual extensions of one's permission to stay in Thailand (for reason of retirement). And you will find out, when you go for your first annual extension of your permission to stay in Thailand, that your foreign health insurance is NO LONGER ACCEPTED in Thailand by immigration. Believe me, I have been through that route. If you do not want to buy health insurance in Thailand, then the choices IMHO are: (1) leave Thailand (to invalidate the type-OA) and return either on a type-O (if you can obtain such from Frankfurt) or return visa exempt to Thailand and apply for a Type-O in Thailand. Type-O has no health insurance requirement, or (2) leave Thailand (to invalidate the type-OA) and simply obtain a new type-OA (and pay for the foreign insurance) - and visit friends in Germany every year, and every year get a new Type-OA, or (3) if one has a Thai wife obtain a new type-OA (based on marriage) from Frankfurt. I don't know if that possible (to get a type-OA based on marriage). Why marriage? No health insurance required if one has visa (or 1 year extension) based on marriage and if one has a Thai wife, or (4) if one has a Thai wife, then after the first year in Thailand on Type-OA (for reason of retirement), for first annual extension and buy the health insurance, but in the second year (for the 1 year extension) switch to a permission to stay based on marriage to a Thai. but again, unless there was a big change, foreign health insurance is NOT accepted for extensions of one's permission to stay on a Type-OA visa. Foreign insurance can only be used for the initial obtaining of the Type-OA visa.

I don't think they cared that it was not a good investment. I believe they do not intend it to be an investment. They have never said the $100k US$ equivalent had to be a good investment. They never wanted the $100k US equiv to be an investment. They want the $100K US$ equivalent to be money both assured and immediately available. Which in their view means no equities, nor in an account where the money could be used to trade equities. I tried to push them to accept that route and I failed. I suspect they would be much happier if all LTR visa holders had Health Insurance from a company. But BoI recognized there are some who have a LOT of money, where self insuring to $100k US$ equivalent in cash (at only ~4% interest) is simply not an issue. Yes - there are those where such is an issue. I suspect many. And clearly for those, where $100k US in cash is an issue, and where buying good health insurance is an issue, then BoI do not want to pass to those people an LTR visa. Its that simple. And that is not the end of the world for there is the Type-O visa. Whats wrong with the Type-O? Its a good visa. Most my expat friends are on that Visa. No. I think it was deliberate. You are looking at this the wrong way. BoI do not see the $100k as an investment they want you to have. They do NOT want you to use that money as an investment. Further, they do not care if you or anyone else sees it that way. If the $100k US$ equivalent is used as an investment, then BoI are very clear, they do not want that investment used as self health insurance. They do not. This is very clear I would think. One need not be a rocket scientist to make that deduction. Now - if one wants the LTR, then simply buy health insurance if one does not want to have the $100k in cash in a foreign bank account earning only ~4% interest. And, .. If one can not afford to buy health insurance, and if one can not afford the $100k sitting in cash and only earning ~4% ( instead of ~17% or so on the stockmarket) , then again, the LTR visa is the wrong visa. Go for the Type-O visa. The Type-O is a good visa.

I think you are losing the bubble here and missing the point. BoI want investments in Thailand, and they see a visa with a high wealth requirement (to obtain those with a lot of money) to go for the visa - to obtain some of the investment BoI want. BoI do NOT want these people to end up sticking Thai hospitals with a big medical bill because those people had no health insurance - so they insist on health insurance. However rather than go the Type-OA route, they offer an option, for those who do not have health insurance, to self insure. They likely looked at what could really go very wrong from health perspective, and decided they wanted those individuals whom they targeted with the LTR visa, to be able to pay for any such health insurance out of savings (in cash), in the case that those wealthy individuals did not have health insurance. So they set the arbitrary equivalent $100k US health insurance by money in cash in a bank. Note, the Type-OA visa does not have this benefit. Further, BoI knowing Thai interest rates are pathetic, they provided the option for this money to be in any bank account in the world (where interest rates can be much higher). But the money must be in cash. That is their requirement and that means wealth needed to not mind that. OK? This was their decision for a Wealth Pensioner. Not mine. Not yours. If they wanted this to be a poor pensioner visa, they would have labelled it such and lowered the requirements. Now some of us had to restructure our finances/plans to meet the BoI requirements. I did. I did not have to (I could have stayed on a type-O), but I preferred to avoid a repeat of the 90-day reporting hassle and the once/year reproof of finance hassle. So I restructured my finances. BoI figure for those without Health Insurance, $100k US$ equivalent is not an issue to self insure. And it is NOT for some of us. Clearly it is an issue for you. For many others, who it is also an issue, then the LTR visa is not for them. You have said so your self. Move on. Go with the Type-O. But if you are going to speculate about changes in immigration and taxation that no one, not even BoI know what will transpire, then open up your view to consider all risks, which means risk to type-O visa is just as likely as risks to LTR. Which means everyone is taxed. Your view to sit it out, will not help you here IF you plan to come to Thailand anyway. Even without the taxation benefits, the LTR is superior to the Type-O/OA. Your sit it out view ONLY makes sense if that means you will not stay in Thailand. Else the LTR is superior. Again - you note the Health Insurance causes you financial issues as the money in cash means less earned, and that annoys you. Clearly that means you don't fit the wealth pensioner criteria as laid out by BoI. It is that simple. Go with (or stay with) the Type-O visa and take the risks with it (where a global taxation will hit those on a Type-O just as hard as anyone on an LTR and possibly those on Type-O will be hit worse if such global taxation came to pass). The Type-O likely fits you best, based on your TrubleandGrumpy assessments.

Your experience in Phuket is mostly very different from mine - albeit mine was from 2019 to 2023. I had ALL the paper work ready before. It all was accepted, no extra copies needed. Except .. When I arrived around 10:30am in the morning (coming straight from the bank with my records) I was given a number for a queue. I sat with a few dozen others outside in a hot sweaty environment (in those days there was not an indoor area for Type-OA/O 1-year extensions) before my paper work was even looked at. Then they took my paper work and I sat again outside in the hot sweaty area. Immigration was closing their doors, so they had me come inside the building where the type-O/OA visas were being processed. There were 4 chairs. There were 5 of us. I stood for the first 20 minutes until a chair became available. Then I sat and waited ... and waited. The immigration office was closed for new people, but the Thai immigration staff were inside working hard, processing the paperwork. Finally at 18:30 they completed the work associated with my paper work (they did not even look at it for the longest time) and they opened the door so I could leave. This scenario happened to me twice !! in different years. In all cases my paperwork was 100% perfect. Immigration, was just too busy. I was most impressed with their work ethic, working hard, and it in part (but not totally) made up for my waiting for hours. I reads like there is a BIG improvement (based on your post) for year 2025, compared to the situation in previous years. That is VERY good news if true all the time.

Yes that is true. I am a strong believer in diversifying one's wealth, which can mean multiple accounts (and further mean only show BoI the account(s) that are necessary). Just because one might have a lot more money than the BoI requirements, does not mean one should show such to BoI. I note the following, which WILL make me unpopular. This IS called an LTR-WP and LTR-WGC where the 'wealthy' corresponds to a BoI definition of wealthy. So I get a sense a lot of the discussion is about those who barely qualify financially. The view of BoI is that if one is not 'wealthy enough' to restructure one's finances to meet BoI's requirements, then they are not considered wealthy and they do not qualify for the LTR (despite these individuals being very close to qualifying). Again - fortunately Thailand has the Type-O visa for those age 50 and over and it is a great visa (IMHO) as long as it does not change. My hope is that it does not change.

Not exactly. That is not fully accurate. You need to dig into the details. Things like Canadian RRSPs, RRIFs, and USA 401(k) are excluded. Further - anyone who is wealthy, and can easily meet the BoI requirements (and is not a border line qualifier) likely has their money diversified. So one can show BoI one meets the requirements, but in fact BoI only sees a fraction of one's wealth. It is important, in my view, not to jump to conclusions that between BoI and FATCA/CRS, that all one's financial information is being closely tracked. it is not. However one is required, in their tax residencies, to carefully follow the local laws, and also one is required, in the country from where one obtains their income, to follow the tax laws of those countries also.

So? If you read this thread, you will (or should) note that others have posted they succeeded to get the LTR visa endorsed by BoI without having tax records. They provided proof of their income by other means. Well.... Hell is more likely to freeze over first. Expecting BoI to confirm (or deny) anything under a new Taxation system, where there is no such new taxation system, a confirmation from BoI is not going to happen. 🤣 That's like saying wait until immigration confirms they will never require type-O to obtain Health insurance under the new immigration law (where there is no such law) or like saying wait until Immigration confirms that in the next 10 years they will not under any circumstances, raise the cost of the Type-O/OA visas (when there is no such confirmed announcement). Its not going to happen. So nothing will be confirmed. I think for many the LTR Health Insurance is a stumbling block. And frankly, that is possibly THE criteria that for many means this is a WEALTHY pensioner or WEALTHY-global-citizen visa. Emphasis on wealthy. Those who struggle to meet that, simply are not wealthy in the view of BoI. It is that basic, and unfortunately it is also that unfortunately/cruel for those who are borderline, and who can not afford to structure their finances accordingly. Fortunately there is the Type-O visa, and one simply has to put up with the 90-day reports, put up with the annual reproof of finance, and simply take the risk of no increase in annual fees, and simply take the risk of no future health insurance requirement on the Type-O. Most the retired expats I know are on the Type-O, and I hope the Type-O continues to work for them, and I hope that the 'risks' never happen. .... Unfortunately in life, I do not always get what I hope. That could happen. But IMHO then the Visa needs a name change for LTR-WP and LTR-WGC, as it is no longer a 'wealthy' LTR.

I am not sure if there is a misunderstanding there on your reading BoI requirements for the LTR visa ? One is NOT obligated to show BoI all one's financial records. Not in the slightest. I have an LTR-WP and for certain i have not (shown all my financial records). Showing all one's financial records, if not necessary is a security risk, and i repeat, BoI does NOT obligate one to show all one's financial records. One is only obligated to show enough to meet the BoI definition of wealthy. .

"Good for you" is exactly the words I also use ... and IMHO it applies appropriately to the fortunate who are wealthy enough that such is the case. Some i suspect even have more than $100k in bank accounts, in cash, ... which for them is not an issue as they have both a large pension/dividend income and also much much massively larger equity position that make the $100k relatively small. For some, the "Wealthy" in "LTR-Wealthy Pensioner" or "LTR-Wealthy Global Citizen" actually fits. Also the $100k US$ equivalent need not be in Thai baht. It need not be in a Thai bank. And it can be in an appropriate overseas account earning 4%. Sure not the 15% or so from a reasonable stock market portfolio, but presumably said individuals have a much larger stock market portfolio. Fortunately as well, Thailand has a number of visas, where the Type-O visa is an excellent visa for those who do not meet the BoI definition of 'wealthy'. .

My understanding is one has to reprove they meet all the financial requirements at the 5 year point. Also, there was an advisory on the BoI web page for the LTR that LTR visa holders are to be careful to ensure they maintain their meeting the requirements through the timeframe in which the visa is held. I can't recall the precise wording. I don't think anyone has arrived at the 5 year point so I am curious to learn of any stories re the reproving of finances.

We are getting a bit of topic (re: LTR visa) but my understanding is YES, it includes private company pensions where that company has a permanent establishment in Canada. Those private pensions are only taxable in Canada and not in Thailand. And Canada does tax them. This is what the Thai-Canada DTA says (and I inserted "Canada" and "Thailand" and "RRSP/RRIF" in the wording to attempt to make it easier to read" ). I re-typed it (not a copy/paste) so hopefully I typed it correctly. I should add, I am not a tax advisor. It is on occasion a good idea to get proper professional advice.

Yes indeed. It depends on wording of relevant DTAs. All Canadian pensions are taxable only by Canada per the Thai/ Canada DTA, even if one is a tax resident of Thailand. However as noted, German government (non civil service) pensions are not taxable in Germany if one is a tax resident of Thailand but are taxable in Thailand, per the German/ Thai DTA. It all depends on the relevant DTA.

That could be. The 'trick' here is to obtain the letter from one's foreign branch of a health insurance company, that has the exact wording in the letter, that BoI expect. I did not know that (exact wording), so I went the self health insurance route for my LTR-WP. That self health insurance proof took me a few iterations, as I tried to use accounts which had the pre-requisite amount in cash, but because trading equities was possible also with those accounts ,the accounts were disallowed by BoI. I ended up using a bank account in Euros to meet the Self Health Insurance amount ... and restructured my finances elsewhere to make up for that Euro account then being tied up. I had been reluctant to use the Euro account (for self health insurance) as I had other plans for that money. Hence some financial restructuring was need by me to ensure that I could still financially do what the Euro account was intended for. Had I known about the letter (that would satisfy BoI's need for Health Insurance proof), i would have gone with my superb, subsidized European health insurance. I plan to switch to that European Health insurance proof, if allowed, when I reprove my finances (to qualify for next 5 years of LTR visa) in year 2028.

Yes - its based on your financial situation. But if you wish to remit money to Thailand (and are not on an LTR-WP/WGC visa), in the next 2 to 3 years, where that money is not pre-1-Jan-2024 savings, but rather it is current income, then that remitted money is potentially taxable by Thailand per Thai tax law, and as clarified in Thai ministerial documents Por.161/162 (taxable if you are considered a Thai tax resident). LTR-WP/WGC holders, at present, are exempt taxation on such current income remitted to Thailand. The Thai RD did not write their tax law, nor ministerial directives just applicable to me. All expats (who have the funds) are subject to such. ... I do agree thou - it is based on one's individual financial situation. The Thai BoI have laid out requirements that expats to Thailand need to show for BoI to consider them wealthy pensioners. As i noted before, if structuring one's finances to meet those BoI proof of wealth requirements is unpleasant, then fortunately, as long as it does not change, the Type-O non-immigrant visa is a great visa.

Yes likely we will have to agree to disagree on that. No. that is not 100% accurate. Thai government pensions are provided from within Thailand to Thai people. If a Thai person receives a government pension from outside of Thailand (possible if they have dual citizenship) that foreign remitted pension it is taxable by Thailand in some cases according to the relevant Double Tax Agreements (DTAs). The many Double Tax Agreements (DTAs) are quite clear on this. I can only assume you never took the time to look at different DTAs. You totally forgot that Thai pensions from Thailand are not money remitted to Thailand. The nominal Thai pension money to Thai people is paid from within Thailand to Thai people inside not Thailand. It is not paid from outside of Thailand. It is not remitted to Thailand Foreign government pensions are remitted income. Thailand is a remittance taxation system. Honestly, you could not be more wrong here. Now perhaps, if Thailand changes to a global taxation system, then this will change, and foreign government (state) pensions will be treated the same as Thailand pensions to Thai people, despite what the DTAs say (where DTAs such as German-Thai quite clearly state Thailand has the right to tax German state (non-civil service) pensions. Thailand in cases can tax those foreign pensions per the DTA, and further being a remittance taxation system , with the information in both Thai tax law, and in Thai ministerial documents por.161/162, they can tax those foreign pensions. IMHO you need to your do research some more here. READ the applicable DTA for your income source. Look at the Thai tax law. Look at those ministerial documents. You are jumping to wrong conclusions. DTAs cover BOTH business and individual people. If you believe they are only for business then you are horribly wrong. You need to spend more time researching this . As I noted in another thread ... wait until the fat lady sings.