oldcpu

Could be for Switzerland. I applied such a qualification in my post that there could be other pension incomes. However not every country is like the Swiss. I lived in Europe for 20 years and I note the pension is fairly low for many countries.

I agree the # of LTR WGC applicants are low. But I interpret the BoI website different than yourself. Looking at the 30-November-2024 statistic reported by BoI, they report 5,775 applicants (visa qualifications approve) for the LTR visa across all categories. They also report 229 applies for the LTR WGC. Note that 229 out of 5,775 is 4%. That same mathematics applies for the other categories. So i don't think the 4% represents the LTR-WGC approval rate. Rather it indicates 4% is the relative % of WGC compared to other categories. ... Frankly, those BoI statistics are IMHO a bit difficult to decipher.

i would agree with the term "common" ... but having typed that, such while 'common', is still I believe far above the average European's pension. For example this article : https://www.etk.fi/en/work-and-pensions-abroad/international-comparisons/pensioners-income-level-internationally/average-pensions-in-europe/ Granted that article is +3 years old, ... but even after 3 years (if one adds inflation increases), even the best average pension is likely far below 70,000 euros/year. However likely some of the retirees have more income than just "old age pension" . And of course the LTR-WP is called 'wealthy pensioner' , I guess, for a reason. Still, I can't help but think 70,000 euros/year in Europe is far above the average pension. In 2021 for Swiss it was 2,225 euro/month (according to the link I provided) which is only 26,700 euros/year. So I assume the average Swiss pensioner then also gets substantial retirement income from sources other than just the 'old age pension' ? I am most curious to learn how this LTR-WGC will turn out.

That has been my experience when I used my Wise card in Australia and in New Zealand

Thanks for this. Assuming the local/provincial Thai RD were correct (and I have no reason to believe they were not correct), I suspect this goes beyond just the Australian case noted in the post. For example , the Thai-Canada DTA makes it clear pensions (and similar remunerations) sourced in Canada are to be exclusively taxed in Canada. Thailand under the DTA has no taxation rights on those specific noted incomes. I suspect a consistent policy (with the Thai-Australia noted one) would mean that the Canadian pensions/similar-remunerations are not to be included on the Thai taxation forms. Having typed that, I note as of the 2023 Thai tax return form (in English language) there is no place on the taxation form to list such income as tax exempt, ... so one can make (IMHO) a solid argument that supports the assessment that such Canadian pensions/similar-remunerations are NOT to be included in a Thai taxation form. Likely this could be applicable to some other country pensions as well (albeit definitely NOT applicable to all). I also believe this supports the view, that at current time, Thailand does not require one report ALL of one's foreign income on a tax return, if, ... and the if is important ... if one can point to where the foreign income is exempt (due to Thailand ministerial regulations noting said income is tax exempt). That is also 100% consistent with the Thailand tax code. I am most curious to watch this in coming months to see how (and see if) this clarifies some more.

I note the LTR-WGC and LTR-WFTP had the least number of approved applicants, so perhaps that was a factor in the BoI / Cabinet deciding a tuning (via slight reduction) in the requirement for those categories were needed. I find it difficult to believe the full $80K US equivalent annual income for LTR-WGC will be eliminated ... Perhaps it will be a lower number (such as exists for LTR-WP which can get by with $40k US$ equiv + an investment in Thailand), or perhaps the need for the $80K US$ equiv to be shown for 2 years will be relaxed to 1 year?? or perhaps an increase above the current LTR-WGC investment in Thailand .. ie a lot beyond the current $500k US$ ?? ( my speculation). I believe we need to wait for the full details to be announced. ... Perhaps I am just a cynic.

Most of us try our best. In my case I have a LTR-WP visa and for next few years I plan on bringing no money into Thailand (unless situation clarifies better in next few years). I plan on no Thai income. But not everyone has the luxury of my approach. Those in Thailand with families and less money don't have as many easy options.

For some of us with both the money and no-family, it is easy to leave Thailand for 6.5 to 7 months of the year, and only live in Thailand for 5 to 5.5 months. However there are some with families, and the approach the single expat (or expat with wife and no kids) can adopt is easy. For those with a family much more difficult, and harder to pick up roots and leave.

Thanks for that update. Most interesting. My Thai wife applied to obtain a Thai Tax ID Number (TIN) for myself and failed with the Phuket office, although I suspect if she and I had adopted your approach she would have succeeded. My wife applied online (which goes from Bangkok to Phuket and ended up chatting with a Phuket RD official on the phone). When my wife told the Phuket RD official I was bringing no money into Thailand (which is true) and that I have no Thai income (which is true) and that I am living off savings in Thailand brought in when I was a non-resident to Thailand (which is true), and the official denied me a TIN. That mostly ended the discussion (although there were some more aspects to the phone chat with the RD official (all in Thai language)). What my wife should have followed up with was I could use a Thai TIN as a foreign brokerage account was asking for my Thai TIN. (In the end I provided the foreign brokerage my Pink-ID #, with a written and signed caveat by me that the Pink-ID# was not yet activated as a tax ID). Reading your post, I had expected it would be a P.N.D.91 and not P.N.D.90 form the tax official would fill in, and clearly I may have my understanding wrong and to satisfy my curiousity need to go back and look at the forms again. Out of curiosity, is this for a foreign brokerage?

I checked out the 2017 to 2023 Thai tax forms in English language. The 2017 to 2020 have the year hard printed on the first page. The 2021 to 2023 instead have an empty box for one to enter the year (on the first page), BUT the exemption page (at end of the form) has the year (for 2021 to 2023 English language Thai tax forms) hard printed on that page. So many of us are curious whether the 2024 English-language Thai tax forms will be any different. I am becoming cynical and I suspect there may not be much change.

Ok - thanks - thats interesting. I considered about a year ago to open an account with them , but the intent then was to move both my Canadian bank RRSP (which that bank 'froze' because the bank discovered I was no longer a Canadian non-resident) and my margin trading account to Interactive Brokers. But research (which may have been wrong) indicated interactive brokers changed their policy and would not allow Canadian RRSPs & RRIFs (which are sort of the Canadian equivalent of a USA 401(k)) for those who were residents of neither USA nor Canada. Also, I read posts on a forum (possibly reddit) claiming I had to file USA income tax return for the margin trading account that I was considering to open (and those posts may have been wrong). So I went with a Canadian company (Questrade) instead. Although Questrade is not great for currency exchange. I don't mind paying taxes that are required - but filing another country's tax return would be a major PIA for me. I might look again sometime to open a second trading account (with Interactive Brokers) and also use it for currency exchange. Limitations on transferring funds to Thailand thou (if there are any) probably would be a show stopper.

Who knows? If it is a known CRS requirement then Thailand will either have to comply or get CRS to ignore the non-compliance, or get CRS to openly (or quietly) accept non-compliance, or Thailand simply leave. I speculate you won't read of many outside of the global revenue departments weeping if Thailand were to leave. As you state ... This is Thailand.

That was my thought also. Further, if one did start using Interactive Brokers as a trading account, would one then also be 'on the hook' to file a USA tax return (even thou not a USA citizen and not a USA tax resident)?

According to the BoI web page: https://ltr.boi.go.th/page/visa-issuance-info.html "Acceptable payment options include Thai mobile banking (QR code scanning) and cash only." You could phone BoI and ask them if you wish more confidence/confirmation.

Then you need to be more specific in how you type such - as opposed to a general statement without such, especially in the context of this thread where an assortment of taxation aspects are being discussed. No. Thailand can leave any time. Again - you exaggerate. Thailand can decide how it goes about implementing the requirements (as long as it meets such) and OECD can not stop Thailand from leaving if Thailand choses. Thailand calls the shots in such cases. Again - you exaggerated.

1st - congrats on getting the extension on your permission to stay. i think most agree that if one's total remitted + local income is below the filing threshold for Thailand, then there is no requirement to file a Thai tax return (nor obtain a TIN). Where we have discussion on this thread often tends to be if income is considered non-assessable and hence debated if it is not reportable. Sorry to read re: the UK policy about on NO inflation increments to non-residents of the UK who have a UK pension. That reads to me to be unfair - especially for any who may also still be paying taxes to the UK. Best wishes.

And that was exactly my point.

It is an exaggeration. You stated " it is not Thailand calling the shots, it is a supranational organisation called the OECD. " ( I applied the 'bold' / 'italics' ) I pointed out that Thailand is also calling the shots as a sovereign nation. Thailand can leave any time it wants and OECD can not call the shots and say Thailand can not leave. Thailand can tell OECD to 'stuff it' ANYTIME and leave any time it wants. Further, OECD can not tell Thailand how to precisely implement any of the requirements. Thailand can follow the route it choses to implement the requirements. Stating it is OECD calling the shots is simply an exaggeration when sovereign nations are involved. Both parties (OECD and relevant nations) are partnered here in calling the shots. Thinking it is only OECD is so very wrong. I repeat. It is an exaggeration. I inferred such as much myself when I pointed out USA did NOT sign up to CRS. What citizenships do you understand Mr.Hart has from watching that video? And what superpower refused to sign CRS (quite possibly due to it NOT wanting to share as much information).

The point is, when it comes to believe there is a trend about financial information sharing, while , yes, Thailand now has signed up to CRS, not every country in the world has signed on, and in particular, the world's only super power, which purportedly values freedom above most else, has not signed on. It will not share information to the same extent. I do ask myself - why. Only in regards to limited financial aspects ... Also, one should not overstate the details of the CRS. Countries do have a range of flexibility in regards to various aspects. No. That is an exaggeration. OECD is not the be-all and end-all. Thailand is a sovereign nation, and it will comply with the OECD CRS to the extent it sees fit. If push comes to shove, with regard to any non-compliance, Thailand can leave any time it wants. Thailand also (in addition to OECD) gets in part to call the shots whether it stays or leaves. .

OK - you had me curious. There are crucial differences between the FATCA vs the CRS. https://www.diligent.com/resources/blog/fatca-vs-crs-the-difference-is-crucial Though both FATCA and CRS try to combat tax evasion, there are some notable differences between the two sets of regulations ... ... One of the biggest differences between FATCA and CRS is the breadth of its design. Whereas FATCA requires financial institutions to report only those customers who qualify as U.S. persons, CRS involves more than 90 countries. Under CRS, virtually all foreign investments handled by a financial institution become subject to a CRS report. ... Under FATCA, each country entered into a separate bilateral intergovernmental agreement with the United States. ... Part of FATCA's power lies in its resolve to collect information from RFIs concerning the financial dealings of U.S. taxpayers. Initially, this relationship was entirely one-sided; thus, it was truly a collection, not an exchange. In subsequent years, at the insistence of the G20, FATCA has modified its position on data reciprocity, but it is still not an equal exchange. I could go on, but there we have it. The FATCA does NOT share as much as the CRS. The USA refused to sign the CRS. Ergo the USA refuses to share information to the same scope. It begs the question. Why? Again , I am not advocating Thailand follow the USA lead, but I think the USA can see issues with the CRS, else they would sign such.

... they have the FATCA and ??? The FATCA is not about sharing US citizen financial income information to other countries, from what I read. Rather it is about getting financial information (from other countries) on USA citizens for the USA IRS. Do I have that wrong? (I might have). But if I have it right, then I think it is in some aspects very different from the CRS. .

I think that true. Thailand likely needs to update its tax forms if it wants all global income reported, or even if just all remitted income reported on a Thailand tax form. Currently the 2023 tax form does not do a good job for supporting the reporting of all remitted foreign income. The exemption section has no field for DTA tax exempt remitted money, no field for paw.161/162 tax exempt remitted money, and no fields for LTR tax exempt remitted funds. I like to think Revenue Department in Thailand try their best, and accordingly I can't help but think this omission is deliberate on their part. This does support the view that the remitted income I noted could indeed be treated as not assessable by RD and hence not be listed on a tax return to Thailand. I find this confusing and my hope ( possibly in vain) is that this will be better clarified in the next few years.

Regardless, I think you can infer why, when recently Revenue Canada offered to treat me, a non resident to Canada, as a deemed tax resident to Canada. I declined. I will stay a Thailand tax resident thankyou.

That is not for all Canadian tax residents, but rather for Canadian tax residents who exceed a $100,000 cdn$ threshold of assets outside the country. It never applied to me when I lived in Canada about 3 decades ago. I didn't have the money outside the country at that time. Reading that you can possibly infer why, when Revenue Canada sent me a letter recently, offering to treat me as a Canadian tax resident, even thou I live outside of Canada, I declined that offer. I will stay a Thailand tax resident thankyou.

A minor point .. Canada requires anyone who submits a Canadian tax form to Revenue Canada, whether or not a Canadian resident, to state on that tax form their total global income. And if one has Canadian income above a specific (pretty small) threshold, that person needs to file a Canadian tax return, even if they are not a Canadian tax resident. I am not stating that is an approach other countries should adopt. I am just noting that is what Canada does. For years, when I lived/worked in Europe, I had no Canadian income, so i did not have to submit a Canadian tax form. However once I started receiving Old Age Security and Pension income from Canada that changed, and a Canadian tax return was / is required. Death and taxes. Something one can not escape.