oldcpu

Its interesting to read of a strong desire (not in your case) of some who wish to get a tax clearance certificate. I think many LTR-WC and LTR-WGC expats have significantly more money outside of Thailand than money inside of Thailand, and hence showing one is bringing money into Thailand from a tax year other than the year in which the income was earned, is very much a trivial book keeping exercise. Further for many of us (even if not an LTR visa) our foreign sourced income is not tax assessable in Thailand per Thai Royal decree, which documents legal tax exemption if covered by specific wording in the DTA with Thailand relevant to our foreign sourced income. Hence for many of us on LTR, and also with relevant DTAs with Thailand, there is no requirement for a Thailand tax return submission, nor any such Tax Clearance Certificate, as one's assessable income never meets the required Thai threshold, needed to be met for filing a Thai tax return. But for those who feel compelled to apply for such a tax clearance certificate, please do share your stories. It is IMHO always interesting to read of such despite my view that for many of us, there is legally no requirement at present for such per both Thailand tax law and Thailand immigration law.

I wonder if that is dependent on policy of the provincial branch of the Department of Transport? in Thailand, my Yellowbook/Pink-ID combination, in the past, has been accepted as my (or maybe better phrased 'in lieu of' the) 'Certificate of Residence' (COR) at Phuket branch of the Department of Transport. I note (per your observation) the BoI page recommends getting a COR from BoI : https://ltr.boi.go.th/page/driving-license.html

@fallonwm ... getting back to your original post, ... quite possibly for the first year, a type-O is better. I am an LTR-WP Visa holder - but my own view, is even if you have the money for the LTR-WP visa (ie you have the $80,000 US/year passive income) i recommend for the first year, unless you have lived in Thailand before (and know the country and have demonstrated to yourself and your family that you are happy with a plan to live here for a decade) do not rush in to the LTR-WP (assuming of course, these amounts of money are not trivial amounts for you). My recommendation is not to go with LTR-WP right away nor go with Type-OA. Instead, I recommend go with the Type-O visa initially. The Type-O visa allows you to ultimately stay in Thailand on a yearly basis with annual extensions, year after year. Currently the type-O visa has no requirements to buy health insurance from the Thailand branch of health insurance company (unlike the the Type-OA visa which requires health insurance from the Thailand branch of a health insurance company for those on annual extensions of the Type-OA permission to stay in Thailand). In the 1st year or two in Thailand (on a Type-O), get a sense of whether you like Thailand enough to live here for a decade. While you are here, if you see a foreign freehold condo you like, you can even buy such. Note if that condo purchase value is $250,000 US$ equivalent, it can in a case of the LTR-WP even contribute to part of an LTR-WP visa financial requirements. I believe the majority of those who apply for LTR-WP (albeit not all) were initially on a Type-O or Type-OA visa.

That is correct. But as for the underlying land, your perception is not exact. In Thailand, foreigners are generally prohibited from owning land. However, foreigners may own condominium units as "foreign" freehold, provided that foreign ownership does not exceed 49% of the total saleable floor area of all units in the condominium. As membership and voting rights in the condominium juristic person are derived from unit ownership (including the foreigners), foreign participation in the condominium juristic person is accordingly limited to 49% by floor area. The condominium juristic person consists of ALL of the coowners. The land on which the condominium is built is legally owned by the condominium juristic person. Re: only 49%. If you go to the Condo AGMs and participate in the Committee of condominiums, you will discover it is very rare that it is 49% vs 51% on issues. ie. it typically does not break down to all foreign vote combined against all Thai vote. Typically that is not the case. Every co-owner typically wants the condo to look better ... at least it is that way for LUXURY condominiums such as what I bought into. ... and given that, its very rare votes are spit 49/51. That was a typo that I corrected. I inadvertently backspaced to fix a typo and the 'immigrant' was deleted. I only detected that typo after the ability to edit a post times out. So I replied further down to address the typo. What I corrected it to read was 'non-'immigrant-resident' which is something completely different from being a non-resident. For 2026 its up to everyone to assess the risk in terms of their money. In my case, with my finance? I would look at where i want to live. I would look at rental costs. I would look at condo (foreign freehold) purchase costs. And if i chose the condo where I live now in my own foreign freehold, then yes, I would without hesitation buy. Lets assume it can be bought for 30-million thai baht. That's ~950,000 US$. And you know what? Given the high rental costs. ... 5% of $950,000 US$ only gives $47,000 US$ or $3,900 U$/month, which is ~124,600 THB/month. That won't pay for the rent of this luxury condo. So yes, its better to buy. Having typed that, how many have the ~950,000 US$ to slap down on the table to buy? Most don't. I do. The LTR-WP (where WP stands for "WEALTHY PENSIONER" ) is for those who do have the money. You have your answer. As I typed before , time to relook at your math, or perhaps consider there are people with a different perspective than yours, who are doing very well financially, here in Thailand, by adopting an approach different than that which works for you.

To a certain extent, the exact details depend on the local immigration office you plan to visit. The term 'retirement visa' can be a bit unclear... and I think more precise to note "non-immigrant Type-O visa for reason of retirement". That is sort of a moot point of mine. Nominally, most people do not enter on a tourist visa, but rather enter visa-exempt. However you stated tourist visa, so I believe you can switch from a Tourist Visa to a Type-O visa at the same time as you apply for the Type-O visa (I think that means a TM-86 is used (if coming from Tourist Visa) instead of a TM-87 (if coming from Visa exempt). Hopefully others chime in and correct me. There is a lot of things (paperwork) needed. Also some financial criteria (where some of the money has to be in a Thai bank a sufficient time in advance - time of money in the bank depends on whether this is one's first Type-O or an extension of permission to stay on that type-O). In Phuket it is all detailed here: https://piv-phuket.com/retirement/ Note thou, some immigration offices are different. Again - I believe it is the Type-O you are looking for. In Phuket you can nominally apply 45 days before your Tourist visa permission to stay (or a visa exempt permission to stay) expires. Many other immigration offices only allow one to do this 30 days in advance. That Type-O will give you only 90 days permission to stay (initially) in Thailand. Then (in Phuket) 30 to 45 days before your Type-O permission to stay expires, you need to go to immigration AGAIN and apply for a 1-year extension (for reason of retirement) on your permission to stay in Thailand. Again, many other immigration offices only allow one to do this 30 days in advance. Good luck in your efforts.

That should read 'non-immigrant-resident' ... not read "non-resident". Another bad typo there also by me.

Anyone done it? What were the costs? Same as to baht or more? The link that Upnotover notes it is a Wise 'Swift' transfer and it also costs a bit more as it goes through intermediary banks. I am also curious how the costs compare to a regular 'Swift' transfer. I suspect (speculate) its the same cost as a nominal 'Swift' transfer. .

This should read 'would also be paying 3x as much , not 300x. I'm bad re: that typo.

That's strange. I have 5 different accounts with Bangkok Bank. The statements for each one shows my Thai address. I also have accounts with SCB bank and Krungsri bank. My statements from those also show my Thai address. Interesting. I get utility bills from the condo management where i live. They have my name and Thai address on them. Further, I have a Thai driver's licence that has my address and a pink ID that has my Thai address. In both cases, the address is in Thai language thou. I had to prove my Thailand address recently for a Canadian bank, so I forwarded them copy of my pink ID and Thai driver's licence (with address in Thai) and I also forwarded a google translation copy of those, noting they too could paste the copiy I provided (of pink-ID/driver's licence) into google to get a translation - so to prove accuracy of the Google translation. Having typed that, I use a German address for my Wise. Its a friends place where typically I spend about 1-month per year (when I travel to Europe). I believe using a Thai address with Wise limits one to a Wise business account ? < unsure > and I believe its awkward with Wise to use a Thai address. Best wishes to all in finding a suitable transfer method that works.

No. I am not applying any western definition in the sense I think you mean. I am referring to condo unit ownership. Condo's are considered property. Brush up on your English language skills. Foreigners can not own land in Thailand. There is a difference between "land" and "property" in the English language. I never said a foreigner could own land. I am talking about Thai condominium property. Foreigners can own property as in a foreign freehold condo. You need to do the math again. Yours is flawed. As I noted, rentals have gone up 3x (that 300%) in cost since I purchased my condo. My condo has also gone up in value 70% in value. Lets see, 5% a year in your investment, from 2016 to end 2025 yields about 55%. Not 70%. Further in your case, if you were staying in the luxury condo where I live, but you were only renting, in addition to only seeing an increase of 55% for your 5% investment (every year since ~2016) you would also be paying 300x as much for the luxury condo rental at the end of 2025, compared to what rental prices were at the end of 2016. 3x !! Your net worth would have decreased over the years. Your 5% per year simply was not good enough to pay for the luxury condo. As I noted, buying made sense. Again , 5% would not pay for the rent in the luxury condo where I live. Its not enough. 5% would have been about 10,000 baht a month short in year 2016, and today in year 2026 you would be massively short by over 100,000 baht per month (above what 5% yields you) to pay for the rent. ... Rental prices have sky rocketed for some luxury condos. No. It does not. One needs to look at each case, and do valid math. Not wrong generalizations. I own the condo unit. It has my name on the chanote. Currently, I don't pay rent. My condo fees are a fraction of rental fees for this luxury condo. So I am already massively financially ahead, compared to if I had been financially less astute and had mistakenly decided not to buy back in 2016. I already have more than one citizenship. I don't need, nor do I want any more. I have legal tax advantages living in Thailand, as a non-resident, and as a non-Thai citizen, due to the DTA (with Thailand) of my income source country, that in itself would make it silly financially to want Thai citizenship. In addition to that, my having the LTR-WP visa is the icing on the cake. Thai citizenship? Thankyou, but no. Thai citizenship would cost me money. Cost me much more money. There is massively more to rights than just PR and citizenship in Thailand. I guess you never checked Thai law nor even Thai tax law. Foreigners are not the same as Thai citizens, but to say foreigners have no rights, is incorrect. Thailand like many countries has laws that apply to all who reside. Your focus is rather narrow here IMHO, on land ownership and on citizenship. And as noted, I have legal tax advantages that are significant due to DTA and visa, with each in itself indicating that Thai citizen would be an expensive tax proposition and a mistake (in my case) for me to go for it. You can go ahead and lose your money on a pig farm or rubber tree. In the mean time i will watch the condo unit I purchased go up in value. ... I also note in the district in Phuket where I live, the condos in the complex where I own are the least expensive in the neighbourhood( ie 2 km to 3km approx radius around my condo location). And I note the asking price for Thai freehold condos in the luxury complex where I live is currently is 27-million Thai baht. And yes, people are paying that much (for Thai freehold no less ! ). I bet that is a massive surprise to you. Further, that is a Thai freehold price - foreign freehold typically sell for more. Why the high price? Well guess what ... some months ago one sold for that price, and as I noted, our condo is the least expensive of condos (where owners can buy) in our neighbourhood. Prices all around Thailand do NOT all fall in line with "your" Pattaya case in point(?) nor are prices all around Thailand in line with those in Phuket where I abide. So as I noted, best wishes to you in your pig farm or rubber tree example ( ... obviously I 'jest' re: pig-farm/rubber tree) . In my case, I will stick with a condo that has done better than your 5% example, and in the neighbourhood where I live, the price trend indicates the price will go higher. And instead of paying massive rent every month, I have a relatively small condo fee to pay. I am ahead financially, not behind. I would be behind in this condo complex, had I chosen to rent. Time to relook at your math, or perhaps consider there are people with a different perspective than yours, who are doing very well financially, here in Thailand, by adopting an approach different than that which works for you.

I suspect we have agreement on this.

Who? Someone who spots an excellent foreign freehold on the coast of Thailand, with an incredible sea view, with excellent beach access, at a fabulous purchase price, but insane rental prices meaning it makes far more sense to purchase, as opposed to rent. My Thai condo has gone up 70% in value since my Dec-2016 purchase. Rental prices for the same condo have tripled thou. So that's who. One can own foreign freehold condominiums in one's name. Hypotheticals such as this ( "pull" or modify a visa) apply to all visas. The Type-O and OA can also be changed at any time. Health insurance requirements could be changed and required from Type-O visa. All speculation, all hypothetical, just the same as any LTR visa hypotheticals. Each to their own approach. I suspect it a surprise to many (which I suspect includes you) that there are some who 'just like Thailand', who have 'Thai family' (due to marriage) and the amount of money for the LTR is relatively trivial compared to one's actual wealth. Because of family, climate and social aspects we like, Thailand has advantages, and leaving Thailand in a hurry, despite any investment here, is simply not an issue. Staying in Thailand incurs no more 'relative' risk (to those person's finances) than any a visa held by others. So obtaining an LTR visa for those is too is by design. Each to their own, and their own financial situation.

You could ask BoI on this, but I don't see any reason why there would be an issue, as long as you continue to meet the financial and insurance requirements.

Its definite food for thought. I don't believe such liaison between Thailand departments happens all that often (else we would heard about this more often).

@topt ... well spotted. I suspect being from a Scandinavian country KhunPer did not check DTAs of Thailand with other non-Scandinavian countries and hence not know the differences. ... and of course, if one has no income from other countries, why check other DTAs? There is logically no need. Out of curiousity I took a look at pensions of some Scandinavian countries DTA with Thailand. In all cases, for Scandinavian countries Thailand can tax such pensions in most cases. Denmark-Thailand DTA. Article-18: Pensions (and similar remunerations) arising in a Contracting state (Denmark) and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State (Thailand) .... may be taxed in both Contracting States. Norway-Thailand DTA. Article-18: Pensions (including Government pensions and payments under a social security system) and annuities paid to a resident of a Contracting State (Thailand) shall only be taxable in that State (Thailand). Sweden-Thailand DTA. Article-18 (2)(a): Any pension paid by, or out of funds created by, a Contracting state (Sweden), or a political subdivision or a local authority therof to an individual respect of services rendered to that State (Sweden) or subdivision or authority, shall taxable only in that State (Sweden). (2)(b) However, such pension shall be taxable only in the other Contracting state (Thailand) if the individual is a resident of, and a national of, that other state (Thailand). My initial interpretation from that is for tax residents of Thailand with pension (fully remitted in year of earning) from: - Denmark - both Thailand and Denmark can tax the pension from Denmark - Norway - only Thailand can tax pensions from Norway - Sweden - only Sweden can tax the pension of former civil servants/military. Its not clear to me but i suspect Thailand can tax other (retired who are no ex-civil servant, and not ex-military) pensions from Sweden There are also clauses providing more nuances, such as clauses under interest, dividends, capital gains, but given I am not from Scandinavia, I elected not to compare those. Out of curiousity I limited my time spent to looking at pensions, as I was endeavouring to understand where Khun Per was coming from in his views, and it does appear that his view applies to Scandinavian countries, as you noted. Obviously other countries have different agreements with Thailand, so what applies to Scandinavian countries may in many cases simply does not apply to other countries. My guess is the RD official Khun Per was chatting with were focused on the case of people from Scandinavian countries who are now Thai tax residents. Also there are other nuances, such as in terms of per-1-Jan-2024 savings (not assessable income if remitted to Thailand), and one being on an LTR visa (not assessable income if remitted to Thaliand in a year other than the year in which it was earned). One last point - I am not a tax advisor, so anyone with income from Denmark, Norway or Sweden really needs to dive into this in more detail than my initial skimming through, as is entirely feasible i don't have the above 100% correct for those countries. Rather my point here, is every DTA with Thailand is different, and some exclude Thailand taxation, and many do not exclude Thailand taxation. .

DTAs as part of the avoidance of Double Taxation, in some cases make it clear that some income can NOT be taxed by the other country signing the agreement. That means that some income is NOT to be declared in some cases - in particular in some cases not declared if said country is a remittance based taxation system. The devil (or angel dependent on one's specifics) is in the details. I gave you two DTA examples which are very different. (1) Canada-Thailand - Thailand can NOT tax pensions (from Canada) of any Canadian expats resident in Thailand. Such does not go on any Thai tax form nor is it to be used to assess if a Thai tax form needs to be submitted. It is exempt as the DTA is called up by Royal Decree. (2) Germany-Thailand - this is the opposite of Canada for some pensions. In the case of German-Thai tax agreement only Thailand can tax some German sourced pensions (of expats resident in Thailand) and Germany can not tax. the point I am making is different DTA have different meanings. Germany IS relevant to make my point as it is so very different from that of Canada in regard to some pensions being taxable, or not taxable, by Thailand.. Again, I recommend all expats, take the time, look at the DTA between Thailand and the source country of your income. If your DTA is too difficult to understand, post the salient details of your income, note the income source country, and get the view of some Aseannow forum members. There are some very good knowledgeable members of this forum who can likely provide some help.

You really need to take the time to read Thai tax law if you wish to debate this. Because what you typed is not precise in accordance with Thai tax law. OK. It is not. In Thailand you need to declare assessable income if it is remitted. Clearly you do not know what that word assessable means. Since you refuse to undersand such, for others reading, I do recommend others research this. Do NOT by any means rely on what "khunPer" believes.

IMHO this is always a good idea. Hopefully not a 'rarity' in the future, albeit I sense you were 'joking'. In Thailand I never carry my passport with me for routine travel. Only if going to the bank, or to phone company, or to a Thai government office, do I bring my passport. The remainder of the time I carry my Thailand 'pink ID' and a copy on my mobile phone of (1) my passport (2) my visa in my passport, and (3) my latest permission to stay stamp in my passport.

I suspect you misunderstood him or he misunderstood you. It has already been confirmed by the Thailand Revenue Department headquarters in Bangkok that some examples (not all examples) of foreign income (which is not assessable) is excluded Thailand taxation and need not be used in assessing if a Thailand tax form need be remitted - - - nor even if a tax form is remitted (for other reasons) should such income be included on the tax form. RD Ministerial Instructions, Royal Decrees, Double Tax Agreement specific wording, and Thai tax law are relevant here. But as I noted before - don't let me stop you. I caution others thou, don't blindly proceed down the same path. Research the tax law and your DTAs.

I will use Thai Tax law and use Royal Decrees and Double Tax Agreements and Thai Revenue Department ministerial directives for the specifics as to how Thai tax law is implemented. I feel very comfortable in doing so. If you wish to go by a generic presentation missing massive amounts of important details and nuances - well -"fill your boots". Don't let me try to convince you otherwise. I caution thou anyone else reading this, not to stop at that presentation without digging further into this. If you don't look further, you will be seriously mislead. Thai tax law as written is far far more important than some summary presentation that does not contain massive number of salient details.

Some years back I had a delay ... But it wasn't too bad, and I always plan on a delay 'just in case'. Honestly, it makes perfect sense to me that such a delay can happen from time to time, if one considers how Wise manage their currency transfers. Based on my understanding, for most countries (but not Thailand) , for a Wise transaction of funds between country-A (currency-A) and country-B (currency-B), Wise keeps an account in both countries with lots of money in the country's respective currencies. Nominally when one instructs Wise to transfer money from A to B, Wise does not actually do an international transfer. Instead Wise takes one's money given in country-A, and Wise keeps that money in country-A (currency-A) , and Wise takes the money from the Wise bank account in country-B (in currency-B) and sends that money to the person who wanted the transfer. Now if the currency only was transferred in one direction, (ie from A to B), eventually Wise would run out of money in their bank account in Country-B's currency-B. But Wise nominally plan (hope) there are currency transfers in both directions. This keeps both Country-A and Country-B accounts topped up with enough money to handle transactions. BUT if there are a large amount of transactions in one direction, and NOT in the other direction, eventually Country-B's currency-B Wise account will run out of money. So Wise then has to go to a bank, and do a massive Swift transfer of funds, where Wise negotiate a very very low transfer rate with the bank. And hence Wise top up the Country-B's currency-B. Now Thailand? Thailand IMHO presents a problem for Wise, as money transfers out of Thailand are relatively smaller than those going in to Thailand. Further Wise has not a system setup to transfer money out of Thailand, so the Wise bank account in Thailand is NEVER topped up by money from Thailand. Instead, this means the Wise bank account of Thai baht, is constantly running low on money. And it means Wise has to keep doing Swift transfers of money from Europe (?) or from elsewhere, into Thailand, and buying Thai baht, to replenish the Wise Thai bank account(s). It happens from time to time, that one wants Wise to transfer money from (say Australia or say from Europe) to Thailand. But the Wise Thai baht account is close to zero. So Wise accept one's money (in Australia or Europe), but in the meantime Wise quickly negotiate with some bank a LARGE Swift transfer of funds to Thailand to the Wise Thailand account(s). But Swift transfers can take days, so if one is unlucky, one gets caught in the situation when Wise is topping up their Thai baht account. And that will mean delays. Hopefully I typed this such as it can be understood. At least that is my understanding as to how this works. .

Sorry to read of the passport issue. I renewed my Canadian passport last year via the Canadian embassy (sending documents by courier (I stayed in Phuket the entire time)), and there was no issue. It all went smoothly like clockwork. Its most unfortunate this has happened.

Its important to read the EXACT wording of the DTA, because many DTA are NOT like the Canada-Thailand DTA. I can only assume you have not looked at many DTA, which I suspect is also the case for most Thailand RD officials. Article-18 of the Canada-Thailand DTA specifically states (and I quote - with edits to indicate the 'state's) : Pensions and other similar remuneration, whether they consist of periodic or non-periodic payments, for past employment, arising in a Contracting State (Canada) and paid to a resident of the other Contracting state (Thailand) shall be taxable only in the first-mentioned State (Canada). I think the word "only" is pretty clear. "only" excludes Thailand taxing. I don't know your country, but I suspect the DTA between your source income country and Canadat may not have the "only" qualification. The slides you seem to like to quote are generalities, and there are nuances that go deeper. I can look at the DTA of your source country, if you wish, and post what it says re: pensions from your source country. It may be only Thailand can tax such. Take for example the German-Thailand DTA, ... in that case, 'state' pensions from the German government, to those who were NOT government employees, are NOT taxed by Germany if one is a Thailand tax resident, but ARE taxable by Thailand. I sense you do not appreciate that there are differences here. The saving's aspect is in addition to any DTA benefits. It does NOT supercede any DTA benefits. I sense you don't understand that. More accurate is to state all transferred foreign income is subject to possible taxation, but other aspects come in to play, such as Double Tax Agreements (DTA). Those 1-Jan-2024 'changes' do NOT over rule DTA. I sense you do not understand that. No. That is not precise. In cases where BOTH countries can tax an income, per a DTA, then yes, tax credits come in to play. But in cases where only ONE country can tax an income, per a DTA, then there are no Tax credits involved. I pointed out an example , Canada-Thailand DTA, where no tax credits come into play. Thailand has agreed NOT to tax that pension. I pointed out an example, German-Thailand DTA, where no tax credits come into play, where for state (not-civil service) pensions, Germany does not tax that. (and I have a letter from the German government confirming that). Germany has agreed NOT to tax that pension (of Thailand tax residents) who receive a German pension (non-civil service/non-military), but Thailand may tax that pension. i say 'may' because, if for example, one has an LTR-WP or LTR-WGC visa, and brings that pension into Thailand in a year OTHER than which it was earned, that pension is not taxable by Thailand for those specific visa holders. This is confirmed by a Thailand Royal Decree which means a LOT more than some slide presentation. A further nuance, when it comes to German government pensions, to ex-civil servants/military-retired from Germany, the German-Thailand DTA notes Thailand is not to tax such a pension (unless the person receiving that German pension is a Thai citizen). Again, there are nuances. With respect, you have a lack of understanding of the Thailand Tax law, of the Double Tax agreements. When going to a local RD to discuss taxation, as an expat with foreign sourced income, be very cautious. Most people, including officials in the local RD offices, do not take the time to look at the Double Tax Agreements. One can easily walk away with the wrong assessment, if one does not take the time to review all the nuances. For example, when my wife (on my behalf) chatted with the Phuket RD official, they had never heard of a Thailand Long Term Resident (LTR) visa. Its difficult to get an accurate answer from a local RD official, as expats like us are an usual case, and the local RD officials often do not know all the nuances. So care is needed.

Well, yes its true (some of us) , like myself, brought in a large amount of money into Thailand when we were non-tax residents (but had a Thai bank account). I brought a bunch in a decade ago and it will easily last me another decade. So no tax there. i do get interest thou from Thai banks, but Thai tax law says given there was withholding tax on that, the tax obligation for that income is already met (and hence it is not to be included in the assessment in meeting a Thai tax threshold). But there is more than that. The word "assessable" in Thai Tax Law is very important. If the income is not 'assessable' then it is not to be included in the tax form and not used to assess if a tax form need to be submitted. So logically, the next question is what income is considered not to be 'assessable'. The classic example are selected income in selected Double Tax Agreements, where per Royal Decree 18 tax can be excluded per some DTA. And some DTA (take Canada for example) specifically state that all pension income derived in Canada (or similar remunerations to pensions derived in Canada) can ONLY be taxed by Canada and not taxed by Thailand. So when that Canadian pension is remitted to Thailand it is not assessable income to Thailand and it is not to be considered when assessing if one meets the threshold to file a Thai tax return. The LTR visa category (per Royal Decree) in some cases is also treated differently for tax. This is far more nuanced than I believe many understand. Honestly, it is worthwhile for each expat to assess where their income is sourced, what are the relevant DTAs, Royal Decrees, Ministerial Directives, and tax laws. To assume all expats, who are in Thailand for > 180 days, must file a tax return, is simply contrary to Thai tax law. It is not correct. One needs to dive into the details to assess one's tax exposure (if any).

What can I say. Clearly you did not read the section 56 in the Thai tax act. I find dependent on who has done the translation, the numbers are different. Lets go to Revenue Thailand: https://www.rd.go.th/english/37749.html#section56 Is the Revenue Department Web site official enough for you?? Section 56 Every taxpayer except a minor or a person adjudged incompetent or quasi-incompetent shall, on or before the last day of March every year, file to the official appointed by the Minister a tax return reporting the assessable income received in the preceding tax year in the form prescribed by the Director-General, if such person (1) has no spouse and has the assessable income of the preceding tax year exceeds 60,000 baht, (2) has no spouse and has the assessable income of the preceding tax year under only Section 40 (1) exceeds 120,000 baht, (3) has a spouse and the assessable income of the preceding tax year exceeds 120,000 baht, or (4) has a spouse and the assessable income of the preceding tax year under only Section 40 (1) exceeds 220,000 baht. There you have it. You are required to file IF the assessable income exceeds those thresholds. The thresholds are clearly laid out for you. But again, I suggest you do not believe me. And I recommend you do not believe that Revenue Thailand link (yet). Dig around some more and maybe double check on what you exactly told those RD officials. Again, i suspect the Revenue Office's director himself and the chief of the department misunderstood you.