oldcpu

Yes - but I did not want to provide too much detail in my response in my above posts. But since you raise the point ..... Singapore/HK/Switzerland were only applicable for maybe 20% of my frozen assets (by the brokerage & bank in Canada) ... that could be transferred to them (but I did not). 80% were in what is known in Canada as a Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) [similar conceptually I think, to a US 401k] . This is a tax free account, where money is taxed only when it is withdrawn from the account. One can NOT transfer such a registered account to Singapore/HK/Switzerland without paying a massive amount of tax for the one shot transfer ... ie likely 50% tax ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT likely due to the very large amount of money involved. So another approach was needed. And I am happy that the Thai TIN I provided IS legal. The Thailand RD official said as much himself, with the caveat it was not active for online tax submission. So I passed that exact same information to the Canadian financial institutions which they were perfectly happy to accept. They were told the TIN is not yet active. That saved me paying 50% tax on a VERY large amount of money (ie saved 50% which would have been the tax if the money in the RRSP were to be pulled out of the RRSP in one tax year and sent abroad).

I am probably an outlier in my view here - so I expect many confused/sad/laughing icons as a result. I agree that the Thai authorities don't worry that some affluent foreigners will be lost. The Thai tax authorities are intent on going after the affluent Thai (who have managed their assets to minimize tax) and if they impact foreigners (who live here in Thailand as well) then so be it - they are just going to treat foreigners the same in this case as they will attempt to treat the affluent Thai. And in parallel, they have programs such as the LTR visa, which BoI advertise as tax exempt for foreign income - intended to attract the affluent foreigners. Of course, this begs the question - how long will the LTR visa tax exemption for foreign income last ? But at least here they have a way to keep those the foreigners that they vedit/prove are wealthy to their criteria. So I don't see this as arrogance at all. Nor ignorance. They are trying to do their job to earn revenue for the country that it can then spend on the citizens/infrastructure/services. Many western countries, for residents, tax global income. Thailand is not there (yet) although clearly some senior people in the Thai RD would like to tax global income. Further, some western countries even try to tax non-residents to their country for global income. Case in point: Practically every second year I receive an official postal mail from Revenue Canada offering to treat me as a Canadian tax resident (even thou I reside in Thailand) as by doing so I could take advantage of more Canadian resident tax deductions. But by doing so, I would also have to pay tax to Canada on all my global income - which would cost me a LOT more money. Is the Canadian Revenue department being arrogant and ignorant? No - they are simply hoping I will be (ignorant) so that they can get more tax money from me - by taxing my global income, when I don't reside in Canada (but I reside in Thailand). I am thankful that Thailand, has what I consider more favourable (to myself) tax rules than Canada, and some other countries that I won't mention. I concede that, what should I say, 'the golden years' in Thailand re: taxation management may be starting to fade away ... but the affluent foreigner will likely find ways around such while still staying in Thailand,... possibly via LTR visa, or possibly by staying for only 179 days per year in Thailand, but ways will be found.

Its the best number I could provide. Clearly. The Phuket RD offiical himself stated it would be the tax ID # once activated (for online tax returns). That is 'straight from the horses mouth' as the saying goes. Further, I advised both the foreign bank and foreign brokerage, that the number would be the tax ID but it was not yet activated. That is the 100% truth. And they were happy with that. So you say its shaky? Why ? And what for me was the alternative? If I did not provide a tax ID, I would have been forced to close a substantial foreign account (or have it frozen) and in another case not open a foreign account (with a substantial amount). By my proceeding, I was able to trade on my new brokerage account resulting in a substantial financial return. Not as much as I would have liked (as my trading was frozen for over 1/2 year) but still by my books, substantial. All I did was tell truth and follow up with what was told me by a Thailand RD official, and provide the foreign banks that exact same information. A potential tax-ID that was not yet active - which they accepted. The alternative would have been to close my accounts with a massive amount in cash, not insured as it greatly exceeded the amount countries will insure in bank accounts. That IMHO was FAR FAR FAR more shaky (shaky because not having such cash funds 100% insured ) as compared to structured in more appropriate assets. I guess as the saying goes " you pays your money and you takes your chances". I think my passing on the truth was the best course of action (ie a likely tax-ID that was not yet activated). The approach to NOT provide such as a potential (yet to be activated) tax-ID is IMHO FAR FAR more shaky (shaky as without providing the tax-ID I would have had very large uninsured amounts in cash). .

Perhaps this is location/province specific? I applied online - which goes to Bangkok. Bangkok passed it to Phuket. Phuket RD phoned, and when advised of my details (myself an expat resident who stays > 180 days in Thailand , whose income is from outside of Thailand, and who is NOT bringing that money into Thailand as of 31-Dec-2023), they stated I did not need a tax-ID, nor need to file a tax return, and they would not active (for an online tax submission) my pink-ID # - even though they also noted nominally my pink-ID# would nominally be used for my Thai tax ID. Whether my pink-ID # would work for a snail mail (or hand delivered) tax return - I do not know. I do not plan to put that to the test for the near future. IF and when I start bringing money back into Thailand , I might then try the tax return hand delivered method (note also I am on an LTR visa - however the Phuket RD tax official NEVER HEARD of such - so that is not part of this discussion). NOR do I plan to pound on the Phuket RD tax officials desk and tell him is wrong. Its against my policy to cause RD officials to lose face if such can be avoided. THAT IS THE OPPOSITE of what happened to you. What can I say other than This Is Thailand.

Hopefully a tax clearance certificate will not be required for annual extensions. I do believe the tax clearance certificate requirement is still on the books (it was once required for exit out of Thailand if one had certain visas), but its enforcement was dropped over a decade ago (maybe dropped much longer ago than that). so I suppose it could be brought back again if a very strong desire was to do so. BUT I don't think it is all straight forward ... If one already has a LOT of savings in Thailand, one could easily go for years and never bring money into the country, and if retired never 'qualify' for a Thai tax ID (an example of this is myself BEFORE when I had a Type-O/OA visa). Ergo in that case, one who does not have a tax-ID would not nominally qualify for a tax certificate. Or would they? Further, a tax certificate would thou create a bit more work for immigration to have to collect the certificates, and possibly even spend time confirming such certificate is valid via contact with the RD who presumably would issue the certificate. I suspect immigration (and possibly the RD who have to issue the certificates ?? ) may not want that extra work ... so lets hope that does not come to pass.

You should be fine. As I understand it, the pink ID number is your tax filing number. It only needs activation for use with the online filing system, paper returns don't require activation. I note I also used the yellow-book/pink-ID # to buy Thai government bonds via Bangkok Bank (where I believe such then goes to the Bank of Thailand). Bangkok Bank staff entered that number into the computer application system to obtain the bonds, and I successfully purchased 2-million THB of Thai government bonds. That was almost 2 years ago - and I have had no problems with the Bank of Thailand. They regularly postal mail me the status of the bonds. When I take the Bond book to Bangkok Bank, they regularly update the Bond book. No one has complained about my using a 'tax-ID' number for Thai government bond purchase that is not activated yet for online use in filing a on-line tax return. And back to the point - I do try to be fully legal, and I think if one was advised by a Thai RD official that (even thou one is a resident of Thailand) that one does not yet qualify for a Thai tax ID, but that when one does, the pink-ID# / yellow book # can then be used as the Tax ID, then, it is perfectly acceptable to provide such # to a foreign bank/broker, with the noted caveat that it may not yet be active.

As noted to you Thai "Tax residency is based on the number of days per year, it resets every year on 1 January. " For other countries than Thailand, it really depends on the country. I know for Canada (and I believe for Germany) one does have to be precise in the connections to those countries that one severs (and does not reconnect) to ensure non-residency is maintained. Its important IMHO that one follows the law in such cases - ie ... important that one has good legal financial taxation management.

Agreed, ... and 161 and 162 gave some good guidelines on what to do in the remaining months of year 2023 - which my wife and I made full advantage of, bringing a LOT of savings from outside of Thailand, into Thailand before the end of the calendar year 2023. As I noted, 161 and 162 have provided some additional guidelines for one to follow in managing one's finances. I guess my 'quibble' is that they are not law (ergo not in stone) but rather they are the current not challenged RD interpretation.

I don't have a fear there. There is no written law that one MUST pay tax everywhere. Rather individual countries have taxation laws that one MUST abide by - and I fully agree with following the laws. I 100% agree with abiding by tax laws. CRS would IMHO only help a government go after someone who is illegally not paying taxes they legally should pay. But legally managing one's finances to reduce ones tax exposure breaks no laws. In my case of using the Yellow-book/Pink-ID # as a tax ID number for a foreign bank & foreign broker: (1)I first applied for a tax-ID and was refused (2) I also obtained confirmation from Thai RD that the pink-ID/yellow book could be used as a tax ID (but that it needed to be activated - which the Thai RD official would not do as I did not meet his criteria for the activation), and (3) when I passed the pink-ID/yellow-book # to the foreign (non-Thai) broker/bank, I made it clear that the number was not yet active (in accordance with what the Thai RD official told me). The foreign bank/broker could have refused my providing a not active tax-ID number, but they decided to accept such. And it is a legitimate number. I have NO worries about it being traced back to me. Maybe if it is, then the Thai RD will activate the number - which they would NOT do when I asked them to do so. I think if one follows the law, one need not worry about CRS.

yes true ... 161 and 162 are departmental instructions and orders, they are NOT law, but the are the REVENUE DEPARTMENTS interpretation - they are not the Thai courts interpretation. And yes true - no one as of yet wants to challenge the Revenue Department in a court. I know for 100% certain I would not challenge them. Rather, I use 161 and 162 as part of the guidelines in helping me to structure my finances.

Its a good solution if you are compliant with Thai law. The Thailand RD official (Phuket office) specifically advised me that if I was NOT bringing any foreign money into Thailand, that I had no need for a tax ID, I had no need to file a Thai tax return. So you are saying they are going to fine me for what reason?? I am most interested to learn - as I try 100% to be legally compliant. Now Yes - I AGREE 100% that one should not try to avoid taxes if one is required to pay taxes ... but there are clear legal scenarios where one does NOT have a tax residency and yet one needs to provide a tax ID to a bank or broker. So I TOTALLY disagree with you. This CAN be a good solution - but do be aware of the laws of the states where one is obtaining their income from, and be compliant with such.

Por 161 and 162, are both set in stone. With respect - they are not law. One translation (of 161 and 162) is they are "Departmental Instruction" or "Departmental Orders". Some youtube bloggers (of which I place NO Faith) speculate they could be challenged in court. One will NOT see me challenging such. Still - I speculate (and speculate is the operative word) that the Thai RD will ultimately want the Thai law amended to incorporate these Departmental instructions/orders. But that is 'speculation' - where given the changes being talked about - that is just more speculation to add to the pile..

Yes indeed !! I encountered this - although they only asked for my "residency" (they did not ask for "tax residency") and they asked for my "tax ID". I applied for , and was refused a Thai tax ID, because I was not bringing money into Thailand at present time (I brought a bunch in PRIOR to 1-Jan-2024). But the Thai RD official advised that my Pink-ID # (same number as on my Yellow Book) could become my Thai Tax-ID ONLY after it was activated (and the Thai RD official saw no need to activate). So for the bank and trading accounts that demanded my residency I gave "Thailand" and for my Tax-ID I gave them my "Pink-ID" number with the truthful caveat that it had not yet been activated in Thailand. That was accepted by them. I don't want to start a Yellow book/Pink-ID debate, but for any might who encounter this problem where a Thai Tax ID is demanded from a foreign bank or trading account, perhaps the approach I adopted might work for such.

Thanks. Interesting article. While in German language, one can easily translate with Google translate or DeepL translation. Article suggests (to avoid being considered a German tax resident) a. do NOT own an apartment in Germany that one uses regularly b. do NOT work in Germany Those appear to be somewhat obvious to me. One can visit friends/family for birthdays, weddings, Christmas,or just for fun - and use a guest room for up to 30 days without any risk. ... 30 days is a bit short ... When I go to Europe (from Thailand) I like to go for at least 2 months. But typically I only spend a few weeks in Germany in any given stretch during such European travel - and I will visit Ireland, or Scotland, or England, or France, or Spain during the 2 months (only the majority of my time traveling will be in Germany). I found it interesting to read that in Germany the left-greens have been calling for a tax liability based on citizenship in Germany for years, similar to the USA, but it is unlikely in the short term because it violates EU law. Shocking (that the left-greens push for such) ! And such violates EU law ?? I was not aware of any such EU law. Interesting ! I liked the confirmation that one does NOT have to close all of one's accounts and contracts in Germany to be a non-resident (that confirms what I have been doing is legal - which I thought it was). I thought the recommendation to avoid being active on the board and other activities (of German organisations) useful to know (to avoid being considered a German resident). I have been asked to be a remote member on the board of a volunteer organization in Germany, which I turned down as my being retired I did not want to work any more (but I still feeling guilty for turning this down ) and I see now I may have avoided a tax pitfall. I also use a friend's address in Germany for a (limited) financial purpose, and I read that is legal. It also notes the misconception that if there is no residence, that citizenship makes one liable to tax. That confirms my understanding from the Thai-German DTA. Overall - for me - an interesting read.

Again, you had me curious, ... looking at German-Thailand DTA, Article 4: That para-1 is key and it decides residency (ie the laws of the individual states). Para-2 is a 'tie-breaker'. Now again, for Germany/Thaliand, if para-1 indicates one meets the criteria of being a resident of BOTH countries, the case is determined by the details of para-2, and it goes on to note 'permanent home' being a reason, and 'nationality' be a (tie breaking (my words)) reason for deciding whether a resident of Thailand or of Germany. But AGAIN, the sub clauses to para-2 are only applicable if "by reason of paragraph-1 an individual is a resident of both Contracting states". So paragraph-1 is KEY. If one is NOT a resident per para-1, then para-2 (which has 'nationality' as a potential criteria) is not applicable.

I can't speak for other countries - but for Canada, because I have Canadian investments and pension (and old age security) income, I have to file a tax return to Canada every year. I have not been a resident in Canada since 1999 (and I have a letter from Revenue Canada confirming I am NOT considered a Canadian resident), but once my Canadian income reached a certain point, Revenue Canada still wanted (and still gets) an income tax return from me.

Yes, but one must 1st be considered to be a resident of both states - and meet the residency requirement. In Thailand it is the 180 day number. I don't know what it is in the other state, but possibly a permanent home. If one does not meet the residency requirement of both contracting states, the residency does NOT revert to citizenship from what I read in what you quoted.

Re DTAs - you had me curious. So (mostly for hypothetical curiousity in my case) I took a look at the Thai-Canadian DTA: Looking at Canada-Thailand DTA, Article IV: Para-2 applies to someone who is a resident of BOTH contracting states. THAT LEADIN is VERY IMPORTANT. For what if one meets neither residency criteria of para-1? As noted, I already have a letter from Revenue Canada noting I am not a Canadian tax resident. Further, Thailand now defines a tax residence as to being someone who spend 180 days or more in Thailand. Para-2(c) of Canada/Thai DTA does state However that QUOTE Above is from Article IV, para-2(c) the lead in to para-2 is clear that para applies to apply to a person who is already a resident given the criteria for both contracting states - and this is needed to decide of which state one is a resident. It does NOT state one MUST be a resident of either country. IMHO , in the case of Thailand/Canada, just because one is a citizen, does not mean para-2(c) applies. I do plan to be a Thai resident - but its always useful to know the possibilities when reviewing one's plans.

I confess I had never heard of tax residency 'reverting' due to citizenship ... [and of course in case of USA citizenship, one is always liable to tax due to citizenship and not residency] I had always (possibly mistakenly) believed that in addition to permanent assets in a country that residency continuity is a factor. I have Canadian citizenship. After my moving from Canadian residency to German residency (before year 2000), I obtained a letter from Revenue Canada noting I am no longer a Canadian resident. Since then I have NOT increased my 'ties' to Canada. I now reside in Thailand (since 2019) and Germany no longer considers me a resident of Germany (and I have a letter from Germany noting such). While I currently spend > 180days/year in Thailand, I suspect if I were to spend (say 179 days in Thailand), and 60-days in Canada, 60-days in NewZealand/Australia, and 61-days in Europe), as long as I did not set down any big 'roots' in any of those countries, I don't think any of those countries would consider me a 'tax resident'. Possibly, as pointed out previous, the key factor is that banks in countries such as Canada and Europe wish to know one's residency for their records. To satisfy those banks, I think one could accurately and legally state Thailand is one's residence given the ~179-days present in Thailand (even if it is not a tax residence). Further, in that hypothetical case, given one is not a Thai tax residence, I don't think one's tax residency would automatically revert to either country (ie back to Canada or back to Germany). I note that 'tax residency' and 'residency' may not be the same thing. But I could be wrong.

I bit off topic, but I have accounts with both Bangkok Bank and Krungsri bank. I like Bangkok bank for transferring funds into Thailand (where for large amounts it is much easier to transfer large amounts of money into Bangkok bank than into Krungrsi Bank). I also like Bangkok bank for easy of currency exchange if one has different foreign currency accounts with the bank. On the other hand, if one is with Krungsri bank (and on a non-immigration type-O/OA visa), Krungsri bank is typically FAR superior to Bangkok Bank for quickly providing the one-year statement and accompanying letter needed by most immigrations at visa extension time. Bangkok bank is painfully slow there. Also Krungsri bank, offers a number of perks (with less money needed in the bank than Bangkok Bank) than Bangkok bank offers for such perks. The perks are things such as free access passes to local Health Clubs, free passes to Airport Lounges, use of the bank's VIP room, etc ... One needs a lot more money in Bangkok bank to obtain such. As for bank interest - I can't provide any comparison there. Best wishes with your Bangkok Bank account. .

Thanks for the correct working link. That article appears to me to indicate some contradictions. It states: OK - we have heard the head of the RD state that before. Then the article notes ... .... it changes from a RD quote to BOI, and mixes "personal income tax" with "large multinational corporations" .... I find that VERY confusing. It then refers to "relief measures": and just what is meant by relief measure? Further it states: Correct me if I am wrong, .... but promising to tax more typically is NOT the way to draw in foreign investment. The article reads like a mishmash written by someone who is not trying to provide a clean reporting of the news. In summary - I think a very poorly written article.

This is true - typically thou with a non-immigrant visa (type-O/OA) with a 1-year extension, most banks will allow one to open a bank account. I know in my case in Phuket (with Krungsri bank) having a non-immigrant visa only AFTER I produced my yellow-book + pink-ID, would they then allow me to open an account (over a year ago). They were motivated thou to open the account, as I was about to transfer a somewhat large amount of money into their bank. When the 10-year LTR visa came account, the banks had not yet heard of that, and I was told (by the bank manager of a Krungsri branch in Phuket) that both their branch and the branch of another bank (SCB ? ) in the same shopping mall were not allowed to open accounts for LTR visa holders due to central branch policy. However that all changed within a couple of weeks after a new policy came down. I sometimes think these policies tend to be dynamic - and might reflect the current central bank branch considerations in regard to their finances - where from our perspective as expats - those policies often don't appear to make sense.

Thanks for your post - but I am a bit confused. Was it TTB bank that forced you to withdraw the remaining 50% and close the account? or was it your new Bangkok Bank account?

As noted - there are already a number of threads on this. and honestly, IMHO, it is still confusing. The Thailand RD issued a Revenue Department Instruction (Por 161/2566) which in essence stated anyone deemed a Thai tax resident and having assessable income from outside of Thailand would have that such income taxed by Thailand in the year when the income was brought into Thailand from 1-Jan-2024 onwards. That was subsequently clarified further in a Revenue Department order (P. 162/2023) that the assessable income arising BEFORE 1-Jan-2024 is not covered by Por 161/2566 (ie savings/income from outside of Thailand before 31-Dec-2023 is not taxable in Thailand). Some purported financial experts noted these are Revenue department instructions and orders, and not law - and they suspect such could be challenged in court. I would not try challenging such myself, but you asked about law, and to the best of my knowledge those department instructions/orders are not in themselves law. Now the head (and senior managers ) in the Thai Revenue Department (RD) have been publicly quoted as stating they want to expand the tax envelope of Thailand even if the income is not brought into Thailand, so to tax all global income of anyone resident in Thailand for >180 days in a taxation year. This is not law, but the senior managers in the RD note they want to do such. There may also be Thai law (or Thai RD instructions/orders - I don't know which) that specify at what point one must apply for a Thai tax ID and file a Thai tax return. Such information is scattered in the noted threads. Given the instructions/orders are not law, ... given there may be exceptions (such as selected LTR visa categories), and given Thai RD wants to increase the taxation envelope further, I think it fair to say there is a degree of uncertainty here. Some of us hope there will be more clarity this month when the Thai year-2024 blank tax forms are available for filling in (which I believe typically happens in November each taxation year) - but I don't hold an answer here. Likely you can get a far better answer than what I can provide, if you dig through the many threads - but I warn you - its "heavy going" (at least it has been for me).

My understanding is if you teach English in Thailand and earn a salary in Thailand from such teaching then you will have to pay tax on Thai derived income even if you stay less than 180 days in Thailand in a taxation year ( which I believe means file a Thai tax return).