JimGant

There is so much BS floating around on these threads. ETT presents its position smoothly, but gets it wrong sometimes -- and not necessarily because of their interpretation of matters, but because they're ill-served by "senior lawyers from the TRD," who are talking off the cuff, and not from any established Code. I think most of us LTR-WP visa holders can rest assured that any and all remitted foreign income is tax exempt per Royal Decree 743 - regardless of what year it is remitted. We've gotten enough assurance for this from BOI, as many of us have queried them on this matter. And because it's a mainstay of BOI's selling position of LTRs -- you think they're blowing smoke for such a high positioned matter? Yeah, well, ETT online material has a lot of misrepresentations. One of the major ones, as regards LTR-WP visa holders, is ETT's claim that such holders DO need to file a tax return, listing all their non assessable (non taxable) income. But, there's no place on the form to put non assessable income -- because TRD is not interested in it. HELLO ETT! And BOI has responded to many questions on this, with: NO, YOU DON'T NEED TO FILE A TAX RETURN! Anyway, this forum at least can get folks to analyze the situation with all the various forum inputs -- and maybe just blow away tax advisory creeps like ETT.

Not quite the same as what I was responding to -- my response was from this, from Expattax: Maybe a little word salad here, but having the bank "confirm the tax residency" of the account holder is not quite the same as having the account holder "self-assess" his tax residency status. My point is that Expattax is quite often off-the-mark in their attempt to explain this new tax goulash. My first clue was when they, in their FAQ listing, advised me that I had to file a Thai tax return, even tho' my foreign remitted income was tax exempt -- because I hold a LTR-WP visa. Anyway, just advising a "heads up" on Expatthai's smoothly delivered utterances.

May be a good possibility? Immigration certainly wouldn't know on their own what your remittances were, nor their taxability (assessability). Thus, they would have to rely on TRD screening of such remittances. But, TRD can do the cost/benefit analysis of identifying everyone here over 180 days per calendar year, then having them substantiate the assessability, or not, of their remittances: the added taxes collected -- after DTA and Por 162 screening alone -- certainly wouldn't cover the cost of all the new agents needed. Nope, even TRD can figure out some things. No, there will never be a situation where you'll need to get a TRD card saying you've passed their tax screening process. Even in Thailand, logic can prevail, at least in obvious situations.

Actually, banks report "US identified individuals", not to US tax authorities, but to Thai tax authorities, who are then tasked with forwarding that info on to the US -- but only if the "US individual" had $50,000 of amalgamated bank assets at end of year -- or $75,000 at any time during the year. Oh, barf burgers. How's a bank to know if Joe Farang spent over 180 days of the tax year in Thailand? Maybe they would just assume, if Joe Farang had a TIN, that he was a Thai tax resident. But why would the bank know if he had a TIN, or not -- unless he provided a TIN to preclude that 15% withholding at source of his bank interest? And assuming that someone with a TIN is automatically a tax resident -- is bonkers. No, banks aren't in the business of identifying whether their customers are here for 180 days per calendar year, or not. Anyway, Bencrew is just quoting Expatthaitax -- who has a polished presentation, but I've found many stupid errors in their reporting, particularly in their FAQ reporting. Be that as it may -- as a Yank, I have absolutely no problem having the Thais tell Uncle Sam what my annual interest is on my amalgamated Bangkok Bank savings accounts (they're well over $50,000, so probably reported). This interest requires me to file a Schedule B atch to my 1040 -- which also has me attest to knowing about my FBAR filing requirement. I've no problem with any of this -- but where I also atch a Schedule 3 to get a tax credit for the Thai taxes on same interest. Don't know much about CRS, except they supposedly imitated a lot from FATCA. But, hey, it's all part of this new world, where now that we've solved the problem of "no double taxation" -- it's now time to address "no no taxation." I hope Bangkok Bank's new requirements don't cause us to rehash what we beat to death when KBank issued same type information requests?

Hasn't benefited the US. We just paid 1 trillion dollars a year to serve as a trip wire. Money much better spent on American priorities. Makes no never mind to me, and most Americans, whether or not Europeans have Russian as their lingua franca. And with ICBMs, America's defense problem is the same, whether or not Russia's border is in Easten Europe -- or at the Atlantic Ocean.

Well, of course. Europeans are scared. Donald plans to cut back -- hopefully, even end -- US funding of NATO. Currently, the US funds 70% of NATO -- at 967 billion dollar per year! Wow. That chunk of money could go a long way to helping US debt problems, as well as being able to better fund necessary programs to US well-being, like improving our sad education system. Easy call, really. Why waste these resources on a program that doesn't help the US, but only serves as a trip wire....? So, Europe, no wonder you're shaking. Your taxes will go up, to now fund the defense you've been getting on the US dime. Over abundant social programs may suffer. Your 30 hour work weeks, two month vacations -- may suffer. So sad. But, thanks Donald, as it's been about time. Original American colonists left Europe to get away from the malaise and frequent warfare. And the Atlantic provided a wonderful moat. World War I, unfortunately, popped that bubble, as the Democrats (Wilson) deemed it necessary to declare war -- and have 100,000 Americans die (while zero Dutch died in the combat surrounding them, as they stayed neutral. Go figure). Then, of course, because of American involvement -- and Germany not able to reach at least a draw -- we had the Treaty of Versaille, with all its baggage, leading to WWII. Anyway, Europe, we're tired of funding your defense. And Trump, while a 'bull in a china shop,' is definitely a weird dude -- I applaud all that broken china -- at your expense, not America's.

Well, let's see what happens. If the war ends -- and thousands of lives are saved, and zillions in property damage avoided, and normality returns, to some degree, to Europe -- I'd say so much for grown ups. Yeah, maybe the cost to Ukraine will be some Russian speaking territory -- but that wouldn't be any loss of loyal citizens.

Yeah, Canada, you've been able to do this, like most non-US members of NATO -- with their grandiose social programs --on the back of the US, who funds 2/3rds of NATO with nearly 1 trillion dollars annually! You, Canada, are one of the pikers:

Joe Blow retires in home country in 2025. He has a private pension, which he salts away in a savings account established in 2025. He does the same for his private pensions earned in 2026 thru 2032 -- living off of only his social security. In 2033 Joe Blow moves to Thailand, and is here most of the year and is thus a tax resident. Joe Blow wires all his 2025-2032 savings to Thailand in 2033. Sanity and common sense would dictate that Thailand has no tax claim against those salted away private pensions, even tho' the DTA says Thailand has primary taxation rights on private pensions. And, of course, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, if Thailand just taxed income, and not remitted income. Of course, the TRD MFWIC might be insane, with no common sense..... The other side of the coin..... Fat cat Thai billionaire, a tax resident of Thailand, earns zillions of dollars abroad, but never remits it to Thailand. Now, this year, 2025, he leaves Thailand for 7 months -- and remits those zillions in foreign income. Would they be taxable when bounced against this: A non-resident is, however, subject to tax only on income from sources in Thailand. Hmmm. If so, certainly give incentive to hop on your yacht and take an extended vacation.

How about the transgender who's just been told by the new administration that he/she/it can't play on the womens' soccer team?

What are you talking about? Certainly not the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has been around 50 years? And, I got a 'no joy' when I tried to log into your 'taxpayer advocate' link.... Nope. The 'saving clause' found in all US DTAs allows the US to tax all income regardless of what the DTA says (with a few exceptions, like alimony). Yes, in these situations the US is secondary tax authority -- and has to reduce its tax bill with a credit for Thai taxes paid. But there is no option to "opt out" for filing and paying US taxes (if not overwhelmed by the tax credit). I hope you're not referring to the Thomas Carden scheme, where he maintains (incorrectly) that there's an exclusion in the Thai-US DTA, allowing a US citizen, who's a Thai tax resident, to not pay US taxes on his IRA cashout, remitted to Thailand?

Hey, now the US can participate in greasing palms, as Trump has ended enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I guess he understands there are many aspects to the "art of the deal."

Me neither. But having to drink my wine out of a coffee cup sucked.

You must be in the wrong thread. The tax advantage of an LTR visa means never having to prove you weren't here less than 180 days.

True, as long as that deduction is against taxes paid on the same income. Thus, if Thailand charges taxes against your remitted Roth IRA, you couldn't take a tax a deduction against your US taxes -- since there are no US taxes on your Roth. However, if I had remitted Roth income to Thailand in 2024 (or later), Thailand wouldn't tax my Roth, 'cause I wouldn't have even declared it on a tax return, using Por 162 to show my Roth was pre 2024 income -- and thus non assessable.