Jump to content


Advanced Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Contact Methods

  • Line
  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

22,218 profile views

JimGant's Achievements

Platinum Member

Platinum Member (9/14)

  • Very Popular Rare
  • 5 Reactions Given
  • Conversation Starter
  • First Post
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges



  1. Why not? A discussion of possible workarounds is certainly germane to this subject. Yes, if the workaround would definitely be illegal -- then, yes, disallow. Possibly illegal? Allow discussion, with caveat of potential illegality. I guess the one workaround you will allow is: Leave the country.
  2. A gift tax is what's paid on gifts in excess of 20k to family, 10k to non family. What we're dancing around here is, whether or not a gift makes an otherwise remittance of assessable income -- no longer assessable, and thus now tax free. Sound too good to be true? You bet. That's why I think the following from the Personal Income Tax guide still applies:
  3. Correct. But he asked about sticking a credit card into the ATM machine. So it would be a loan, using a CC for a cash advance.
  4. Sure. That would be a "cash advance," which is a fancy term for a loan. And since a loan is not income, such monies when remitted to Thailand, either by a SWIFT wire or by an ATM machine -- are not subject to Thai taxation.
  5. Yeah, that extended payment option is called a loan. And there's no need to further discuss why remitted loans to Thailand are NOT assessable income.
  6. Only in the odd ball situation of a "non domiciled UK resident," who "opts"to be taxed on his remittances. The other 95% of Brits are not taxed on their remittances, and thus credit card charges are loans, not remitted payments. Where Thailand might head is a good question. But wherever that is, no foreigner is going to declare credit card charges, or even debit card charges, as remitted, assessable income. Thailand's cost/benefit analysis will certainly show it ain't worth it to pursue such charges as assessable income. Even Forest Gump would come to this conclusion.
  7. Mike, you've lost your compass. Yes, a bank making a foreign payment of your debit card charge has the appearance of a remitted income, as the account is instantly reduced by the amount of the charge (I say appearance, because your bank account may be full of savings, not income). But a credit charge does not reduce your bank account balance by the amount of the charge (duh), because, of course, it's a loan -- paid back in full 30 days later, or 2 years later, if you make minimum payments and pay interest. There's is no remitted cash flow from your bank account, that can be construed as remitted income. The payment for your hamburger is the banks money, not yours. Yes, the UK has a remittance income system, somewhat bizarre, where a non resident is considered a resident (kind of a transgender-like tax situation), where they've then transformed credit card charges into debit-like charges, meaning, we'll treat your money as being remitted, not the bank's. That Thailand will follow this system, will remain to be seen (actually, they could have followed it the last 30 years, as this would have been a prima facie case of same year income, being remitted same year, thus taxable. But, good sense -- and history -- says, RD will never look at credit card charges as other than what they are -- loans. Just like a loan for condo remitted to Thailand.
  8. Yeah, a little convoluted. Point was, a loan for a condo, remitted to Thailand, is non assessable. A loan from a credit card company, to buy a hamburger, is also a non assessable loan. Unless, per HMRC (as you point out), you don't live in the UK, but you're a resident of the UK (obviously a legal distinction) -- and you choose to be taxed on the remittance basis. Then, a credit card purchase is treated the same as a debit card purchase -- thus, no loan factor: As far as I can find, this non dom example for UK types is the only example that Thailand could follow for how to treat certain remittances. This, if memory serves, would also bring in LIFO for commingled funds. So, I guess we'll have to wait and see if Thailand wants to use an example of a 'resident who doesn't reside' as their best example to follow.
  9. Does that go for condo purchases also? -- can't quite see any taxable event going on here. Of course they're not assessable, since they're not remitted to Thailand. And don't say a loan is actually a surrogate income remittance -- 'cause that's too much of a stretch. That certainly wouldn't fly for a loan to buy a condo -- and also a hamburger. Obviously you didn't make that up. Could you give us a source, please? When's the last time your credit card bank forgave your debt? But irrelevant, as the cash flow into Thailand is what we're concerned with -- and whether or not it's a loan, or a gift, doesn't make it remitted income.
  10. Indeed. If I buy a BigMac, and charge it to my credit card, this is the bank's money paying for my lunch. Same as if I borrowed money from my bank to buy a condo in Thailand. The money actually being remitted into Thailand is certainly not income -- it's a loan, with how it's to be paid back stipulated in the contract -- whether we're talking hamburgers or condos. For my credit card, once a month my bank debits my checking account to pay off the credit card bill. Money moves from one side of my bank to the other. It's not a cash flow with any income aspects to the IRS -- and certainly no income aspect to Thailand. I don't see any grey area the somehow could make credit card charges some kind of remitted income...
  11. 1099's come out in Jan-Feb. Presumably, they'll show the up front withholding taxes you've paid. Or, an estimated tax form, if you paid estimated taxes to EFTPS. These forms will reflect that most of your taxes have been prepaid, as you are required to prepay a large percentage of what becomes your final tax bill, as then reflected on your 1040 filing. I solely used 1099's to get my LTR visa, since the 1040 was joint, and thus the numbers weren't delineated between me and the wife.
  12. Excellent point. For example, per the US-Thai DTA -- if I remit a private pension to Thailand, Thailand gets first taxation rights and the US secondary taxation rights (under the saving clause). As such, Thailand keeps all the taxes collected, and the US absorbs a tax credit for those Thai taxes. Pretty important point, if a country is concerned about getting all the taxes it's entitled to under the DTA. As such, this from the 'Intro to personal income tax....' is misleading: In my US example, private pensions taxed in the US *would* be subject to Thai taxation -- as the DTA is currently written. As such, Thailand, having primary taxation authority on this private pension, could tax this income over again after the US has taxed it. But in this case, it's not Thailand absorbing a US tax credit -- it's the US absorbing the credit, and losing in tax collection the amount of taxes paid to Thailand. Thailand gets to keep the whole enchilada. Now we've heard rumblings that Thailand will not bother to tax foreign income, as long as it's been taxed in the home country. If so, this is a real lazy approach that, yeah, avoids having to deal with tax returns of foreigners. But also gyps Thailand out of revenue allowed by DTA. Thailand can do this without violating the DTA, since the OECD has dictated that domestic laws that change a DTA are allowed -- as long as they don't materially affect the intent of the DTA. And in this case, protection against double taxation is not affected. But, will Thailand really want to cheat themselves out of money they're entitled to? Stay tuned, I guess.
  13. I imagine most are just waiting for further guidance. Or, if a Yank, nothing will change for them in total taxes paid, albeit Thailand may now finally get some US money in their tax coffers, but the US taxpayer will receive an equal credit against their US tax bill. This, of course, is what Thailand is hoping to see with their new policy -- finally using DTAs to their advantage to collect what the DTA says is their prerogative. It's just so interesting, as a Yank always having to pay full-fare in taxes, to see all the hand wringers out there faced with finally to have to pay someone -- home country or Thailand -- taxes. Welcome to the new OECD world of: we're doing our best to eliminate: "no no taxes."
  • Create New...