JimGant

We're talking about the fine for filing a nil tax return, by having no taxable income, but being over the 120/220k threshold for assessable income. Fines for evading taxes is a whole another matter, about which this discussion doesn't involve.

Probably the best post of all, in this meandering thread.

MPG -- very reputable -- has already responded. But, who cares what you accept. I'll be happy that you continue to waste your time, and TRD's, by filing nil tax returns.

Gotcha, mate. You and I need to have a beer or two...

Haven't the foggiest what you're talking about..... Grumpy said assessable levels exceeded, but hadn't reached taxable income level. Thus, no requirement to file -- as verified by MPG. So, what does the "well over" (or 5 baht over) have to do with the requirement to file ?

Yes, they can quote the law very nicely. That the law is stupid, has never been enforced (no reports), and if somehow ever enforced -- chance near zip -- the repercussions would be extremely minor. That another powerful firm, like MPG, says, hey, the law is ridiculous, just file if you owe taxes. That's my kind of full service firm. But, even without their hand holding -- to go thru the process of filing a nil return, getting a TIN, and now becoming wedded to the tax data base -- would make the non filing decision a no brainer. Mike, your regard for the law is, well, admirable (?). But your tax advice xxxxs (not a personal attack!! please, mods -- just an observation)

And advice came from a large firm -- MPG-- if I read between the lines correctly. A very upstanding firm, dealing with many financial areas; thus they have no reason to solely rely on tax customers for their income, and thus no reason to treat their tax customers as suckers. So, their straight skinny: Never seen enforcement of a nonsensical law about having to file if assessable income exceeds 120k. Thus, common sense says -- only have to file if you have taxable income. Grumpy, thanks for your research. I'd only file if I had taxable income, as that's just common sense. But nice to see a professional backup to that decision.

Then, don't get one. Move on with your life, and quit whining on this thread. Not exactly sure of why such a big decision -- either a LTR visa, or you move out of Thailand? Obviously, if you plan to stay in Thailand, and you qualify for the LTR visa -- get one. The probability is huge that the LTR tax exemption will survive any scenario. But, if not -- and you had planned to live in Thailand indefinitely -- you're then just another peon, with a Non Imm O visa. Is that not survivable? Anyway, maybe you should take a course in probability analysis..

Darn. And here I thought my $80,000 Air Force retirement and Social Security were non assessable per the DTA. Nice that a smart, young fella like yourself put me straight. Many thanks. (Now, let me run this thru my semantics checker before I push the button.)

Probably so. I doubt Thailand would, if it had primary taxation rights, allow a Yank to say: 'Sorry, buddy, but this money has already been taxed by the US, so it is no longer income.'

Not sure what tax thread to throw this into. But, this seems as good as any. Anyway, we know that "savings" remitted to Thailand is not assessable income -- and thus not taxable. In fact, by definition, it's not even income, but savings. So, it would seem that, prior to being remitted to Thailand, income, if possible, needs to be converted to savings, if we want to avoid Thai taxes. But how? Certainly all those monies in my savings account were, at one time "income." When did they magically become savings? Best guess is when taxes were paid on them. And in, my case, all my income has taxes 'withheld at source." And, I've upped this withholding rate to more than cover what the final taxes would be, when I file my US tax return the following calendar year. Thus, my income is free of all taxes -- and I would guess -- it's now considered "savings." And all this "after tax" income -- now savings -- plops into my savings account, from which I suck out my Wise transfers. So, I would treat this as a non assessable income remittance to Thailand. As such, it's not reported on a Thai tax return. And for me, at least, I wouldn't be anywhere near having any taxable income -- and would not bother getting a TIN, or filing a tax return. In the remote situation where I'd be called in to TRD for a chat -- I certainly could explain that what I remitted were savings, not income. If you think about it -- the old rules, where income remitted to Thailand the year after it was earned -- was exempt for taxes -- could be, because in the "year after," it had morphed into non taxable savings. Hmmm.

I thought tax forms wanted only assessable income entered? Savings are NOT assessable income -- so why would you enter it -- and check "Savings" as source of funds?

And this, for filing a tax return with no taxable income, because the law says you must if you have over 120k in assessable income? Come on, folks. Even half (8.5k) is no "great bargain." I guess a sucker is born every minute -- and blood sucking companies will latch unto them. Hopefully, from what you've gleaned from this thread, if you didn't file a nil tax return, the chance of being found out, and fined 2000 baht, is zip, based on no positive reports that we know of. But, hey, if so -- what's 2k vs 17k (or 8.5k). Or -- heavens! -- possible 10 years of back audits of all your non assessable remitted income. Why would TRD waste scarce resources looking for nil tax return violators -- when the big money is using those resources to investigate tax evasion? Anyway, if anyone pays a tax firm to do a nil tax return, could you report back here as to whether or not you heard a chuckle as you left the office.......

Could you name that company? I'd like to present them the 'fiduciary of the year' award.

Right. Be firm. That's why my posts are so adamant about: Don't just listen to Mike Lister's monotonous dialogue about having to file a tax return, 'cause you have X amount of assessable income, and because it's the law. Use your head; evaluate other poster's inputs on "no reports of any enforcement." Or, if ever enforced, what damage could be done. But relatedly, yes, if you can file online in 10 minutes, maybe you should (but, again, now you'll be in the TRD tax filer data base -- which makes you a bigger target than if you weren't in the data base). Or, worst case, spend a day, hunt for parking, and pay 10000 baht -- to one of these tax preparers whose only interest is their own, not yours (go back and read about fiduciaries). Anyway, inputs here, in addition to Mike Lister's, are, I believe, helpful for allowing the reader to better make a decision. Unfortunately, Mike views these inputs only as personal attacks and thread creep -- and as unhelpful. Sigh.