JimGant

Yes, no change for you. I'm in the same situation, use Wise to do an ACH pull from my US bank and send it on to Thailand. Switched to Wise when the ACH transfer mechanism thru Bangkok Bank New York closed down. Keep it simple with Wise, and you shouldn't get runover.

More bloodshed has been caused by organized religions -- Christianity even worse than Islam. If there is a god, he/she/it has a weird sense of humor. I guess separation of church and state is just another element of the Constitution gone by the wayside under Trump.

There's always the chance that someone in a branch office doesn't agree with -- or has never heard of -- the party line. Nevertheless, these BoI slides certainly give you the credence to not file a tax return, and not go out and get a TIN -- and not worry about being audited.

Yes, this has been suggested by some Thai tax prep companies. Filtering thru an offshore bank account would have income converting to a gift - pre arrival in Thailand. Thus, remitted monies would have the same non taxability as a remitted bank loan. Problem -- giftee not having a foreign bank account.

Bingo. There's enough uncertainty on this subject that one should give himself the benefit of the doubt, gather up all the postings in favor of gift remittance exemptions, then don't declare on a tax return and await the less than 1% chance of an audit.

Then those receipts are value/income paid to you while in Thailand and thus subject to income tax. Absurd, yes. But if that gift to your wife had subsequent value to you -- then, yes, there's an income element here -- either at the remitted end, or when subsequent value is realized.

Thai gift tax came about in 2015 to cover the same loop hole the US saw a long time ago, whereby fat cats were gifting their estate assets (upon which income tax had already been paid) to avoid estate/inheritance tax. The US now treats gifts as subtractions from estate value, and taxes accordingly, meaning you can't gift away your estate free of estate tax. This is nearly the Thai model, whereby a gift of over 10M/20M baht is taxable by the recipient (but in the US, it is taxable by the donor/estate). Thus, fat cat Thais can't avoid inheritance tax by gifting away their estate (or at least their gift recipients can't), whose value already includes any income taxes paid on value added to the estate. The 2015 gift tax law assumed gifts were all from after income tax assets in one's estate. Thus, that assessable income money you remit to Thailand -- only becomes part of your taxable estate after net of income tax. Thai gift tax is completely divorced from tax rules on remitted assessable income.

Does the Land Office know when land owners die? If so, how are they notified? If not, why couldn't I just pretend she's still alive - and continue to live in our house, which is on one of her properties, which has a 30-year lease on it. Her Will gives me all her real estate, and we have the understanding I'll have our nephew take ownership of it for one satang. But, he lives in Bangkok (we're in CM), is quite busy, and there may be complications with getting him up here signing over ten Chanotes within that designated one year window. Obviously, if I only have one year to sell this property, I'll get this nephew up here, or another relative, as I want to keep the property in the family, and don't need any sales proceeds to sustain me. But, a little more wiggle room would be nice. And if the Land Office didn't know of her death, I'd have that option. Any firsthand info on this question -- or solid hearsay?

UK questions the legality of the airstrikes? To what end? It's a fait accompli. Saying "knock it off you guys, it's illegal" makes the UK sound ridiculous in the midst of a very serious situation.

Amen. What a bunch of BS. So, TRD sees you have a large amount of remittances, thus wonders why you haven't filed a tax return. ExPatThai says, pay us 10,000 baht (plus 5,000 for a TIN), and we'll file a null tax return, with "LTR Visa Holder" in the remarks section (wherever that is). But, if TRD can see I've been here over 180 days, and thus a candidate for a summons -- they can also see my visa type. So, chance of a summons is nil. But, if my large remittances do call attention to TRD, and I'm summoned -- thus I have to waste a couple of hours and go show them my LTR visa. Thank you very much. Adios. Or, waste several hours, 15,000 baht, and go visit ExPatThai. And then still get called into TRD, because their database has no way to tabulate information from a non existent "remarks" field on a Thai tax return. In any event, ExPatThai's advice in this matter has relegated them to the "snake oil salesman" category.

Anyone? Yes, no need for the Amphur to prepare the Will, which, having to be in Thai, would make for a long day, especially since they require specific details about your estate. You, on the other hand, can self prepare, and skip the specific details, instead saying "I leave everything to my wife." Etc. And the Will can be in your native tongue, unlike an Amphur prepared Will, which has to be in Thai. [But, will need to have a certified translation to Thai after it's popped from the envelope after your death -- and before probate.] But no need to involve an Amphur, in any aspect of a Will. In the old days, Amphur wills were for the poor, with the Amphur helping in its preparation for a few satang; then upon death, these Wills were self-probating. No longer, as lawyer mafia was losing probate fees, so they put an end to this. And, it's a myth that Wills have to be certified by an Amphur, if you, not a lawyer, prepare the Will. So, no real advantage to storing your Will in the Amphur -- or even paying a visit. Just get a good template, prepare the Will yourself, and follow a few common sense rules, like making sure witnesses are adults and sane. Thai Civil Code on Wills is not demanding, so with a good template, you ain't gonna screw it up. No need even to have a Thai version of the Will, at least at inception -- only before probate (if you even get that far, as if you only have bank accounts, there are ways to circumvent probate).

Actually, SAVE is not mainly about having a picture ID when you vote in person -- it's about finally making sure that the law about being a citizen to register to vote -- is finally solidified. For a comprehensive, and balanced, view of this subject, read here: https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/five-things-to-know-about-the-save-act/ One of the takeaways in this article is that, too many citizens can't prove their citizenship via birth certificates or passports. Thus, the article suggests "back end verification," whereby the govt uses their data to verify citizenship status -- and should be included in the SAVE bill. Certainly this makes sense, since the incidence of non citizens registering to vote has been minuscule -- and the real danger is denying real citizens from registering to vote. But, having said that, making sure voter registration is restricted to citizens -- needs tightening up. [And, once registered, a plain vanilla photo ID, matching you with your registration, should not be a serious concern -- there are support groups out there who can help.] Why would Trump Inc push SAVE so vocally? Well, I'll interject this: So, those mail-in Democrats need to be squashed. Ah, SAVE to the rescue: Anyway, we know where Trump is coming from, and the two articles I reference above provide a lot of clarification. And, there's a lot of evidence that the status quo says that fraudulent voter registration, and fraudulent voting, are too small to matter. Yes, tightening up registration safeguards is a good plan for the future. Now, however, with less than a year until the mid term elections -- putting SAVE on hold seems best. What are the real dangers?: Narcissism, MAGA Republicans, and phony electors in 2028.

Indeed. Sorry ExpatThai Tax -- your suggestion to have LTR visa holders file a null tax return, with a notation in the remarks section that the filer holds an LTR visa -- for only 10,000 baht, plus extra for a TIN, and wasted time for a wasted trip -- is pure chicanery. Better that TRD has never heard of you. But -- if somehow you get called in for a chat, 'cause you've exceeded some remittance amount threshold -- then just flash your LTR visa credentials. In fairness to EPT, they do seem professional -- and they, unlike BoI, did wrestle out of TRD the info that LTR visa holders owe no tax on remitted foreign income, regardless of when earned. But, if does seem ludicrous to file a null tax return, just to alert TRD that you're an LTR visa holder---- I just wonder at their logic, if any....

Indeed. Originally, however, BoI marketed the LTR visa as tax exempting all remitted income, regardless of year earned -- to do otherwise would have weakened their sales pitch. Recently, however, they've backtracked, apparently after further discussion with TRD, or at least a particular section of TRD. That ExpatThai, however, is seemingly adamant that, after several discussions with TRD, all income remitted, regardless of year earned and year remitted - is tax exempt with a LTR visa. This is the same as BoI's original position. Sounds like they both talked to the same folks at TRD -- folks who didn't literally interpret RD743. How confident is ExpatThai on the advice they've gotten from TRD? For someone who didn't realize BoI had sold them a 'pig in a poke' -- and who remitted a lot of income in same year earned -- maybe have ExpatThai file your tax return, whereby they inform TRD that all remitted income is tax exempt per LTR (as they explain in their video). Or, just take ExpatThai's word for it, per the video, and with self assessment, don't file at all. This way TRD will never have heard of you, unlike if you pay ExpatThai 10k to file -- thus putting you on the radar screen for potential audit of your funny looking null tax return.

You're kidding, of course: Trump had no "best" candidates -- only some better than others.

Bimbo, who disguises her ignorance with arrogance. Kinda like all the "ladies" Trump has surrounded himself with.

Nope.

Wrong. Only if you withdraw more than $10k in cash is the bank (not you) supposed to report it.

That's unfortunate. The value of this forum is the discussion of counter points of view. While I certainly disagree with your assessment of the LTR visa, I do wonder about why you'd be remiss to invest $250000 in Thailand. What on the horizon worries you about Thailand? With a GDP-Debt ratio of 58%, Thailand is certainly financially sound. So too with its current account numbers. Political uncertaintly? Yeah, the term "coup" has a negative ring to it. But these bloodless coups are just Thailand's way of impeachment -- and the last of these, with Prayuth, was - in my opinion - a positive step forward. Anyway, I think the age of coups has probably ended, and Thailand can now successfully muddle forth with its strange form of politics. Anyway, before you're unfortunately chased off this forum, please explain why $250k invested in Thailand might be a problem. Maybe I'm missing something, 'cause I have well over that invested here. So, what am I missing?

RTAF taking bids now for large guage relief tubes.

An O6/Colonel retiring in 1990 with 22 years of service -- would have received, in 2025, slightly less than $84,000 in retirement income.

That table you provided inconveniently only says "foreign sourced income" remitted. It needs clarification by delineating between "assessable income" and "non assessable income." Non assessable is, of course, income exempted by DTA and Thai law, like Por 162 -- and which need not be shown on a Thai tax return, which it couldn't be anyway, as there's no place for it (there's not even a remarks section). And, if this even needs to be stated -- credits are of course non applicable to non assessable income. So, no need to worry about where to put such non applicable credits. [Credits would only apply if both countries have taxation rights, like on rental income -- but a credit has to be absorbed only by the country having secondary taxation rights. My US rental income is, per DTA, taxable (assessable) by Thailand, if remitted; but Thailand is designated secondary, and thus has to absorb a credit for the taxes paid to the US.]

Where on that tax table you provided do you see that?

Completely wrong. In fact, mechanically, it's bonkers -- 'cause there's no place to put income not subject to taxation. You do your self-assessment, determine if Por 162 and your DTA exempt certain incomes (like my US govt pension and Social Security -- absolutely and exclusively exempt from ever having to show up on a Thai tax return) -- and you then determine whether or not you have to file a tax return -- and then declaring only those assessable incomes, 'cause there's no other place to include non assessable incomes. Is your rogue Provincial RD dude actually interviewing all foreigners in his province? Or just those who filed tax returns, thus putting themselves on the radar screen? And you - where did you indicate all your remitted income, to include income you (hopefully) had determined was non assessable? [because, again, there ain't no place on the tax return for non assessable income.] Maybe someday those of us with large remittances will be called in for a chat to explain the source of those remittances. But, we're not yet at that stage. I guess, however, that this being the Orient means, the concept of 'my fiefdom, my rice bowl' exists. And here in Thailand, we knew this about Provincial Immigration offices. Now, I guess, we have an example of same same for Provincial RD offices. Sadly, it's not that easy to ignore local edicts, if you don't want to cause unsolvable problems. Sigh.

Well, if filing single, are under age 65, and are in the 10% tax bracket -- Trump's bill gave you an added $750 to your standard deduction. Thus, your taxable income is reduced by $750, with a tax savings of $75. If that's a small percentage of last year's tax bill, then, yes, I guess you could say "about the same as last year." If over age 65, married filing jointly, and in the 22% tax bracket -- you've got an additional $13,500 ($1500+$12000) in deductions from Trump's bill. If at least $13,500 is the amount you're into the 22% tax bracket, then you've got nearly $3000 ($2970) more with Trump's bill. Maybe not "massive" by some people's reckoning. But a nice hunk of change by most standards.