JimGant

Por 555 says: No can find local tax office, no have to pay tax.

Is that Thomas Carden? If so, stand by for a deluge on his lack of bonafides.

US Social Security is only taxable by the US - in all situations. A govt pension, however, can be taxable by Thailand -- if the recipient is both a resident and a citizen (solely) of Thailand. So your Thai wife, who lives in Thailand, is never taxable by Thailand on her survivor Social Security (or her own Social Security). However, if she's getting a survivor benefit from your govt pension -- and is a tax resident of Thailand -- she would be subject to Thai taxes on this survivor govt pension UNLESS she's a dual US-Thai citizen.

Maybe because this is a thread about Wise transfers -- and you jumped in with the SWIFT 8 digit system, or whatever. I thought this might be a nice time to point out that Wise, if you use, for example, USD vs Thai baht as your sending currency -- Wise will send it SWIFT. It's actually a good point worth noting, as you can inadvertently push the wrong send button, if you've set up a USD route to Thailand with Wise. I assumed, since this was a Wise thread, and you began talking about SWIFT transfers -- that you had inadvertently sent through Wise, a SWIFT wire transfer. Not sure why you mentioned SWIFT in a Wise thread? But, don't really care.

Where on earth did you get that from?

Why are you using Wise to transfer via SWIFT? Yes, you can easily do this, as I found out by accident -- because I mistakenly set up my recipient account in Thailand to receive dollars (not baht). But, I also subsequently set up the same account to receive baht, which is the account I normally choose. Somehow, I chose the "USD" account to send $40k to my Bangkok Bank -- and watched as the $40k became $39,xxxk, after fees subtracted. Then, on the receiving end, I got the TT rate for the day, less the 500 baht receipt fee (just like in the old days, when I did SWIFT transfers). The fact that a Wise P2P might have been near instantaneous, with the guaranteed FX rate -- vs two days later, with a slower SWIFT, and maybe a higher FX rate (but with fixed Wise fees) -- would make for an interesting "best method" comparison...... Yes, I remember from years ago the comparison of Wise vs SWIFT costs, and that amounts greater than $20k, because of the fixed vs percentage fee differences -- gave the nod to SWIFT transfers. But, this is a false comparison, since the two-day plus SWIFT transfer time is hostage to whatever the TT rate is upon arrival. Anyway, I've erased my USD receipt account from WISE, as I like knowing all the costs up front -- and I actually didn't realize the significance of having a receipt account denominated in dollars, or even why I set it up in the first place.... So, just a heads up: If your receipt account in Thailand isn't denominated in baht -- your transfers will be via SWIFT.

In fact, it does say she is tax free, per the technical DTA: Interesting to note, if wife were also getting a US govt pension, Thailand would, yes, have primary taxation rights, if she were a resident of Thailand, and also a citizen. BUT, if she were a dual US-Thai citizen, her US citizenship would trump her Thai citizenship, so no Thai taxation [who is not also a citizen of the paying State.] Nice to see that some TRD offices are actually referring to the applicable DTA; not so nice that it's the incorrect DTA and/or they're unable to correctly interpret it. I think there's enough evidence in all these tax threads to say: Farang retirees are smart enough about their applicable DTA, and about Por 162 pre-2024 exemptions -- that their self-assessment would be superior to that of their local TRD, in most (all?) cases. So, if your self-assessment shows no taxes owed, why even file a tax return, particularly in person at your local TRD? You'll just end up in an argument with an idiot. So, don't file if taxes aren't owed -- even if your assessable income does exceed those arbitrary 60/120/220k thresholds (which are not enforceable, says Ben Hartman at Integrity Legal -- nor knowable by TRD, in the absence of any Thai equivalent 1099s). Also, probably best to reassess whether or not getting back your 15% withholding on bank interest taxation is worth the potential hassle....

Yes, if you only reside in a rental during your visits to Thailand, to include living in your Thai wife's home. And this would even be if you spent 265 days in Thailand, but only 100 days in the US. And this is peculiar only to Yanks, as we're tax residents of the US REGARDLESS of where we live, and for how long. Thus, we are tax residents of both Thailand (if here over 180 days) AND of the US. Contrast this to the majority of the world's countries, who don't define you as a tax resident if you live outside the country for over half a year. Thus, live in Thailand for over 180 days, no tie breaker for tax purposes needed -- you're a tax resident of Thailand, period, as far as the applicable DTA is concerned. [Most DTAs read like the US-Thai DTA, as they're cookie cutter images on the OECD and UN Model tax treaties.] But, yeah, as a Yank concerned about remitting cap gains to Thailand, or Roth IRA receipts -- there is some wiggle room here in defining country of primary taxation residence. Can't use the permanent home residence card, since you own a home in the US, but also a condo in Thailand? Well, what about vital interests? Are your mom and dad, and kids from first marriage, in the US -- sounds like your vital interests lie in the US. But, have a Thai wife? This could get complicated. But, there appears to be enough slop room to be able to favorably self-assess as to your tax residence -- and thus not file a Thai tax return; always opt for the situation that favors you, in any gray area situation, as long as you've got a reasonable argument in its favor. Thus, not flling a Thai tax return keeps you off their radar -- so no chance of an audit, unless you remit a huge amount of money that triggers the "check this guy out" alarm. And that amount is probably well above what any of us reading this is. Anyway, Miloki, thanx for bringing this subject up. I'm sure some Yanks will now do some re-evaluation.

Any chance you suppressed the giggles when you produced that? You made my day. Any humor in the signature -- I can't quite read it?

French?

Serves him right for going to TRD with no purpose.

As I recall, I just went online to my Schwab account and changed both my legal and my mailing address to my Thai address. My account is an IRA account, not brokerage. It holds stock mutual funds, and the only activity is a once per year sale to meet RMD requirements. This is all done online. Don't know if I could 'trade', i.e., sell a mutual fund and buy a new one with the proceeds.... But, I have no plans to do so. Unlike an international brokerage account, my US IRA account allows for beneficiaries. Which is an absolute requirement, since I have no US Will, as I don't need one -- all my US assets are financial, thus pass on via beneficiary or POD designations. If you're an active trader, I'm sure you'd have to switch to a Schwab international account, if you decided to tell them where you really live.

...... or do nothing. One missing tooth shouldn't screw up your dining routine. Vanity, of course, may be a main concern. In which case, a permanent replacement would seem the way to go -- and his prices don't seem bad -- certainly when compared to prices in farang land.

Well, looks like you're subject to the tie-breaker rules, being subject to Thai taxation by virtue of being in Thailand for 180 days, or more, in a calendar year. Plus, subject to US taxation, by virtue of being a US citizen. And, you maintain a "permanent residence" in the US. So, let's assume you also have a permanent residence in Thailand -- your condo, a long term rental, or living at wife's home. We'll assume your stays in Thailand are NOT from hotel room to hotel room.... So, we can disregard the permanent residence tie breaker, as you have such residence in both countries. So, I guess, it now comes down to how much time do you spend in each country. If only 180 days in Thailand, but 183 days in the US -- I guess your vital interests reside more in the US, as does your habitual abode. Thus, the last two tie breaker items give the nod to the US as your tax residence for DTA purposes. But, if the majority of your time is in Thailand -- I think the vital interests and habitual abode criteria breaks the tie in Thailand's direction. Interesting situation. And one, where if Thailand wins, a US citizen's cap gains could be adversely affected.

No idea what you are talking about. I was just wondering whether or not you could, on the back of an envelope, figure out what of your remitted income was assessable, or not assessable - based on your knowledge of the DTA and Por 162. Then, armed with this information, decide whether or not you needed to file a tax return. I'm just a little confused as to why you needed TRD to tell you -- 4 times -- that you didn't need to file.......(?).

Fair point. Override up front. But, same result as override after the fact. What we're discussing here is, Por 162, as an override, passes the test, since it in no way alters the spirit of the DTA, namely, avoiding double taxation.

Why did you even file?

See previous post -- to not be blinded by all these webinars of tax authorities -- who, with a little research, come across as clueless.

Wrong. Domestic law changes to a DTA are called "overrides." The most famous is the US saving clause found in every DTA with the US, that says: We, the US, don't care what this treaty says about our treaty partner having exclusive taxation rights. We, the US, reserve the right (with a few named exclusions) to also tax this income. But, yes, treaty partner will have primary taxation rights, per DTA, and thus get to keep all taxes collected, without having to absorb a tax credit for the taxes paid to the US. Overrides (as the following link explains) are frowned upon -- but if they don't violate the DTA spirit, namely, the avoidance of double taxation -- then they're acceptable. https://repository.law.umich.edu/book_chapters/330/ And, in the case of the US saving clause, what's going on here is the avoidance of "no no taxation." Example: treaty country has exclusive taxation rights, but doesn't avail itself of those rights (eg, Thailand -- old policy of bring it in next year thus no taxation). Thus, we the US, will step up and make sure someone collects taxes. And this is the name of the future in DTAs. Check out this link: Sounds like the move to eliminate the "bring it in next year and it will be exempt" was a result of this referenced MLI agreement by Thailand. Hmmm.

You went 4 times to your tax office -- just to have it confirmed that you owe no taxes? Hopefully your trips were to get a refund on tax withholdings on your bank interest........

No, the reason for the disparities among provincial TRD offices -- is because there is no STANDARDIZATION.

You can get cold air over your phone? 🙂

As far as I know, only Thaitax has come out to say bank savings are the only allowed monies for Por 162; no others, that I recall, have said that. Probably because TRD hasn't clarified the situation, at least officially. And these more professional tax advisories would rather say nothing than make a statement as stupid as "bank savings only." Say my bank savings account had a $100k balance on 25 Dec 2023. But, as interest rates for CDs finally had climbed to where they looked attractive -- I bought $90k worth of CDs on 26 Dec 2023. What's my Por 162 'value' on 31 Dec2023 -- $10k or $100k? If you say $10k, you're implying that Por 162 exempt income -- must be in the form of liquid assets, not near liquid assets. Do you (and Thaitax) really believe that's what TRD meant when they said "INCOME existing before 2024?" Give it your best shot.

Right -- but the value of that property or stocks on 12/31/2023 would be non assessable, per Por 162. However, some (or maybe it's just one) tax advisory outfits are saying, "Por 162 is limited to pre 2024 savings in a bank account." And a shill on this forum keeps echoing that. I think you'd be well within your reasoning powers to interpret Por 162 as NOT being restricted to bank savings accounts.

Hey, sounds like a great replacement for Guantanamo as a place to dump your trash.