JimGant

You mean, someone who actually owes Thailand taxes on remitted income, because one's DTA defines such income as assessable by Thailand? For us Yanks, that wouldn't make any difference, since we either pay Thailand, or we pay the US -- but not both on the same income, via exemptions/credits. And if Thailand has first dibs on taxation of my income, fine with me -- please use my tax collection to fill in the pot holes of where I live. Saying such means, why wouldn't I comply with Thai taxation rules, as my total tax bill between the US and Thailand is not affected. And furthermore, you gotta figure that Thailand realizes they're losing tax collections out there by lax compliance monitoring. So, why wouldn't tax compliance audits (maybe just random), at least on folks with large remittances, be in order? Certainly this would be cost effective, as it appears there's a lot of low hanging fruit out there. And didn't TRD just hire an additional 750 auditors? What have they been up to? Anyway, I don't care -- I have an LTR visa. Just throwing this out for others to chew on.

Please let us know what finally happens, like, they call you in to discuss remittances..... Thanx.

I would assume most retired expats, not working in Thailand, have some monies remitted to Thailand on which to live off of. Most probably have -- except in big purchase years -- less than 1M baht in remittances. Thai RD knows these foreigners -- unlike Thai citizens -- have most, if not all of these remittances, protected from Thai tax via DTA. So, it wouldn't be cost effective to waste RD resources to interview these folks on their remittances; better to chat with Thai citizens with remittances. Now, a large annual remittance (how large, don't know) might be worth investigating by Thai RD. First, they'd have to see if you've been here over 180 days -- which, I guess, might not be too difficult. And secondly, they'd probably do this, for cost effective purposes, on a random sample basis. Anyway, best never to get a TIN and file a Thai tax return, especially if your remitted assessable income is less than 560K -- the amount of deductions and free tax bracket for a married retiree over age 65 -- and thus no taxes owed. To file otherwise is just calling unnecessary attention to yourself. And we've seen where someone who files is subject to producing 12 months of bank statements, to explain the nature of the remittances. Forget that ridiculous requirement to have to file, if assessable income exceeds 120k (220k married): If you owe no taxes, you're not a tax violator, and the fine for not filing is a percentage of taxes owed, which of course is zero.

Interesting. What country are you from?

If you're a Yank, that Thai interest needs to go on your US tax return. But, you can get a one-for-one tax credit for those Thai taxes paid, as Thailand has primary taxation rights on interest earned in Thailand. Of course, you can't get this credit if you waste time submitting a Thai tax return -- and Thailand refunds these taxes. A couple of related scenarios. IRS Pub 514 says: If you can get a tax refund from Thailand, then you can't claim a credit for same on your US tax return. But, you can't get a refund if you don't have a Thai tax TIN. And from many reports on this forum, and others, folks have been told they can't get a TIN without a work permit, or don't owe any taxes, whatever. Thus, I've never tried to get a TIN. Yes, maybe a lame excuse if audited. But certainly not blatant tax evasion -- in the unlikely (<1%) chance of having a three figure tax credit triggering some audit algorithm. Anyway, if you don't have a TIN, are a Yank, and have some Thai tax withholding -- this credit route vice filing a Thai tax return is the way to go. Of course, if you're a Yank pauper, and don't have any taxable income (standard deduction greater than AGI), thus can't utilize a credit -- then, yeah, spend some time filing a Thai tax return to get your measly withholding tax back; certainly you're in a situation to need it.

"Drastically reduced their chances of a call from the tax man" -- doubtful. Now TRD, after you've filed, have you in their records. If you now skip a year or two filing a tax return -- 'cause you have no assessable income -- they just might inquire why no tax return this year.....? But, if on the back of a matchbook, you figured out you owed no tax -- and thus never filed a null tax return -- TRD has never heard of you. You're completely off their radar. But, of course, if you like to annually file a null tax return -- because of some misguided notion -- have at it.

Sounds like you broke out your remittances between assessable and non assessable income, as dictated by your DTA, and POR 161/162. Was this the case? If not, how could they possibly have arrived at this 43% exemption (non assessable) figure?

I doubt it. They're only interested in foreign ASSESSABLE income remitted to Thailand. And, yes, there is a space for that to be entered. And, I guess, the newer eFiling forms have a space for foreign taxes paid, as a credit, on said income. But including non ASSESSABLE remitted income on an eFile form -- is not doable with the existing forms. Yeah, maybe down the road, the RD may want to see all your foreign income, at least the amounts remitted to Thailand -- with an explanation of why or why not such income is assessable. But we're not there yet. And the beauty of eFiling is -- no personal contact with Thai RD folks (unless, horrors -- such filers are now getting requests for more information about their remittances). What revenue office is that? With my LTR visa, latest guidance says no tax filing required. And even without an LTR visa -- my remittances are mostly DTA exempt income, and not enough to meet taxable requirements. Thus, I certainly wouldn't waste my time filing a null tax return, as there, under current law, could be little to no consequence -- as the fine is a percentage of taxes owed, which of course is zero (yeah, maybe a 2000bt fine for having assessable income above 220k, even tho' still not taxable. No reports of anyone ever having such a fine -- how would they even have such exacting data......?).

Where on the form is the exemptions section where you found this spurious figure? And exempt why -- because it's non assessable income? Did you show them any paperwork (like your Thai bank statements) that showed your remittances? Without such, how could they possibly arrive at that 140k figure -- unless your oral discussions somehow included info on remittances......? Hmmm.

It's simple enough to figure out whether or not you owe any tax on assessable remitted income. If not, why would you bother visiting the local tax office....?

I don't think so.

Both Jewish. Kinda suggests that Israel's desire for war had a leg up, courtesy of the US negotiators.

Revocable trusts to avoid probate -- like we see in the US -- are not recognized in Thailand. Putting Thai assets into a US revocable trust wouldn't work either.

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.