JimGant

Sacrificing your young men in a war with absolutely no threat to your shores -- is insanity. The US learned this in WWI. I can only believe Canada, had they imitated the US in getting rid of the Crown, would have also imitated the US in not knowingly sacrificing their youth -- unless, and until, war was declared on them. "God save the King" has an interesting ring to it. But marching off to war, as a colony and not as an independent country, is madness.

Sure. If that money is not assessable income per the DTA, like govt pensions and Social Security. Or pre 2024 income, as found in savings accounts, CDs, IRAs, etc (exempt per Por 162 decree). Or a loan from your bank, or a loan from mortgaging your house or other assets. Inheritances. Gift from Aunt Agnes. Still short, 'cause you only have assessable income, like from a 2024 or later private pension? Instead of remitting it to Thailand (and thus subject to taxation), buy an asset you can collateralize, then take a loan and send that money to Thailand. By the way, no one is going to scrutinize the assessability of your remittances. It would be too resource intensive -- with few gains -- to talk to everyone with large remittances. Besides, BoI is doing all they can to encourage Foreign Direct Investment. And harassing potential investors ain't in the cards. Just curious: Why do you think the money you might forward to Thailand for a condo purchase -- would be assessable for Thai tax purposes? Are you cashing out a large chunk of IRA? If so, literal reading says Por 162 exempts all pre 2024 monies in this IRA -- just pay Uncle Sam.

Somehow I've lost the whole point of this discussion. Money remitted to Thailand from an IRA has lost any identity it may of had in the IRA. If it was a stock mutual fund, those stocks were sold, and it is now fungible cash, with no mutual fund identity. This cash is remitted to Thailand, and the DTA says Thailand has exclusive taxation rights on this remitted income -- because it represents IRA income. There's no mutual fund identity to this remittance -- it's strictly nondescript cash representing income deemed assessable, per DTA, for Thai tax purposes. So, how do you play the "mutual fund" card in this scenario, particularly if only a small percentage of your IRA withdrawal represents mutual fund holdings in your IRA?

Well, yeah. But because of the war you don't have the resources to maintain that infrastructure, and it falls down..... Nevermind.

Pretty much. They certainly didn't have the resources for rebuilding their depleted economies. Fortunately for Europe, the US was once again there to help them out. This time with the Marshal Plan, involving $13.3 billion in aid (equivalent to $135 billion in today's dollars). Not completely for altruistic reasons, as the US needed robust trading partners so that future presidents had a place to hang their tariffs on.

What stupidity, maintaining loyalty to the British Crown. And thus throwing your lads into that meat grinder against the krauts, with no need, as your own countries are completely safe from any German attack. And for the Aussies and Kiwis -- come Dec 7th -- their countries are now wide-open to Japanese attack, 'cause their lads are all fighting the European war. Fortunately, the US had a vested interest in preventing the Japanese from occupying Australia and New Zealand. Madness.

And rightfully so. Most of our ancestors left Europe, and never looked back. Except one time: World War I, where, for some stupid reason, we got involved, and got 116,000 Americans killed for absolutely no reason. So, yeah, without Pearl Harbor, hopefully we would have been smart enough to let the Europeans settle just one more of their endless wars.

The friggin' French virtually sat out the Normandy invasion, the wonderful Maginot Line warriors they are. The only Frenchman making any noise for the invasion was DeGaulle -- whose arrogance kept demanding he lead the invasion: Earlier, whole lot more Frenchmen were in defense of North Africa, and succeeded in killing a lot of Americans as they came ashore. Wonderful people, the French. Here are the statistics for killed in the D-Day invasion: French civilians paid a high price on D-Day; but no statistics on casualties for the mighty 209 French infantrymen -- I'm sure at least one wounded himself opening his K-ration can of escargots.

Actually, it was in the closet for most of those 20 years. And, there's no proof that having one's junk removed -- at taxpayer expense -- actually converts a male to someone now pyschologically sound enough to be a full contributor to military service. But, maybe I'm wrong.... Still, there's no need to use taxpayer dollars for this experiment. Let those already "converted" remain in the military; but draw the line at further recruitment, as any minimal void caused can easily be filled with normal recruits.

Couple of questions. I wonder if she/he can still use the traditional male-oriented relief tube in her fighter jet? And, as her partner is a female -- is she/he now really a lesbian? Or, is residual male hormone still calling the shots toward sexual attractiveness -- so she/he is actually still sexually straight? Nevermind. This whole transgender BS, with which pronouns to use; which bathroom to use; can George now really be on the girls Olympic team -- is mind boggling. Can't we just return to normalcy, at least in outward appearances?

Mike disappeared from this forum on July 21, 2024. There have been no "latest versions" since.

Yeah, pensions from companies owned by Americans and established in Thailand. Has nothing to do with pensions remitted from America, which the DTA has sole guidance over, with absolutely no conflict with pensions subject to Treaty of Amity. Curious: Who's this lawyer giving you this guidance?

Why is that? Unless your pensions are solely for govt/military service, the DTA explicitly states that Thailand has exclusive taxation rights on private pensions -- and the technical explanation further elaborates that this includes traditional IRAs. Now, this "exclusivity" is trumped by the "saving clause" in the DTA, giving the US secondary taxation rights to those incomes designated as "exclusive" in the DTA. This "saving clause" is found in all DTAs, and is just a clever way to make sure you're paying someone somewhere taxes -- and there's not a "no non taxation" situation. Thailand could write their tax code to exclude taxation on those incomes that the DTA says they have exclusive taxation rights on. Why they would want to throw away potential tax collections -- is beyond me. But they could do this, and it wouldn't violate the DTA, since it doesn't violate the spirit on no double taxation. It just means the US taxation on your IRA (required by the saving clause) is full blast, with no discount from non existent tax credits from non existent Thai taxation on your IRA. So, when it comes to Traditional IRAs, it really makes no difference whether or not Thailand chooses to tax this remitted IRA -- unless the Thai taxation exceeds that of the US taxation on same IRA. Then, you'd be out of pocket for the higher Thai tax; but then there would be no US tax due, as it would be totally wiped out by the Thai tax credit. But probable situation would be the US has a higher tax bill: thus pay full tax bill to Thailand; and some tax to the US, albeit net of the credit for Thai taxes. Thus, the saving clause makes any exclusion from Thai taxes of your IRA (or private pension) -- not a meaningful part of your financial planning. * * Unless you hire Thomas Carden at AIT in Bangkok. He has an original thought that only the DTA with Thailand has IRAs excluded from the saving clause. Thus, only by being an expat tax resident in Thailand, and no where else, can you avoid US taxes on your IRA. Sound too good to be true? For sure -- but apparently the IRS doesn't have the resources to uncover this scheme, as many have used Carden to avoid taxes on their IRAs -- and have gotten away with it. Feeling lucky?

Actually, she was just displaying a key reason for anti-semitism -- HUBRIS.

Another plus for the LTR visa -- never ever having to visit CM Imm again.

It was joined at the hip with the parking lot. Thus, not in the AC bubble of the mall.

Here's an interesting story to reinforce why many of us love Chiang Mai. https://www.businessinsider.com/retire-abroad-journey-us-thailand-disney-imagineers-chiang-mai-healthcare-2025-5

Why? If you *know* you owe no tax, through critical self-assessment, there's no tax evasion, so no potential legal problem. Whether you're audited two years, or ten years, later -- if you've kept good notes on your position, what's the worry? Plus, if no need to file, and you don't -- they've never heard of you, so no risk of audit. Give yourself a break, if you're certain you owe no tax. And for sure, don't worry about needing a Tax Certificate to exit the country. That's the biggest chunk of malarkey surrounding this whole tax filing discussion.....

Yeah, if I can't be exclusive, and proudly display an LTR bumper sticker to the amazement of my neighbors -- screw the no more 90 day report; freedom from taxes; no more annual visa renewal; priority passage at airport; no more requirement for a Thai health insurance policy; and having the entrance fee of 50k amortized with ten years of savings from no more annual visa renewals and multi reentry permits.

Yeah, amendments, to include clarification of omissions, are called protocols to tax treaties. Doubt we'll ever see such as it pertains to State and private pensions in the Uk-Thai DTA. However, Thailand can "override" tax treaty language (or absence thereof) by domestic law, as long as it doesn't abrogate the intent of the treaty, namely, eliminating double taxation. And in this regard, we've heard Thailand say they'll absorb a tax credit for taxes paid to the UK -- and also say, when Por 161 came out in Sept 2023, that they'll not tax any remitted income on which the home country has also taxed. Unfortunately, no official follow-up on that utterance. Would be nice if TRD would solidify matters, using domestic law to firm up the DTA. Meanwhile, I guess, Brits could just say: Nothing in the DTA saying I owe any taxes to Thailand; and act accordingly.

Yes, iBanking too. I got this message in my iBanking account mailbox from BBL: All our household phones are in wife's name. Thus, my iBank account is paired with a phone in my wife's name. I have no Mobile banking; so iBanking is the only thing affected by the phone number mismatch. But, from their message (in bold, above), I can just have the requirement waived, if I just request an exemption due to "inconvenience." Sounds like Bangkok Bank has some adults in the loop, when dealing with "fire drill" requirements coming down from on high. Will check it out, next time I have to go to the bank.

They're automatically excluded --'cause there's no requirement to include non assessable income.

I guess I would have to go with language from an Article in a signed treaty over a footnote in an HMRC digest.... ...... particularly since we've heard utterances from the TRD that Thailand will grant tax credits for taxes paid in home country. But, it would be nice to know if such utterances are codified -- or just a TRD official's opinion... But, if I were a Brit doing a Thai tax return -- I know which way my self-assessment would lean.

Not allowed in Thailand.

Initiating an online transfer doesn't require bank involvement.