JimGant

What does your DTA say? Most DTAs would prevent Thailand from taxing a pension paid for past govt service ('tho there are exceptions, like Norway). And most DTAs would give Thailand primary taxation rights on private pensions ('tho, again, there are exceptions -- like Canada). And, under world wide taxation, it makes no difference whether or not subject income is remitted.

You've nailed it. You've got a goulash of fungible monies -- whose character is determined by the time lines of the deposited tranches. Simple enough to begin at the bottom, and end your time line marker when you reach amount sent. Total tranches sent, plus the partial tranche at the end -- will allow you to easily determine assessable vs non assessable monies remitted. The use of FIFO was discussed in a Bangkok Post article in 2012 (link, below). A totally sound article, about how to deal with non specific (i.e., fungible) remittances. Lacking anything otherwise definitive from the TRD, I'd certainly feel comfortable putting this article in your notes, should TRD come knocking with an audit. https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/general/299691/when-the-revenue-department-changes-its-mind-the-taxpayer-gets-the-headache

No side effects, at least that I'm aware of. And I'm not on dialysis -- whether that's due to Forxiga, or not -- who knows. Tricare still pays in full.

Wow, you really nailed their erroneous reporting. My apologies.

Yeah, but wouldn't you like to know why the BP would report something not in conjunction with TRD code? Particularly since -- at least to me -- it makes more sense that their: "must file when taxes are due" makes more sense than the TRD code requiring null tax returns......... Anyway, fat chance we'll ever know why BP reported as they did. So, let's give it a rest.

You might "suggest," but what I was responding to was the BP's " 25,000 baht, the minimum threshold to file tax forms" Your suggestion doesn't change what they reported. Maybe you're correct that maybe your suggestion is what they meant. But, my response was to what they actually reported -- and what possible subsequent conclusions could be made from their report.

Ah, come on CM. You must have some opinion on my observations vs the Cyclist's?

Geez, "actually starting to pay tax" are totally words of your invention. The BP's words were: 25,000 baht, the minimum threshold to file tax forms, Which is what I was replying to. What's wrong with your comprehension?

Or can't you even understand English, from the Bangok Post, albeit of the translated variety: Can't you understand the written word? What does "minimum threshold to file tax forms" mean to you? Yes, I'm well aware of the published thresholds for required filing of 120/220. But I'm taking to task the BP for changing that threshold to 300k -- which you conveniently interpret as somehow a threshold where taxable income begins (an unrealistic threshold, since everyone's threshold is determined by TEDA). Talk about being obtuse. I guess you find my use of math a distraction? The emphasis added was yours. Is the product of 12x25 so astonishing to you? So offensive? Or is it in keeping with tax returns dealing with annual, not monthly, figures? Anyway, it's obvious you and I think on different frequencies. If you can't understand my postings, maybe it would be best if you analyzed for a little bit longer, before replying to a post whose elements escape your understanding. Cheers.

Wait a minute... We keep hearing that the minimum threshold for the requirement to file a tax return is 120k single -- 220k married. Now the BP is reporting the threshold is 300k baht per year. Which is it? Ah, so the 25k/mo -- 300k/year -- is, on average, the threshold after which taxes are due. Which just happens to be the threshold whereby a tax return is required to be filed. Could it be that -- the threshold to file a tax return just happens to equate to the threshold after which taxes are due? Naaa. That makes too much sense. But what about those 6.25 million folks who filed tax returns, but didn't owe taxes? Were they, of sound mind and pure soul, merely adhering to the requirement to file, if one exceeded 120k/220k? Or had their employers withheld taxes, as required -- and they were just filing to have these withholdings refunded? (And, as a BP article recently reported, there were many fraudulent tax filings for the return of phantom wiithholdings.) Hmmmm.

Yeah. My quote was from the Expattax folk's FAQ page -- which, I've found, has a lot of questionable observations. But, hey, they do start out their webpage with the disclaimer: "The information on this website is for informational purposes only and is not professional tax advice." So, maybe they're honest, if not dependable. Hey, they're the ones who maintain pre 2024 income, to be non assessable when remitted, must only be from a savings account. Chew on that for awhile.

...still waiting to see something official from TRD that says that Por 162 pre 2024 income must manifest itself only as bank account savings, in order to be exempt from Thai taxation. Absent that, I would submit you're free to choose the avenue that provides the best outcome for your remittance of pre 2024 income. Because, absent that, you've got a solid argument in any audit scenario. Worst case, if you lose -- 'cause your solid argument certainly gives you credence against a tax evasion charge -- is pay the taxes owed, with interest. Having said that, if you do decide to not declare these pre 2024 monies on a Thai tax return -- there's nothing there for TRD to peruse as a potential audit -- since there are no line items for non assessable income. Thus, chances of an audit for a nil line item is zip; only if you're caught up in a random compliance audit would -- MAYBE -- they would ask about non declared, non assessable incomes. Hey, weigh your odds of an audit -- and what's the worst that could happen if somehow your pre 2024 income remittances didn't stand scrutiny. Up to you. No brainer, IMO.

Does anyone know anything about this, from the Expattax FAQ page, where they say there's now a new form you have to file for Royal Decree exempted income:

Ah, so now pre 2024 income, to be non assessable per Por 162 -- doesn't just have to be from a savings account -- but can also be from a Roth IRA. Good catch.

Says who? Expattax alludes to this. So does Chiang Mai, on this forum. I can't find any TRD backup for this. If I could, I'd withdraw all my arguments. But to say, all that pre 2024 income must be held in a savings account, in order to be non assessable from Thai taxes, is ludicrous. Look at Por 162 again: How does that translate into: To comply, that income must be held in a bank account. Maybe logic would say it must be held in a financial account, allowing for liquidity or near liquidity (for whatever that's worth). But certainly, if liquidity was a requirement, I'd be allowed -- to realize greater interest -- to move that income from a savings account, to a brokerage, or to buy CDs -- or to an IRA account, to have US taxes deferred. Certainly TRD isn't putting out restrictions on what I can earn from where I park that pre 2024 income..... Somebody's certainly misinterpreting what they thought TRD said about: Must be kept in a bank or savings account. Or TRD is bonkers..... (rhetorical). Anyway, I have an LTR visa, so this discussion is moot. But for Jingthing -- it won't likely make a hill of beans whether or not your IRA remittance is covered by Por 162, or not. If it is, then Thailand can't tax it -- but the US taxes it in full, without any Thai tax credit deductions. But, if Por 162 isn't a player, then the DTA takes full affect -- and Thailand has primary taxation authority on your IRA remittance -- but because of the saving clause in the DTA -- the US has secondary taxation rights, but has to absorb a tax credit for the Thai taxes. Bottom line: Only in the latter example, if Thai taxes exceed US taxes, will your total tax bill exceed US taxation only.

Amen

But Por 162 says pre 2024 income, which is what IRA consists of, is exempt from assessable income. That its payout is categorized as a "pension" is neither here nor there. Now, without Por 162, yes, that IRA payout would be subject to primary taxation authority by Thai taxation. But, Por 162 overrides this.

So what? "POR 162 says that the assessability of foreign income earned before 31/12/2023 shall not be enforced." The value of your IRA/401k on 12/31/2023 consists of foreign income earned before 12/31/2023 -- irregardless of what shape or form that income now exists (stocks, bonds, whatever). That this income is not in a bank account is totally irrelevant.

Haven't seen that question -- please resend. Thanx.

I don't follow... What's so hard to understand about the value of my IRA, brokerage account, whatever on 12/31/2023? This is the baseline for how much I can subsequently remit to Thailand as non assessable income. What happens to these accounts post 2023 -- co-mingled funds, or whatever -- is of no consequence -- the 12/31/2023 baseline number remains intact. What am I missing?

Says who?

But it asks, "is it taxed when it is brought into Thailand." Certainly sounds like "when remitted" to me. But, Sherrings is even more clearer when it says: "no tax is owed, because accumulated money is savings from earnings in years you were not a resident of Thailand." Certainly sounds like a case for the argument that prior year's income becomes "savings" after a certain time element, or more specifically, after being subjected to home country taxation. So, based on Sherrings, don't worry about prior year's foreign income, when remitted to Thailand in a subsequent year, being considered income at all, but savings. Ergo, not an assessable income moment.

Yeah. I'm getting my threads mixed up, but I recently posted something akin to the above, namely, income after a certain amount of time on the vine, and after being subject to home country taxation, is no longer considered income, but savings. As such, it should no longer be considered as income for Thai taxation purposes. TRD, I guess, could disagree. However, I think with Sherring's input, you should be comfortable not declaring as assessable income monies from past years, now comfortably labelled as savings. And could make a logical argument, in the 1% case you're called in to TRD for an audit.

Well, maybe not recent. But the latest accounting advice I could find that allowed FIFO for non specific (fungible) assets. https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/general/299691/when-the-revenue-department-changes-its-mind-the-taxpayer-gets-the-headache

When does income no longer remain income? Joe Blow fully retires in 2025; moves to Thailand; is there for over 180 days, thus a Thai tax resident. All the money he subsequently remits is from income he earned in 2024. And which has already been subject to home income taxes. Wouldn't such income now be considered savings, which to me perfectly describes income after being subjected to home country taxes? And what if Joe Blow didn't become a Thai tax resident until 2030 -- would those 2024 monies still be considered income when remitted? Hmmmm. Maybe not, based on what we've heard supposedly coming from the TRD, namely: "Income taxed in your home country is exempt from Thai taxes." Sounds like an appreciation that after tax income -- or at least income that had been subjected to taxation -- is now savings. Anyway, without any further guidance coming from the TRD, I know what advice I'd give to Joe Blow.