JimGant

Excellent point. For example, per the US-Thai DTA -- if I remit a private pension to Thailand, Thailand gets first taxation rights and the US secondary taxation rights (under the saving clause). As such, Thailand keeps all the taxes collected, and the US absorbs a tax credit for those Thai taxes. Pretty important point, if a country is concerned about getting all the taxes it's entitled to under the DTA. As such, this from the 'Intro to personal income tax....' is misleading: In my US example, private pensions taxed in the US *would* be subject to Thai taxation -- as the DTA is currently written. As such, Thailand, having primary taxation authority on this private pension, could tax this income over again after the US has taxed it. But in this case, it's not Thailand absorbing a US tax credit -- it's the US absorbing the credit, and losing in tax collection the amount of taxes paid to Thailand. Thailand gets to keep the whole enchilada. Now we've heard rumblings that Thailand will not bother to tax foreign income, as long as it's been taxed in the home country. If so, this is a real lazy approach that, yeah, avoids having to deal with tax returns of foreigners. But also gyps Thailand out of revenue allowed by DTA. Thailand can do this without violating the DTA, since the OECD has dictated that domestic laws that change a DTA are allowed -- as long as they don't materially affect the intent of the DTA. And in this case, protection against double taxation is not affected. But, will Thailand really want to cheat themselves out of money they're entitled to? Stay tuned, I guess.

I imagine most are just waiting for further guidance. Or, if a Yank, nothing will change for them in total taxes paid, albeit Thailand may now finally get some US money in their tax coffers, but the US taxpayer will receive an equal credit against their US tax bill. This, of course, is what Thailand is hoping to see with their new policy -- finally using DTAs to their advantage to collect what the DTA says is their prerogative. It's just so interesting, as a Yank always having to pay full-fare in taxes, to see all the hand wringers out there faced with finally to have to pay someone -- home country or Thailand -- taxes. Welcome to the new OECD world of: we're doing our best to eliminate: "no no taxes."

Well, if RD has anyone home with brains and ethics, who can push back against fat cats who established the remittance system decades ago, with the 'bring it in next year' hiccup that allowed tax avoidance -- we just might see Thailand join the rest of the world in taxing income, not income remittances. And, hey, the new system doesn't really afford the fat cats tax relieve with the remittance system -- so maybe no real push back to get rid of this system. If so, what do we see? Well, let's look at a Yank. Since remittances are no longer a factor, we just look at income for tax year 2024. In my situation, Air Force pension and Social Security are exempt from Thai tax, per DTA. Now, my IRA Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) of $14000 -- taxable in tax year 2024, both in the US and Thailand, would put me about 10000 baht of taxable income on the Thai tax return. So, I guess, I now have to file a Thai tax return, and pay some Thai taxes. And, per DTA, Thailand has primary taxation right on that RMD, meaning they get to keep all the taxes, but the US has to absorb a tax credit for these Thai taxes. As it turns out, at least in this scenario, my US taxes are a lot higher than the Thai taxes, so that after the Thai credit, I'm exactly where I would be if I hadn't had to pay Thai taxes -- pay a bit to Thailand, and have that bit reduce one for one on my US tax return. So what would doing away with the remittance scenario mean? First, now no more screams of horror about all remittances to Thailand being taxed -- no one will even care about remittances anymore, in terms of income. Two, CRS and FATCA reporting, which never ever reported on remittances, can now become effective in identifying foreign income. Three, schemes like sending money to your US buddy to wire to Thailand in your behalf -- will, of course, no longer be an effective tax avoidance scheme in the days of no more remittance taxation. And, four, all your pre-2024 income being exempt from Thai taxation....is, of course, still in effect --'cause killing the remittance stupidity now means the calendar now dictates what income is subject to taxation -- and that doesn't include pre-2024 income. So, what's the downside? None that I can see for Yanks. For Thailand? A much more streamlined approach to international taxation, especially as they petition for entry into the OECD community.

Yes, that is why let's hope RD doesn't designate LIFO as the withdrawing rule. Otherwise, you should be free to choose the oldest contributions as what's being withdrawn.

Don't forget, money contributed to a conventional IRA prior to 2024 is exempt income for Thai tax purposes. Just because it's tax deferred, thus you pay Uncle Sam taxes on it on year withdrawn -- doesn't change the fact that it was income earned pre 2024. So, if you've stopped contributing to your IRA, all the money you eventually withdraw will be non assessable income, for Thai tax purposes. And even if you have some new post 2023 contributions -- if RD doesn't stipulate LIFO, feel free to declare you IRA withdrawals as first from the oldest contributions.

Yeah, at day one of this goat rope we were presented with a: "Show a DTA from your home country, and also a tax return, and you won't have to file a tax return with Thailand." Pretty simple -- and they could have Imm add this as on more item to check, along with TM47 and TM30. Imm wouldn't have to understand that your home country tax return maybe was just filed to get a return of overwithholding -- and no taxes were actually owed or paid. But, by also asking for a DTA, it assumes your home country tax return is kosher, relative to Thai tax filing requirements. Or, no home country tax return (Germany), then you have to file a Thai tax return, and maybe, now in your stay in Thailand, you have to pay somebody some taxes. Or maybe not. If assessable income in less than taxable income, it's just a required filing of a nil tax return, to flash at Immigration. Haven't heard anything more about the home country DTA and tax return as a get-out-of-jail free avenue. But such an approach to this new ruling wouldn't cost many new hires, if any. And, it just might flush out a few new tax crumbs, like from Germans. If you recall from some other discussion, DTAs aren't just to preclude double taxation -- they're also there to preclude no no taxation. The OECD Model tax treaty writers are in the process of emphasizing this, with either new treaties (not likely), but with added protocols. And Thailand, anxious to earn some OECD bonafides as they apply for membership, may just get on board with not allowing no no taxation. Anyway, pure conjecture. But you know they're not going to train a gaggle of RD clerks, with the added cost, to be familiar with 60 some odd DTAs. No, they'll just ask for a tax return from Thai tax residents, either a home country return, or Thai return. That a home country return may have to be translated into Thai or English -- hey, not their bother or cost. Something is going to happen -- and simplicity and no/low cost will be a factor. Which means: Don't expect a tax audit anywhere in your future -- unless, maybe, you wire a sh** load of money to Thailand. But even there, I wouldn't be too worried (and, of course, this pile of money was savings, a loan, an inhertitance, whatever -- easily explained away at an audit).

It's a 365 day report, identical to a 90 day report of your current address. Get a life.

The reason the gift tax came about at the time the inheritance tax did, was to have fat cats realize a penalty if they tried to give away enough of their estate to slide below the 100M threshold for the inheritance tax. So, yeah, the govt gets to collect some of those taxes lost by the fat cat's estate dipping below 100M due to gifting. But the fat cat doesn't really pay a financial penalty, since the gift recipient is paying the tax (if any) -- and the govt doesn't really care who pays it, so long as the future loss of inheritance tax is mitigated, to some extent, by the gift tax. Having said that, do you think the govt is going to allow the fat cat to exempt from taxation all those funds going as gifts? Not only would this widen the gap between lost inheritance taxes and collected gift taxes -- but it would reward the fat cat by possibly pushing him down to a lower tax bracket (well, maybe not, as he's probably well above the 35% marginal tax rate). In any event, the govt is not going to reward, via tax exemption, someone gifting away his estate in order not to have his estate eventually pay inheritance taxes.

I can't seem to find the 'remitted income' exception anywhere in that pub. A little help, please. Thanx.

Got a source for that?

Why? What if it's not income, or if it is income, that it's exempt income via DTA, or exempt because it's pre 2024 income? Or it's loan money you wired from home, to buy that condo. This money is nothing the RD needs to know about. Just keep good records, and hope you're not inconvenienced by a very low probability audit.

You can call it a fried banana, as far as taxation implications go. You remit income into Thailand -- it's purpose (as we've scrutinized to absurdity) is not important. You report your assessable income remittances on your tax return -- where nowhere is the purpose of the remittance recorded, thus nowhere to get a tax exemption for a gift purpose. If the landlord you remitted your rental fee to wants to call it a gift, or if you want to call it a gift, makes no never mind to the bottom line of your tax bill. However, the only tax implication is whether or not the landlord calls it a gift, and not actually the income it really is -- and (mis) files his tax return accordingly.

Huh? I send remittances of assessable income to my gf; my landlord; the soi dog hospice 😉; my housekeeper; blah blah. Never ever send on nickel to my bank account in Thailand. They're still remittances, all of which I have to determine, for tax purposes, as to whether or not they're assessable income. Matters not that they never passed through any financial account of mine in Thailand.

No, it's not the son's income. And the father is not a Thai tax resident -- so it matters not what the nature of the funds being sent to the son consist of (after tax, before tax, savings -- Dad has to sort any tax implication out with his resident country.) Thus, if the son receives a chunk of money from Dad, no strings attached, it would be considered a gift. Which leads to the question: The son received a gift from Dad, say in excess of 20M baht -- is he now subject to the Thai gift tax for the excess over 20M? Nope. Say Dad is a resident of the US. The DTA covers such a situation, whereby double taxation on gifts and estate taxes is avoided. Thus, Dad will be subject to a gift tax on that gift to sonny boy. And sonny boy won't need to file a tax return with Thailand for the excess gift over 20M.

TRD hasn't the foggiest interest in the purposes of the remittances -- because the purpose of the remittance in no way affects the assessability nor taxability of the remittance. It's up to you to self assess the nature, thus the potential taxability, of the remittance. For a Yank, govt pension, social security, VA disability payments, for example, are not assessable income -- and wouldn't be noted anywhere on a tax return. But a pension check from Boeing would. But other cash flows into Thailand need not be noted as assessable, like loans you're bringing over to buy a condo; an inheritance from Uncle Joe; and a gift from Aunt Martha (in this case, the only gift reporting onus is on Aunt Martha, who reports it to the IRS, if above a certain amount). Thus, there's nothing on your Thai tax return that reflects, or is affected by, the fact that the final destination of this remittance is as someone's gift. Now, the burden of any gift tax will now lie on that recipient -- not you. Sorry, then -- no tax exemption on remittances of assessable income destined as gifts. Even to a monastery -- yes, charitable deductions are available -- but only on after-tax (disposable) income, not on incoming remittances.

But why wouldn't it be relevant to a gift tax -- are you inferring importations destined as gifts are somehow unique compared to the purposes of other importations? Anyway, we seem to be on a treadmill here. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

No, not unique, as in: gifts, like money sent for expenditures, to buy a new car, to buy a condo, whatever -- are NOT UNIQUE. Thus, the purpose of imported foreign income has no bearing on its taxability, just as you said in your quote: "The Thai Revenue Code does not consider the purpose of the funds that are imported, only whether the funds are assessable or not." Ergo, money imported, whose final purpose is a gift, is NOT UNIQUE from other importations, and thus is not tax exempt if otherwise assessable.

Au contraire: "The Thai Revenue Code does not consider the purpose of the funds that are imported, only whether the funds are assessable or not." What could be more encompassing of whether or not funds destined as a gift are taxable -- than the Thai Revenue Code stating that the purpose of the funds has no impact on their assessability and potential taxability. Sarcastic, how? That really has me scratching my head.

You need to include your post, upon which I was commenting on: Then, my observation: I'll leave it up to the reader to determine whether or not you agreed with my assumption that gifts are not unique in that their end use exempts them from being assessable foreign remitted income. Now, if that is not what you meant, well then, I'll give you a chance to give your reasoning as to why they might be exempt from being assessable income. To include the whole rationale behind Thai gift taxes, which like the US, are a means to penalize gifting away your whole taxable estate to avoid inheritance taxes. Which, for Thailand, has majority relevance to domestic gifting, not gifting from abroad -- and where providing a tax break for the gifter doesn't seem very relevant to anything, 'lest there actually is a law, with the implied corruption behind it, to exempt remitted income identified as having an end result as a gift. If that's what you believe, then, yes, maybe remitted foreign income slated to be a gift is exempt from being assessable and taxable. And, I guess, we'll have to leave it at that, until we identify such a law. Cheers

Does this mean we'll not enjoy your sage wisdom at our annual black tie get-togethers? Don't know whether to cry or puke....

Yes, everything over 20M will be subject to a 5% tax -- and yes, the first 20M of gift would be exempt from taxation. And, yes, it's up to the recipient of the gift to file the tax return -- not the gifter. Certainly you're not saying there's another tax angle, namely: The gifter gets a tax holiday on 20M, otherwise taxable, because it is a gift -- and not an investment or expenditure...? If you are saying this, please give me your source. Thanx.

Again, this is a legitimate gift -- and you're alluding that that makes it non assessable income? Where in the tax code do you get that assumption from?

Give it a rest. Giving practical advice, that won't bite you in the a**, vs quoting what the (nonsensical) law actually says -- is probably what's best-serving on this forum on taxes. Sure, state what the laws are -- then advise how to maneuver around them, if practical. Otherwise this forum, and thread, might as well just quote Thai tax code. Sorry, my former job was helping clients navigate potential taxation gray areas, without any non ethical deviations. ***Flame and comment on moderation removed

For tax purposes, he effectively did.

Relax. Even with assessable income, if after all deductions and allowances, you have no taxable income -- then no TIN needed, no taxes due, and no real need to file a tax return, as they're not going to waste resources coming after you for a 2000 fine for not filing a nil tax return.