JimGant

Understood. My point was that, if UK can designate a certain kind of person as a 'resident,' because he meets certain parameters -- and this 'resident,' who moves abroad, must pay UK taxes on foreign income remitted to UK -- then Thailand can designate a certain kind of person subject to taxes on foreign income remitted, even if living abroad. I say, let them designate Thai citizens and permanent residents as the equivalent of the Brit "resident." And, of course in the new Thai directive, treat expat foreigners here on visas the same as the UK tax man treats his non-residents. Sounds good to me -- so I guess it will never happen.

As I said, the terminology is somewhat convoluted. In particular when they say, "If you're a UK resident but not domiciled in the UK..." -- the term "resident" here seemingly applies more to citizenship than to physical presence, since to me "resident" suggests physical presence. In your reference link, you forgot to go to the next paragraph, which says: "Residents normally pay UK tax on all their income, whether it’s from the UK or abroad. But there are special rules for UK residents whose permanent home (‘domicile’) is abroad." And that's where they go on to explain taxes on remitted income. Anyway, my point was that Thailand, having only one other country that taxes remittances to imitate, may very well dictate new guidance, following the Brits, on the taxation of remittances from Thai citizens/permanent residents who took a long holiday in the hopes of avoiding taxation on their remittances. But, I admit, my knowledge of Brit taxation is not thoroughly researched -- ever since we threw the tea into Boston Harbor.

Only the UK, that I can find. Their explanation is somewhat convoluted to my reading; but it seems to say that a Brit citizen or permanent resident who expatriates (takes up a foreign domicile) and has foreign income while living in that domicile -- and who remits that income to the UK -- now has to pay UK taxes on it. Fair enough. Unlike the US, who would tax this income, remitted or not, the UK exempts its expats from paying UK taxes on foreign income -- unless remitted. Should the Thais emulate this example, her citizens/permanent residents, who take up a new domicile for over a half year, wouldn't be able to escape Thai taxes on remitted foreign income, by saying they weren't tax residents in the year the foreign income was remitted. Per the Brit example, if you're a citizen or permanent resident, who expatriated -- remitted foreign income to the home country is taxable. Period. Now, if the new Thai tax laws really are aimed at Thai citizens, not expats -- then emulating this Brit example would be great news for the expat, who *could* remit money tax free in a year when he's not a Thai tax resident -- 'cause he's not a Thai citizen or permanent resident either. Pure speculation, of course. But if there's anyone home in the creative section of Thai RD, looking at the Brits makes solid sense.

Only if that entire distribution was sent to Thailand. But if you filter your IRA distribution through an account with other, co-mingled inputs, from which you do your Wise transfer -- then you need some pretty creative accounting, to parse which funds are the oldest, and thus, under FIFO, are pre-2024 funds. Obviously, RD needs to address this co-mingling problem. But, meanwhile, you can take advantage of the vacuum to give yourself full advantage. Unless they can present some order we're not aware of, that would override your FIFO, what jeopardy could you possibly be subject to.....?

Yeah, they would need to add a rule about having to file a tax return, even tho' not a resident in the year foreign assessable income is remitted. Maybe something along the lines of the US 1040-NR (Non Resident) tax filing.

Hmmm. My paraphrased reading of the pwc booklet is: A tax resident of Thailand in year X, who has assessable foreign income earned in year X, will have that income subject to Thai taxes, "in any tax year" brought into Thailand. Otherwise, a Thai tax resident for many years, with years and years of non remitted foreign income -- could take a year off to Tahiti, and remit all their stored foreign income, into Thailand, tax free. I doubt the writers of the new guidance, hoping to plug a loophole, would open up an even bigger one..... Of course, maybe there was a secret handshake with the "too rich."

Kind of tricky when tax years don't coincide due to the remittance angle (but you can always file an amended return to cover a late occurring event, even from another tax year). And presumably the IRA (which may be a rolled-over 401k) was funded many years ago, when you were working. This makes the scenario moot, since that IRA money was earned pre-2024, thus by decree, is not assessable income when remitted (yes, it's US taxed post 2023, but that makes no never mind, since the decree addresses when earned -- and being tax-deferred doesn't taint that.) Having said that, in all situations where both countries get to tax the IRA, Thailand keeps all their taxation -- and the US has to absorb a tax credit of same. And since, presumably your IRA has had some earnings in 2024, we're back to the FIFO, LIFO conundrum. But once again, there's no reason to not give yourself full advantage, in the absence of any guidance. Thus, treat the remittance as pre-2024 assets. But even if you treated all your remittance from post-2023 earnings in your IRA -- unless you're really in a high Thai tax bracket, Thai taxes, if any, will probably be less than your US taxes, and with the tax credit, things will thus be a wash. [And, yes, the saving clause in the DTA says you still have to file a US tax return, even tho' Thailand is given exclusive taxation rights on IRAs.]

Final question. So, if someone asked you for advice, er information, on how to treat a $15k remittance from an account that had $100k in it in 2023, and since Jan 2024 has had $20k added to it, of monies that the DTA say are the exclusive taxation right of Thailand, like a private pension: Your answer would be: A. FIFO, i.e., monies from 2023, thus not assessable. B. LIFO, i.e., monies from 2024, thus assessable C. Go spend the day at RD, looking for someone who even knows what FIFO and LIFO are. When Somchai says he hasn't a clue, feel free to decide which avenue is best for you, namely, FIFO D. Log onto AN and the Simple Tax Guide. Find out that Somchai's cousin wrote it. Feel free to barf, er use FIFO, in the absence of any advice.

Without definitive guidance from RD, you're forced to choose a financial guide for how to treat remittances. You have to pick something -- agreed? So why not pick FIFO -- if there's no guidance to the contrary -- to give you the tax advantage. As I said in a previous post, the only other country (UK) that addresses remittance accounting uses LIFO, whereby income, not principal, is first in the taxable line up. Thailand may adopt that eventually. But so far, as best we can discern, they haven't figured out they have to come to some decision -- since 'til now, remitting in a later year, avoided having to make such a decision. Take a chance. Recommend FIFO. There are folks out there wishing for guidance, not just information.

They don't have LIFO either. So, how do you assess what's principal and what's income on a chunk of fungible remittance? Like back in the first world, your competent tax accountant will recommend -- in a gray area situation -- the option that is most favorable to the client. So, under current "non guidance from RD," the competent recommendation is FIFO.

Hey, we don't know how much money in a bank account(s) attracts RD interest. So, that shouldn't matter. What does matter is having sufficient paperwork to show that remitted monies came from pre 2024 accounts, or from accounts exclusively holding DTA exempt monies. Or (worst case), arguing that you used FIFO to show principal, not income, was remitted. As there's nothing to say, under current guidance, that you can't use that argument, you should prevail. But, going forward, I wouldn't be too sure, if the Thais adopt the UK system of LIFO.

Hmmm. Can't seem to find that.... Can you give me a page number please. Thanx.

Where in the world did you get that "file in previous year" dictate?

If you have no remitted income, you have no foreign assessable income. And if your only Thai income is bank interest, that doesn't have to be declared as assessable income on a tax return, as you can opt to just treat it as 'withholding at source final tax.' So you're saying it wouldn't be unreasonable for RD to have you file a tax return where all income lines are blank? And where there are no lines to show non assessable income?

It's up to you....😉

Informed decisions "based on the law," rather than common sense -- and a clear understanding that they're not subject to penalty? Ludicrous, from another angle.

I assumed it was a State pension.

Because it's unenforceable, or at least too ludicrous to enforce. Only if a too large a bank account suggests a tax return should have been filed -- might you get a knock on the door. That's why the expat needs to keep good accounts. How the fat cat rice farmer wiggles out of this -- I don't know. But I certainly can guess... Why are you so insistent that we should file, even with no taxable income? Oh, enforce how? There's no fine or penalty for failing to file, if no taxes owed. What are they going to do? (rhetorical question)

Looks good to me. Is there a trick there we're supposed to see...?

This is starting to get tiresome. We KNOW they have such a requirement on the books -- but, NO, they don't enforce it -- because it's a stupid requirement, to enforce a requirement that generates no taxes or penalty income, if assessable income doesn't result in taxable income (i.e. assessable income that exceeds allowances, deductions, and the 150k freebie). And, it would be even harder for RD to think an expat is holding out on filing, because an expat has a DTA to negate any income as assessable, unlike a Thai citizen. For my two-cents, I'd just put an asterisk on this paragraph saying, "Until further guidance, if any, from RD -- consensus and common sense suggest not filing a Thai tax return, unless your spreadsheet figures show you have taxable income."

If they ever did, as an upstanding outfit, they'd grandfather you.

That's bizarre. Never heard of airport immigration asking about health insurance -- only visa issuers and extenders. They certainly didn't when I was traveling on my OA visa. Anybody else experience this? If so, I guess if I ever travel again on my LTR visa, I need to carry a copy of my Tricare bonafides.

The right thing, according to who? You obviously have no Thai taxable income. So, as many of us here have said (except Mike), you have no tax obligation, no taxes owed, no fines or penalties for not filing, as no taxes owed -- so why the blazes file a Thai tax return?! Tell me -- are you of the opinion you should have filed because you had an assessable income over 120k bt? If so, does that make any sense to you?

I could care less if I'm ever happy with it -- as said, I haven't even bothered reading it. Just want the confusion factors eliminated, so the man on the street, wandering in for a look see, sees facts, not word pies. I guess I took too giant a leap in reading between the lines with this:

Ah, what threshold is that? 120,000baht that PWC says the Code stipulates as when you need to file a return, even if no tax owed? This completely defies logic. My workers, even the new hire earning min wage (400bt/day), will earn 125000 per year, and thus, under the guidance, will have to file a tax return. Insane. You think I'm going to give him, and the other higher paid workers, the bad news that they now have to file tax returns -- by hiring, and paying, someone who knows how? Yeah, right. And do you think I'd advise an expat, who after subtracting out deductions, allowances, and the 150k freebie from his assessable income -- comes up with a negative number -- that he must file a tax return, just 'cause his assessable income exceeded 120k? Come on, man -- I didn't advise tax clients over all those years to take the stupid road (fortunately, the US Tax Code has few stupid roads - just gray roads, that two reasonable folks can arrive at two reasonable alternatives). Anyway, Mike, if you don't want to give advice that's in favor of your client, er reader -- even tho' there's no penalty for not filing if no taxable income -- it's up to you. But, if you meant "threshold" was where assessable income, less TEDA, equaled a positive taxable income -- then I apologize.