JimGant

Read the LTR thread. I think you'll find that BOI -- the LTR visa folks -- have snuffed the notion that only prior year income is exempt from taxation. Their say on LTR visas, and the tax exemptions derived from, certainly should hold more sway than Siam Legal. Again, all these firms reaching out to hold your hand, and pocket book, re new tax regulations -- should be discounted accordingly.

Yeah, a real Elmer Gantry.

Carden's a friggin' snake oil salesman. He's the one, as you remember, advertised to US tax payers that, if you're here for over 180 days (i.e., a tax resident), you can cash-in your Traditional IRA tax free -- no US, no Thai taxes, because of how he interprets the wording of the DTA. Bonkers, really -- move to Thailand and cash in your tax deferred Traditional IRA tax free ....? Seemingly, however, he's gotten away with this scheme, as the IRS has bigger fish to fry. Not sure how he manages this now, with Por 161 in effect... Anyway, keep Carden at arms length, and more.

FATCA reports income, not remittances. You think FATCA was reworded to accomodate weirdo countries like Thailand and Malta, the only two countries that tax remittances, not income per se. Nope. FATCA only looks at income -- to include Thailand and Malta.

Bingo. A video by Integrity Legal points this out -- the requirement to get a TIN, if assessable income exceeds some number, is NOT codified. Also, not codified is the 60/120/220k filing thresholds. Relax,folks. Yes, if your assessable income exceeds TEDA/zero bracket amount -- and then you now have taxable income -- by all means get a TIN and file a tax return. Otherwise, chill out.

Barf burgers.

They do show some integrity, with this disclaimer, that their BS "should not be relied upon for personal tax decisions." Amen

I think Guavaman aleady did, in a call to the TRD hotline:

And, as you say, you're well aware that your knowledge of the DTA makes your self-assessment ironclad. Why not leave it at that? Why not? Since your self-assessment seems right on, I think a "we'll call you, don't call us" is appropriate. What numbers, exactly, would you put on a tax return -- since they have no interest in non assessable income and, as a result, have no place to include such on a tax return. Might that be your first clue that non assessable income isn't wanted on a tax return? I don't doubt it. They've wasted enough time on you already.

I guess I need to work on my tongue-in-cheek routine...

Well, you can show you remitted money from a bank account in home country. Now, that bank account had a lot of pre 2024 income, plus current income from your military pension and social security, and, yeah, some reinvested interest, that would be the only assessable income -- but it only amounts to .5% of average account balance. But, hey, you can spend a nice part of an afternoon dazzling the TRD agent. Don't be surprised if she doesn't offer you an refreshment.

Best I can determine, there are no "common standards" saying you must file supporting documents with your tax filing. There have been some recommendations that you should provide such documents -- but nothing to say you have to. Have I missed something? And if I haven't -- if you decide to send copies of your ATM slips -- particularly if they're from a bank account containing no assessable income, or maybe comingled assessable income -- please rethink this decision, for your own sanity.

Why would they do that if the point of the exercise is to broaden the tax base and bring in more funds? Why would Thailand unilaterally give up taxing rights if they have authority to tax under the DTA? Why would they do this? Because this is what's now incorporated in the latest OECD and UN Model tax treaties. Kind of an adjunct to no double taxation -- but in this case, no taxation by country B, if no taxation by country A (assuming it's subject to taxation by country A, and not exempt because you're a non resident). The US-UK DTA is the prime example. Written after Roth IRAs were invented (unlike the Thai-US DTA, written before Roth), the US was able to incorporate, via subsequent protocol into the DTA, the following (from the US-UK tech explanation): So, this is probably where Carden was coming from -- TRD is looking at doing what the US-UK protocol did re Roth IRAs. But, for now, it's kind of in limbo. The US-Thai DTA has no mention of Roth IRAs (Code section 408a not mentioned), so there's nothing in the DTA that says Roth IRAs are treated the same as Traditional IRAs or private pensions. So how are they treated? I dunno. It wouldn't be that hard for the "competent authorities" (the nomenclature for the folks who can modify DTAs) to do a handshake protocol. Or, even Thailand could go it alone, with a modification of its domestic tax law re Roths, which would be allowed, as it wouldn't violate the DTA policy affecting double taxation. Meanwhile, if you are remitting Roths, I'd do a good screening of the arguments for Por 162 encompassing Roth IRAs -- and feel confident that Roth income is definitely pre 2024 income -- and even more so than traditional IRAs, this income is 'after tax' -- and thus even more solidly considered "savings."

Out of curiosity, why do you need it? If you got, at the end of 2023, "Your 2024 Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment" -- you already have all the numbers needed to punch into a tax return. But, maybe you didn't -- and that's why you're asking. And, of course, if filing electronically you don't need a 1099, as there's no requirement to attach them to the filing. And even filing hard copy, 1099 only required if it has withholding tax indicated. I had a couple slow 1099 folks this year, but had all the applicable numbers, so didn't need them. Did my TT on Jan 20; IRS opened up for filing on Jan 28; got my direct deposit refund Jan 29. Pretty smooth.

BOI has never, that I recall, suggested we contact TRD for answers to our questions. I actually imagine they put themselves above TRD, as they work directly for the Prime Minister. Anyway, this is another situation where it's easy, at least for me, to use the interpretation best to my advantage -- and take advantage of the tax exemption promised by the BOI. To do otherwise, and declare all that 2024 income I remitted in 2024, on a tax filing in 2025 -- would be ludicrous.

Sent the following, yesterday, to BOI: Their answer, same day (nice, timely response): Sounds like she's confirming the theory presented by oldcpu, that the "derived in the previous year" simply refers to normal filing procedures, i.e., income from tax year Y is covered in a tax filing in tax year Y+1.

Sadly, they won't have to concern themselves with the particulars of your tax situation. They'll just need to require a form from TRD asserting TRD has evaluated your tax situation. To go along with your TM30 and TM47 presentations. Now, will TRD be equipped to evaluate tax status of a hoard of farangs, in order to issue a TM xx? Probably not -- unless this will snag some significant tax revenue that otherwise would have gone uncollected.

OK, I'm not trying to pull your chain. I'm just trying to understand why, if all your personal income was fully assessable, that you needed to provide documentation? Maybe if you needed to prove that some income was not assessable, would you feel compelled to show supporting documentation - and have a nice chat about DTAs and Por 162. But this was not your situation. And you've already said that you weren't required to provide supporting documentation. Just trying to understand. No big deal -- just a curiosity.

Why not submit nothing, as they weren't interested in anything you submitted this year. Just do a comprehensive self-assessment -- and drop off your return, samo samo doing an electronic filing. Any supporting documents would, of course, be salted away for any potential audit. But since the chance of an audit is almost non existent, I certainly wouldn't go to any extra effort to get 12 months of bank statements, etc.

And, as you previously reported, the TRD agent never perused the statements, instead giving you a "what's this sh**" look. I hope you didn't waste too much of your time and money getting bank statements not required.

I think she didn't have a clue. Did her eyes glow when you explained how the DTA says this chunk of money is assessable, and this one is not? How about this chunk is not assessable because it falls into Por 162 exemption territory. And, this rental income is only secondarily taxable by Thailand, per DTA, thus it has to be decreased by the tax credit from my home country taxes. Oh, I forgot -- all the income you presented was assessable, somehow determined by you. And this made her very happy, as she didn't have to chat with you over DTA language, and Por 162 language -- subjects she no doubt has any knowledge of. And, you've already said: She had no interest, of even knowledge why presented, of your bank account statements. Nope. Forget hashing your return over with a clueless front line TRD clerk. Do it electronically, or mail it in, if you can -- or drop it in a drop box at the local RD's front door. Otherwise, you piss** in the wind.

And if you E-file? Monty Python would have loved TRD for source material.

When both countries are allowed to tax, one country is primary, the other secondary. Primary country gets to keep all taxes collected, while the secondary country has to reduce its taxes collected by the amount of the credit, meaning, if the primary country's taxes are higher than those of the secondary country, secondary country collects nothing. Good example with US-Thai DTA is income from rental properties. If I'm a Thai tax resident, but have rental property income in the US -- the US gets to keep all taxes collected and doesn't have to absorb a credit from Thailand. However Thailand -- as secondary country -- does have to absorb a tax credit. Only problem here is that a Thai tax return has no place to enter a credit. So, you would have to do some sleight-of-hand and determine what your total Thai tax would be after absorbing the tax credit; then figure out what fictitious income figure to insert that enables arriving at this total tax figure. The opposite scenario, private pensions, has Thailand as primary taxation authority, and the US (per the saving clause) as secondary authority. Thus, the US is supposed to absorb the tax credit..... But Thailand has given lip service to, "you pay taxes to home country, we'll give you a credit for these taxes against any Thai taxes owed." Not sure why Thailand doesn't want to collect full fare, as the DTA stipulates. But, they can fiddle with their domestic tax rules, as long as it doesn't violate the DTA policy of 'no double taxation.' And clearly this doesn't. But like so much of what we're hearing, it's not certain what's gospel, and what's not.

Let them eat cake.

Well, the Brit TRD equivalent certainly does (per my posting,above). When the TRD even figures out what a Roth IRA is, they could just do a Por exempting it from taxation, with no need for a meeting with a US "competent authority" to do a protocol arrangement -- unless they agree Por 162 already exempts it.