JimGant

Ridiculous comparison. Obviously if the masses were told they'd get money back from a scheme like an Earned Income Tax Credit -- they'd be lining up to file a tax return. Currently, however, filing a tax return, if no taxes are owed, is a wasted effort, to no one's advantage.

Amen! It cretins pass a law that society views as absurd -- and thus is ignored -- then we can continue in a normal fashion -- the lawmakers are trumped by a sane society. Kinda like not filing a Thai tax return, in spite of a cretin law about about having to, even with no taxable income.

All are NOT assessable. The DTA dictates which income remittances are assessable -- and which are NOT.

Just keep your withdrawal slips (but, certainly, more efficient to have a statement from the financial institution where your ATM withdrawals come from). The big problem here -- assuming honest self-assessment -- is: What amount of those ATM withdrawals represent assessable, or non-assessable, income? Say your bank account, where your ATM withdrawals come from, is funded from three sources: Direct deposit from a private pension (which is assessable per DTA). A direct deposit from a govt pension (non-assessable per DTA). And monthly interest on this account (assessable per DTA). And both direct deposits, and reinvested interest income, occur at the same time -- at the end of every month. Now, we've come to no conclusion about FIFO vs LIFO (we've heard affirmatives for both options). But, this wouldn't matter in the above scenario, 'cause there's no time element to use as demarcation. So, what to do? To tell the TRD auditor that you "arbitrarily chose your govt income as the source of your ATM withdrawals" -- probably wouldn't cut it -- at least without a gratuity. So, necessary to go to proportions. If 70% of your monthly direct deposit is from your govt pension; and 30% from your private pension; and your monthly reinvested interest is 5% -- we have a proportional situation of: 65% non assessable income, and 35% assessable. So, on your Thai tax return, assuming enough assessable income to file one (or assuming you decide not to file because you don't have enough assessable income to have any taxes due) -- declared income from your yearly ATM activity is only 35% of the ATM amounts remitted.

Yeah, you'd be right for France; but not for all countries:

Not constructive because it differed from your input -- or because they didn't provide an alternative input? You're smokin' something serious if you say the latter.

Just who are you? As one of the disruptors, I pride myself in doing a lot of research, where such research is plausible, to my contributions to this forum. That my discoveries diverge from Chiang Mai,'s -- or my personal grasp of logic diverge -- I'm sorry that this offends Chiang Mai. He's a pretty prickly customer -- as was Mike Lister before him. As such, it makes pulling their chains too tempting. So, sorry if such disrupts your concentration on the subject. But back to you.... You, in one of your posts, implied I'm often wrong, when Chiang Mai was right. I asked for amplification, but didn't get any. I'd still like to get that, but if not, I'd just be curious as to your bonafides -- education, job, tax and govt work, etc. Just want to get a feel for where you're coming from. And if you're qualified to referee a discussion on taxes. Thank you for, hopefully, taking the time to present yourself. But, if you don't, I'll understand.

Yes, since Thailand has primary taxation rights on an IRA, you'll get a tax credit against your US taxes for those Thai taxes. That no one has yet paid taxes to Thailand for an IRA remittance -- is just another verse to the tune, "all my remittances are last year's income." That song's been cancelled.

Yes, because of when the Thai-US tax treaty was written, a paragraph addressing re-sourcing was not included. But, regardless of this omission, the Treaty still allows foreign tax credits for taxes paid on US remitted income to Thailand. How? With a Form 8833, whose instructions include: That a treaty grants a credit for a foreign tax which is not allowed by the Code. Why the need? Because the US Tax Code says that foreign tax credits are only allowed for foreign taxes paid on FOREIGN income. Which remittances of US income, taxed by Thailand, certainly are not. But, a re-sourcing clause in a tax treaty -- or, when absent, a Form 8833 -- trumps the US Tax Code by allowing foreign income tax credits on US income taxable by Thailand -- by changing this income into pretend foreign income. Otherwise, the tax treaty would be worthless in preventing double taxation. And you couldn't just reverse things, by having Thailand absorb a tax credit for US taxes paid on certain income -- when the treaty says Thailand has primary taxation rights on that income. Because with primary taxation rights, Thailand keeps all taxes collected, as it does NOT have to absorb a tax credit. To somehow say, sorry Thailand, because there's no re-sourcing clause in the treaty, you now have to absorb a tax credit, contrary to what's in the treaty. Nope. Anyway, forget the lack of a re-sourcing clause. Form 8833 is your go-to form.

Out of curiosity.... If you're absolutely sure you have no taxable income for Thai tax purposes -- thus owe no taxes to Thailand -- what do you think might happen if you don't file? Yes, I know we're addressing 'risk tolerance' -- but that's exactly the point -- what, if any, risk exists? And if there's no risk, tolerance is not applicable. Nevermind.

Indeed. IMMO-TH.com is completely off-base with their observation. More unhelpful misinformation.

Yeah, amazing -- the same sensitivities. Coincidence?

Well, either behaviours change for the better and the sniping/attacks/baiting/stalking ends, permanently or one of us goes and I have zero problem if that's me. Huh? My "sometimes your presentations make sense" was characterized as a "sniping/attacks/baiting/stalking" occurrence? I would suggest a prozac, as you seem to be overly sensitive to observations that counter yours. But, I guess, that statement represents "sniping" -- and subject to removal. Sad that an intense "back and forth" is not allowed on this forum -- at least between some personalities. Ho hum.

Not everything. Sometimes your presentations make sense.

Granted. Yanks with long term cap gains, and qualified dividends, wouldn't be protected from Thai taxes by the DTA. That wasn't, initially, obvious to me, since all my cap gains are generated within my IRA, thus treated as ordinary income. Haven't heard any talk lately about "if you have a DTA, and you pay income taxes in your home country, then no need to file a Thai tax return." That would be nice for us Yanks -- and, yes, would cost Thailand some tax receipts. But, for those expats currently not paying anyone taxes -- TRD might be very interested when you can't show a home country tax return.

Wow! Talk about overly sensitive. Somebody on this forum has to analyze your assertions, as sometimes they're weak and misleading. This is particularly true with credit card purchases: It's just a real stretch that TRD would waste resources to go over credit card purchases, even just large ones, to call in for questioning the credit card's owner -- after determining he's a tax resident -- to see if the credit card bill was paid off with assessable, or non assessable, income. Easy to prove non assessable, if a monthly direct debit from an account holding only non assessable funds. But, even if an account with co-mingled funds -- how are you going to easily sort that out? Anyway, the reader here needs to see counters to your analyses -- so he has more input than just yours, from which to make decisions, or to quell unnecessary worry (your specialty). Some (or maybe just one) have called for the criticisers of your statements to be banished. Not a good idea, if this -- and related threads -- are to serve for the reader to make decisions in the absence of hard facts. That three or four of us here find your "facts" sometimes suspect -- well, that's the way the cookie crumbles. And for you to say you'll "raise a formal complaint" against a poster who challenged your assertions -- just makes it more important that you continue to be challenged.

Sorry, my mistake. I thought someone had suggested TRD was going to investigate farang credit card charges. But since that's ludicrous, I'll go along with any investigation stopping at BOT, per your take on the subject.

Indeed. Somebody on this forum suggested TRD will go out and canvass merchants about farang credit card purchases. Think about that scenario for awhile, if you'd like a good chuckle.

Out of curiosity, what is your home country? Would love to see what onerous taxation is on the horizon, based on your DTA.

BOI also wanted my 1040 -- but since it was joint, it made no sense without 1099 delineation. Thus, my 1099s, with an explanation sheet, breezed right thru.

Having a hard time envisioning this scenario, for foreign remitted income. Let me suggest a straw man, say a private pension paid by Ford, periodically. And let's say the pension is paid and remitted in the same year -- thus this straw man would apply for both a remittance and for a worldwide tax situation. First -- the Thai-US DTA gives "exclusive" taxation rights for private pensions to Thailand (but the US retains secondary taxation rights, due to the "saving clause" in the DTA). Thus, in March (or is it April?) of 2025 I need to file a Thai tax return for 2024 income, assuming the Ford pension amount plus other assessable income dictates so. So I do, and say the taxes owed on the Ford income came to $2000, using the mandated FX rate (whatever that may be -- for remitted income, simply use FX for date of transfer -- but for worldwide income, either year average or end of year rate. Dunno.) Voila. Thailand, as exclusive/primary taxation authority -- gets to keep the full $2000. No "grab back" in this scenario. They just need to provide a credit amount for US taxation purposes, to avoid double taxation. Now, I do my US tax return for TY2024 -- I can wait 'til June 2025 to do it, since I live abroad. And I can use the Thai $2000 tax as a one-for-one credit against my US taxes (there can be limitations -- but any disallowed credits can carry over to later years). I have to fill-out and file a Form 1116 for this credit. And also file a Form 8833 -- a form that shows that the tax treaty trumps the Tax Code, overriding the the requirement that foreign tax credits are only good for foreign taxes on foreign income. Now, you can file your US tax return. TurboTax will accept a Form 1116 - but not a Form 8833. But, if you want to file electronically, TurboTax will allow you to without the Form 8833. You just have to eventually mail it to the IRS, with info associating it with your original electronic filing. The US tax filing doesn't require any substantiating documents for the Thai tax credit. Thus, you could even figure out what your Thai tax would be -- on the back of an envelope. No need to wait 'til the actual filing of a Thai tax return. Thus, clear to file your US tax return early in the year. As an observation. The only scenarios where Thailand would absorb a tax credit for US taxes paid -- is for rental incomes on immovable property, and for capital gains, on immovable property. This is because the DTA gives the US -- where the immovable property is located -- primary taxation authority. But, it does give secondary taxation authority to Thailand. Thus, the US keeps all the taxes collected -- but Thailand can also tax this income -- but only gets to keep what's left over after absorbing the tax credit, if any. Again, on the back of an envelope, I could determine what, if any, Thai taxes would remain after subtracting out the tax credit. If negative, I wouldn't even bother filing a Thai tax return, if this was the only income subject to taxation. But what if there were some positive tax collection after the credit? I guess, then, I should file a Thai tax return. But where on this filing would I put the tax credit from my US tax return? Maybe on line 13 from this excerpt from a Thai electronic Thai return? Dunno. But, having no rental property, not overly interested.

Shouldn't the guidance for this thread come from the OP? (chuckle, chuckle)

Right on! Where's Mike Lister when we need him.....?

Actually, in my case, it would be EXACTLY the same. My checking account only contains non assessable income (direct deposits from my Air Force pension and from Social Security). Thus, when my bank does a monthly direct debit from my checking account to pay off the Visa charge for purchases I made in Thailand -- I maintain that characterizes the "loan" I received from Visa for the Thai purchases the same as the payback, i.e., non assessable. No different than a Wise transfer of non assessable income from this same checking account.

What I say is common sense. But I have no problem with your desire to file a nil tax return, because the law says you have to due to exceeding the assessable income threshold. There's no "winner take all" with this discussion. The reader can see both sides of the argument, then decide to do whatever they're most comfortable with.