JimGant

A little confused here. Let me insert this: So, under the self-assessment system, it's up to me to fill in the numbers on the tax return; figure out my TEDA; bounce that against my total assessable income; and then pay any tax owed, or request a refund of overwithheld taxes, if applicable. Where does an Assessment Officer enter this picture -- especially if I'm filing online?

Right. So for sure, if you owe taxes, get a TIN and file a return. Common sense, when analyzed against a sensical law against tax evasion -- and some appropriate penalties. But, owe no taxes -- you're free to analyze against a nonsensical law, whose penalty is paltry (and never seen applied). Then decide to file, or not. Not really a brain teaser -- unless we see further guidance about TRD getting serious about seeing null tax returns. Anyway, I'm sure most reading this are getting tired of the same old arguments. I know I am.

A stupid response! Yumthai, don't waste your energy, 'cause you're talking to a guy who drives the fast lane at exactly the speed limit, or maybe a little less -- and has twenty cars tailgating, driven by rational citizens, honking and flipping him off. Takes all kinds.

Sigh. So my observations and recommendations are being read by folks who can't think for themselves? I guess you don't think too highly of the readership. I'm sure your broken record of quoting the law has resonated with many, after contemplating alternatives. That's good, if that's what they feel comfortable with. But, I kind of look at this as akin to contemplating the risk of going 10 mph over the speed limit, and thus getting to your destination quicker. Most of us do this automatically, and go with the flow in the fast lane. Now and then, however, you get stuck behind some do gooder going the exact speed limit -- in the fast lane. And what's worse, is that he's proud of it. Barf.

Wow, wouldn't this thread be a drag, if all we had to listen to is you.

Of course there's a calculation to see if tax is due or not -- just subtract TEDA from your assessable income. Duh. Do this on the back of an envelope. If no taxes due -- decide if you should file, if assessable income exceeds 60k baht. Since if you don't file, and there's no way they'll know that you should have -- or, if magically they somehow know, and the fine is 2000 baht (never experienced) -- big f***** deal. And, forget the big scare someone interjected here awhile back, about 10 years of back audits -- because if there's no tax evasion in current year under question, do you think they'll waste resources for 10 years' of audits? Duh. No, for goodness sakes, if you think somehow your remitted assessable income exceeds TEDA -- and thus you owe taxes and should file a return -- of course, do it. If you're mathematically challenged, hire an accounting firm. But if you do know your math, and you do know you don't owe any taxes -- opt to do nothing -- instead of filing and getting a TIN, and now becoming part of the TRD's data base. And knowing there's little chance of any repercussions. Sounds like an easy choice, if you're good at analyzing odds.

...based on what data trail? They're somehow going to figure that some of your remitted income, that wasn't assessable income -- and which you didn't declare -- was ACTUALLY assessable income? These folks aren't clairvoyant.... No, unless there's a huge remittance that doesn't show up on a tax return, will they be curious enough to invite you in to explain assessable vs non assessable income. And, based on logic and TRD cost/benefit algorithms -- I doubt this number would be less than 3 million baht (and probably more). What in the world are you about? Of course we can calculate whether tax is due or not. This whole drill is based on self-assessment. I certainly can determine what remitted income is assessable. And, after deducting TEDA, do I have taxable income. Thus, certainly there is a rule -- the tax code -- that determines whether or not I owe taxes. This can all be done on your Excel spreadsheet. If I owe taxes, then, yeah, for sure I file a Thai tax return -- otherwise, I'm evading taxes. But, if no taxes owed (but my assessable income exceeds those 60/120/220k markers), then I have to decide whether to take the time, or not, to file; and the risk if I don't file. And, the risk, as far as I can see -- is minimum to naught. But, hey, this is an individual judgement call -- with no right answer.

Oh, BS. Another scare tactic that says you're too stupid to do a back-of-the-envelope to see if you're even close, or not, to having any taxable income (assessabe income minus TEDA), thus needing to file, 'lest you be branded a tax evader. Otherwise, sit back and have a beer. But for heaven's sake, don't fall for this 'come in for a free 15 minute assessment.' You just know where that's going to go. Nope. Most reading this can determine whether or not they're in a Thai tax filing situation. Just ignore these grifters out there with a hook.

Here forward. let it be known, that all tax advice given on this forum .. is INFORMAL.

Makes no difference, from the Thai taxation perspective. US Social Security payments made to anybody are exclusively taxable only by the US-- regardless of citizenship or residency. Thailand need not know about any such payments, to include payments to their resident citizens, since they have no taxation authority over them, at least per DTA: This quote, from the technical explanation, points out that govt pensions paid for govt service -- are exclusively taxable ONLY by the US -- UNLESS the recipient is a Thai citizen residing in Thailand. BUT, Social Security payments don't fall under this exception -- and remain the exclusive domain of US regardless of citizenship and resident of payee. This is handy news for those of us married to dual US-Thai citizens -- as neither my wife's Social Security, nor her Air Force survivor pension, will be taxable by Thailand. And, for you as a Brit, receiving a US SS payment, even if remitted to Thailand -- is not required to be listed as assessable income on your Thai tax return. BUT ,BUT, BUT -- this is, of course, only one man's opinion. Horror, if considered tax advice.

That's curious. Could you elaborate? Thanx.

It means you don't owe any taxes per the LTR decree. I'm in the same boat. The "file a return, even if no tax owed, if your assessable income exceeds 60000 baht" is a peculiar anomaly in Thai tax law. It's been mentioned that there's a 2000 baht fine for ignoring this rule (big deal). Fact: No reported incidents of this. And someone on this forum scaremongered that you might be subject to a back 10 year audit; ludicrous, because such long term audits are only for folks who, up front, didn't file with the INTENT TO TAX EVADE. That ain't you. So, relax. And, for Christ's sake, don't go to your local TRD office for advice on LTR visas. Very few there are knowledgeable on LTR visa related info -- and for sure, probably none on the assessable/exempt tax question. I had to hire an agent to do my one-year LTR report, as they'd never heard of it. So, relax. No reason to call you in for an audit, unless you're remitting millions of baht. And even if they did, you're clean.

The exact wording: The OECD Model Tax treaty shorthand language, as I pointed out in a previous posting, has may be taxed to mean: Contracting country in question has primary taxation rights -- but the other country has secondary taxation rights (may ONLY be taxed gives exclusive taxation rights, thus no secondary taxation rights -- not the situation here). Thus, the UK like the US DTA, gives the UK primary taxation authority on rents, meaning, they get to keep the whole enchilada of tax collection. Thailand, however, can also tax rental income -- if remitted. However, it has to absorb a tax credit equal to the taxes paid on this rental income to the UK. So, on the back of an envelope, if you see UK tax amount (the credit) trumping the Thai taxation amount -- forget even including it on the Thai tax return (which, for now, has no place for that UK tax credit anyway).

We seem to be on a circle jerk, separated by a common language. Take the following, explaining two methods of avoiding double taxation: The highlighted text is the bone of contention -- because when presented by itself, and not in the context of "credit method," it is incorrect. But, in context, yes, certain income can be taxed by both countries. In this situation, one country is the primary taxation authority, while the other country is the secondary. A good example is rental income. The following is from the technical explanation of the US-Thai DTA (I couldn't find an equivalent for the UK-Thai DTA): The highlighted "may be taxed" is OECD Model taxation speak for country in question has primary taxation authority; the other country, secondary. Now, if the language had said: " may ONLY be taxed" -- then, country in question has exclusive taxation authority. But, per the DTA technical explanation, rental income can be taxed by both the US and by Thailand. So, my rental income on a house in the US, which I remit to Thailand, is taxed by the US, which, as primary taxation authority, gets to keep all the collected taxes -- Thailand and credits don't enter into the equation. Now, Thailand can also tax this rental income; but it has to absorb a credit for the US taxes paid. And, as such, I may owe no taxes to Thailand on this rental income, after the credit. But, if the Thai tax exceeds the credit, I owe the difference -- and I now have a higher total tax bill than if the US had exclusive taxation authority, and thus the only country I had to pay taxes to.

I have no interest in UK-Thai DTA either. My retort was to your "The resident country retains the right to tax the income which was already taxed in the source country". Which, the US-Thai DTA says is BS. So, too, I believe most, if not all DTAs, don't give blanket taxation rights to resident countries on certain, specific incomes defined in the DTAs.

Bunk. If DTA says certain income, like govt pensions, are "exclusively taxable" by source country -- that's it. Thailand has no authority to tax same. But, using the US-Thai DTA: Thailand has "exclusive taxation" on US source private pensions. But -- because of the "savings clause" integral to the DTA -- the US also can tax these private pensions, although their taxation authority becomes secondary to Thailand's. And, as such, the US has to absorb a tax credit for the Thai taxes paid. Thus, Thailand gets to keep all taxes paid, and the US collects none -- if credit exceeds US tax bill. Or, collects the difference between US tax bill and the Thai tax credit. Result: You, the taxpayer, end up paying a tax bill equivalent to tax bill of the higher taxing country. Now, Thailand could, in the above example, decide to abrogate their "exclusive taxation" privilege of private pensions. This is a so-called "override," and is frowned against by the OECD, but is allowed if it doesn't violate the spirit of the DTA, mainly, avoiding double taxation. https://repository.law.umich.edu/book_chapters/330/ But, Thailand would be daft to override this "exclusive taxation" privilege -- and forego taxes needed for its coffers. Thus, their best avenue is to say nothing about excusing taxation, if taxes are paid in home country. As such -- in my case -- if I remitted my private pension income into Thailand -- and it amounted to "taxable income," because it exceeded TEDA and the freebie bracket -- I'd file a Thai tax return (if it didn't, I wouldn't -- with no chance of any repercussions of note). Thus, Thailand would collect taxes from me, they otherwise wouldn't had they put out a dictate of "no need to file Thai tax return for income taxes, if paid in home country." The final result: My total tax bill for the year wouldn't be any different if I only had to pay taxes to the US: Because the US has to "eat," via credit, the taxes I paid to Thailand (if any). And, if I had no Thai "taxable income" after subtracting out TEDA -- then no additional effort needed to get a TIN and file a Thai tax return. [But, if I owed Thai taxes, and had to file -- I could easily do this by mail, and not wasting time, gas, and parking by going to TRD. No big deal.]

Because he disagrees with everything you post -- makes him a joke!?. I say it makes him astute, in most cases. Get rid of the thin skin -- and build in a little flexibility, when other's ideas don't match yours.

You're right. In the US, if you owe taxes, but don't pay, or under pay, you're subject to fines. If, however, you've overwithheld on your income, or over paid estimated taxes -- and thus don't owe any taxes -- you're free not to file a tax return (unless some of your income is from self-employment). This is why I've got it set up, that when I die, the withholding on the income going to my wife will have a sufficient overwithholding pad to mean she owes no taxes. Thus, dear, you don't need to file anything. And that lost $400 in overwithholding is about what you'd have to pay to hire a US tax guy here in Thailand -- a nice wash, with no effort. The IRS will know, by her 1099s, what was withheld, and what was thus not owed. And the pad I've built in will cover any interest earned here in Thailand, which, of course, wouldn't have a 1099. For Thai taxes? Right now, her retirement income would be assessable, if remitted. But it's not remitted -- it's reinvested in the US. But, if we go to worldwide taxation, it would become taxable by Thailand -- and it exceeds 60,000 (the magic number for supposedly needing to file). But, after TEDA, it would be 400,000 short of being taxable income, i.e., no taxes owed, no tax evasion occurring. So, dear -- don't worry about filing a Thai tax return either. So, yeah, "tax enforcement is a significant risk" -- if you OWE taxes. If not, don't bother to file, unless you want the overwithholding refunded. Another case of "common sense." But, just to be safe -- I'll have my ashes scattered on the TRD parking lot. But, flippancy aside -- I really believe my tax plan for my wife -- who would be completely lost, even in gathering forms to give to a tax accountant -- is sound -- because if you don't owe any taxes, you haven't evaded taxation. Thus, no law infringement. And -- at least in the US -- there are absolutely no penalties for not filing, if no taxes owed (except self-employed). Thailand? Maybe an unlikely 2000 baht fine. Ho hum.

----- and a couple of holier-than-thou contributors on this forum.

Using common sense seems to be our only defense against all these disparate answers to tax questions. The most common refrain seems to be: "You're a foreign expat so you owe no taxes here. So, don't bother me with getting a TIN, and filing a Thai tax return." Then, I determine I, somehow, have 60,000 baht in remitted assessable income -- which the rules say I'm supposed to file a tax return. But my TEDA is 560,000 baht -- meaning, there's a 500,000 baht gap before I even HAVE any taxable income. Common sense, for me at least -- and probably for most of the working class clerks at TRD -- says: Don't bother to file. They, like us, can see through shoddy tax rules -- as evidenced by all the "go home" for folks showing up to file nil tax returns. What a waste of TRD resources and trees. So, if no taxable income, common sense says don't file. Yes, there's report that says you might be susceptible to a 2000 baht fine for not filing. No evidence that's ever happened -- but if it did, big deal. Other fear mongering had: They'll go back ten years and look at all your tax positions. Nonsense. Only if they found, in the current situation, that you didn't pay taxes owed, or under paid -- would they go back several years. In this case, they'll only find that you didn't file -- but didn't have any taxable income. Naughty, naughty, naughty. No, common sense dictates -- use common sense in navigating all this Thai tax mumbo jumbo.

Why not? Get it in writing. Is there a need of some kind to have a filed Thai tax return in your possession? Yes, Norwegians need such to get a Norwegian tax exemption. But, what about you? Just curious, as there maybe really is a need to have a return in your possession....

'Cause it makes no sense. What reasonable person would take an armful of ATM slips to TRD and ask: "Do I have to file a return based on these?' Come on, folks. Let's use a little common sense in this discussion. Ok, if you have a bunch of other assessable income entries, besides ATM slips, to ask questions about -- then, ok, unload the 36 atm slips on the clerk's desk -- if they may be a tie breaker for filing , or not. Otherwise, no isolated ATM slip presentation to TRD -- as you'll get funny looks.

How do you say in Thai: "Get the hook, Charlie."

Money sucked out of your bank account by an ATM transaction in Thailand -- is identical to a Wise transfer from this same bank account to Thailand. If that bank account had $50,000 in it on Dec 31, 2023 -- then that's the source of your ATM and Wise transfers -- until it runs out (FIFO applies here, as the non identity of specific monies allows FIFO, confirmed by a 2012 Bangkok Post article). After it runs out, however, you need to go to relativity -- if 78% of your post 2023 direct deposits to this home country bank account are govt pensions (which are non assessable); 18% private pensions; and 4% reinvested interest -- then any subsequent Wise or ATM remittance activity consists of 22% assessable income. And, this amount would go on the assessable foreign income line - or whatever it's called -- on the Thai tax return. Of course, you could just say you remitted from the "govt pension pile." Not too sure that would stand up under cross examination at TRD..... But, it might be an interesting conversation.... As for credit card purchases -- this is certainly not the same as Wise or ATM remittances. In fact, it's a non remittance, as it's a loan from your bank -- and the subsequent payback of that loan doesn't make it a remittance. Anyway, this point has been discussed ad nauseum; but until a more definitive guidance comes forward, I'd just say: Don't declare CC purchases, but remember the loan angle, in case you're called in for a chat by TRD (but why would they -- they'll have no knowledge of those purchases...). No, always use a grey area to your advantage.

And what difference do you expect to see? There will still be the lines for your remitted assessable income, divided up by category (pensions, rents, cap gains, etc). And lines for TEDA subtractions. Highly unlikely there will be lines for remitted NON assessable income -- to what realistic meaningful point? Possibly a line for foreign tax credits, which would be needed for remitted rental income (most DTAs), where, since Thailand is secondary taxation authority, they have to absorb a tax credit for the taxes paid to the primary taxation country, i.e., situs country. BUT, rental income is the only example I can come up with -- other remittances to Thailand fall in the categories of "exclusive or primary" taxation authority. No credit lines needed for these. Anyway, hard for me to see what changes might occur in any new, modified Thai tax forms. Anybody see something I don't? (I'm sure there's something.)