JimGant

Try again, after reading @Guavaman excellent summary on the previous page NDN, let me help you out in language the Cyclist can understand: So, this confirms TRD is only interested in income that is NOT exempt for the purpose of income tax calculation, thus no need to declare all remittances to include income exempt for the purpose of income tax calculation. Duh.

Well, Thailand could override their DTAs, as long as the spirit of no double taxation isn't violated. A perfect example is the "saving clause" in all US DTAs, which gives the US secondary taxation rights on most income. For example, the US-Thai DTA gives "exclusive" taxation rights to Thailand on my private pension remittances. However, the "saving clause" override allows the US secondary taxation rights on this income. Not saying Thailand would claim secondary taxation rights on those incomes the DTA says are only taxable by the home country -- if the home country decides not to tax them. This statement can have various interpretations, IMO: Maybe they're saying, "We're not interested in foreign pensions taxed in the home country. But if they're not, we'll revert back to the language of the specific DTA." Which would exclude secondary taxation rights in some cases, like govt pensions. Anyway, who knows. Just sounds like a workaround to ease matters on taxing foreign pensions. Would be nice if they reiterated this position. Here's some language on treaty overrides:

You ARE smoking something....!

I think you've nailed it. Remember at the beginning of this goat rope, back in Sept 2023, where this was the prominent headline: What could be a better solution to simplifying DTA language? Just declare that home countries always have primary taxation authority on home country pensions -- and Thailand has secondary taxation authority, when the home country doesn't exercise its primary taxation authority. This doesn't in any way compromise the spirit of a DTA, since the principal of no double taxation is still adhered to. It would, of course, have to rely on self-assessment, as any enforcement would only come from random compliance audits (which may not even exist). But, now, if your home country doesn't tax your pension, Thailand has a hook for you. Easy to ignore, if integrity is not your thing. Anyway, it really does seem that this early guidance by TRD became mantra with all (or many) of the sub TRD offices. Would be nice if the head daddy rabbit at TRD could reiterate this policy to the rest of us....

My god, man -- what are you smoking? As you've been repeatedly reminded, under today's self assessment system, you only declare on your tax return assessable pensions (and other assessable income). They're not interested in non taxable pension monies. Possibly your first clue is that there is no place on the tax return to indicate non assessable pensions. Duh. That in the future they might want to see all your pension income -- is a possibility. But we ain't there yet.

Or, what about remitting funds into your condo developer, funds you obtained in a loan from a home country bank. Non income, of course. Other remitted funds, like to your gardener or joint account, may or not be assessable income -- that's for you to assess. Where it's remitted to -- is irrelevant. Thus, come tax time, have good records of the sources of your remitted income, figure out what's assessable, and should go on a Thai tax return, then figure if, after TEDA, whether or not this is taxable. If so, pay the taxes. Not too complicated.

Why? It's up to you to break out assessable remitted income from non assessable income. Then, only plug the assessable income into the tax return -- 'cause there aren't any lines for non assessable income. Subtract out TEDA a the 150k zero bracket -- and if you owe taxes, file. If not, consider ignoring those 60/120k thresholds -- and do this again next year.

Only if there's tax evasion involved -- and I think the consensus here is that, if you figure out on the back of an envelope that you owe taxes, best get a TIN, file a return, and pay tax due. But, if the only reason is that you might need to file, and get a TIN -- is because your assessable income exceeds an arbitrary threshold of 60 or 120k -- then realistic people might conclude it would be better to play a round of golf than rattle around a TRD office for the better part of a day: -- Particularly if your remittances are "average" (whatever one might conclude about that number) and would not bring attention to yourself. -- And, based on the above, that TRD doesn't have you in their files, 'cause you don't have a TIN, you never filed a return, you don't have a "large" remittance number of interest, and they don't know if you've been here over 180 days (unless a "large" remittance maybe had them research this). Anyway, why hyperventilate about not filing 'cause you exceeded an arbitrary threshold? They've never heard of you, so you won't be called in for a chat. And in the remote chance you are -- the fine is 2000bt -- a fine highly unlikely for being issued for not filing a blank tax return. Just make sure you've got solid data on what remitted income is assessable, and what income is not assessable. Then, punch in the numbers -- and if taxes are due -- get a TIN and file. Otherwise, kick back and relax. Really -- until they start enforcing filing null tax returns -- why get stressed......?

Does your country's DTA not protect against double taxation? Or are you confusing finally having to pay taxes to someone -- as double taxation? Many on this forum are whining, 'cause they're in the latter situation. Breaks my heart.

And, if US taxes on your IRA are higher than Thai taxes, creative theory becomes a non player.

The country with exclusive taxation authority (language often says, "may ONLY be taxed") never has to absorb a tax credit -- they get to keep the whole enchilada. Your example of Thailand absorbing a tax credit for taxes paid to the US on an IRA -- is not how it works.

Nope. DTA gives Thailand "exclusive" taxation rights on remitted IRAs, meaning only Thailand can tax it. However, the US has this "saving clause" in all its DTAs, meaning, it always has secondary taxation rights on taxation (except for a few items, like child care and alimony). Thus, Thailand taxes your remitted IRA -- and as exclusive taxation authority in the DTA -- gets to keep ALL TAXES COLLECTED, and doesn't have to absorb a tax credit from the US. The US, on the other hand, does have to absorb a tax credit for Thai taxes paid. If these are less than the US tax on your IRA, your total out-of-pocket tax bill, to both countries, would equal the tax bill if only the US taxed your IRA. If Thai taxes higher than US taxes, well, your total tax bill, both countries, equals your Thai tax bill ('cause Thai tax credit wipes out your total US tax bill). As a note for discussion, here's the Por 162 language, meant to exclude pre 2024 income from Thai taxes: For my traditional IRA, all the original funding occurred by 1990. This was with, of course, pre 2024 income -- albeit tax deferred income (which makes no never mind here, for Por 162 purposes). Since then - because the IRA holds stock mutual funds -- every year capital gains are "realized," and this pre-2024 income is then reinvested. So, except for the 2024 reinvested cap gains, my IRA adheres -- as far as I can see -- to the Por 162 exemption on "foreign sourced income derived before 1 Jan 2024." Now, one expat advisor out there -- Expatthaitax -- says, nope, only remitted money from pre 2024 bank accounts (no IRAs, brokerage accounts, investments apply) is covered by Por 162. I don't agree -- but would change my mind with something definitive from TRD. But, what all this means is that, if I follow my own counsel and believe my IRA remittances are exempt per Por 162 -- then, I'm just not required to declare my IRA remittance in a Thai tax return. But, I still have to declare my IRA distribution on my US tax return -- without, of course, any Thai tax credit, since I don't declare this IRA distribution on a Thai tax return. Bottom line: US taxes are probably greater than what I would have paid Thailand. So, Por 162 probably gives me no advantage.

Nonsense. Christ, it's already bullet proof, with that LTR visa in your passport, should TRD come knocking. Which they won't, if you're completely off their radar screen, 'cause you didn't file a blank tax return.

And, of course, their minimum rate starts at 7500bt (the figure we've seen most advertised), which, I guess, is what they'd charge for a blank tax return. But, then, you'd need to pay another 8000bt to get a TIN. There's no way TRD is interested in monies that aren't taxable. How do I know? Because there aren't any lines on the tax form to list such monies. No way do you have to file a tax return -- by law -- if you have no assessable income. And, per Royal Decree, you have none courtesy of your LTR visa [however, jury still out on whether or not such exempt income must not be from current tax year...]. Would it be possible to provide the names of these two Expat tax companies, so that they can be included on the shyster list.....? Thanx.

Yeah, his ignorance is becoming annoying. Remittance income -- only pertinent to two nations in the world (Thailand and Malta) -- is not even a footnote in any Double Tax Treaty. And, not in any CRS dialogue. Not sure what his agenda is.....

I hope she was just daft, and not up-to-speed on TRD guidance on Por 162 pre 2024 income.....I say this because Expatthaitax (a tax advisory firm) has put the word out that Por 162 exemption only applies to pre 2024 bank accounts. Period. Thus, money in investments, brokerages, Individual Retirement Accounts, etc are NOT covered. Where Expatthaitax got their readout of Por 162 from, I dunno. But maybe this TRD lady got the same briefing......

Makes no difference what "filtering" system you use, since the remittance aspect to taxation will have disappeared.

Currently, only assessable income is included on your tax return. Income non assessable, because of DTA or because it was pre 2024 income (Por 162), is NOT shown anywhere on your return. And, then, of course it doesn't affect your tax bracket -- and wouldn't be shown as a tax deduction, since there's no equivalent non assessble income to deduct it from. Much discussion on other threads about TRD eventually getting around to asking you to declare ALL remitted income -- assessable and non assessable. This is a Canadian model, where non taxable (non assessable) income is factored in with taxable income, to potentially drive up the tax bracket, and thus collect more taxes on taxable income. Thailand would be smart to emulate this, as its potential to raise tax brackets, and thus taxes collected on assessable income. And, if they asked you to label each element of your non assessable income, potential there to discover inappropriately labelled, and thus taxable, income. But, since they'll have to bang this off of 61 separate DTAs for most non assessable income, this would most likely not be a cost effective.

Or, like for me, and probably many Yanks, our tax returns are joint. Thus, the return, by itself, doesn't parse my income from my wife's. So it's worthless. So, in my case, I did submit the first two pages of my joint 1040 -- but also the 1099s that defined my specific taxable income for the year. With an explanatory note. No problem. Oh, and the tax return/1099s were for only the past year. Some forms of LTR, but not WP, require the past two years. I had to get BoI to clarify this for me.

Well, they may think that, since you report it, that it's assessable income, and thus potentially taxable. Because, there are no lines to report non assessable foreign remitted income. That you end up paying tax on this, because you're stupid enough to report non assessable income -- because you're on some kind of crusade -- is fine with me. Maybe pays for those needed road repairs in my neighborhood.

Ah, Oldcpu's answer to that, with his report on how the Canadians require reporting global income, even if it's not taxable -- to add to your taxable income and adjust your tax bracket upwards. Very clever. Now, you pay more taxes on taxable income -- because you have a higher tax bracket, courtesy of having to report non taxable income. Anyway, Thailand doesn't do this, of course. But they could, if they, in the future, had you report non assessable foreign remitted income, and used this to adjust your tax bracket. Then, there could be a higher tax bill on assessable income, 'cause you're in a higher tax bracket. That would, then, give meaning to having to report non assessable foreign remitted income. But, I wouldn't hold my breath on Thailand adopting this approach. Bad news, Oldcpu: When Canada becomes the 51st state of the US, all your worldwide income will be taxable. Good news: You won't have to learn or speak French.

How many space heaters is a better wonder....

That doesn't quite square with this: Not that Expatthai gets it right every time......

I won't doubt that -- the US saving clause, allowing them to tax all worldwide income regardless of DTA, can be invoked for resident aliens. And that's what appears to be what happened with your colleagues. As such, this income is no longer considered "only taxable in the UK" and would be entered on the appropriate line for taxable income, on the 1040 or its schedules. But, I responded to your literal declaration: Thus, I took your "only taxable in the UK" literally, meaning it's not taxable in the US -- and therefore it is NOT shown anywhere on the US tax filing (even a Form 8833 wouldn't be required). And, "only taxable in the UK" means it is not taxable in Thailand -- and is therefore not shown anywhere on the Thai tax form -- your first clue to this is that there is no place to put it on the form. Your lobbying for reporting non assessable income is starting to wear thin.

You would not have to declare your UK Govt Pension. The IRS isn't interested on tax exempt income, and appropriately has no line items for them (with the exception of tax exempt interest on govt bonds, a figure used to modify adjusted gross income, and therefore potentially raise Medicare premiums). Same logic used by Thailand, i.e., my US govt pension is fully exempt from Thai taxation, so they have no interest in seeing this figure -- that's why there is no line item for it.