JimGant

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.

Well, if those remittances are taxable, per DTA by Thailand, and if they exceed those 60/120/220 filing thresholds -- they'll hear about them in my tax filing. All those other remittances, because the DTA says they're not taxable, or because Por 162 exempts them -- will be invisible to TRD, since no need to declare them on a tax return. There is no requirement to provide TRD with data on remitted income that is not assessable.

Huh? Let country B read the DTA to see what income isn't coming their way for taxation. Since they can't tax this income, why do they have to know about it?

This is where I lose you -- why do they have to be declared?. If the DTA says a certain type of income is taxable exclusively by country A, then that is solely where it needs to be mentioned in a tax return. Country B need never know about this income -- thus never needing its inclusion in a country B tax return. Again, I'm not sure where you're going with this ---- Please elaborate. Thank you.

Not exactly sure where you're going with this..... A Thai citizen, residing in the US, is subject to US taxes on his worldwide income, has to file a 1040 US tax return, but can avail himself of all the deductions and other amenities afforded to US citizens. But, he is also covered by the US-Thai DTA -- so there are some incomes, like his Thai govt pension, not subject to US taxes. Thus, you might say, "non assessable." Pretty much a carbon copy of how a US Thai tax resident is treated is treated in Thailand. So, excuse my ignorance -- but what was your point in bringing this up?

Adherence to thresholds doesn't apply to non assessable income. Or, am I missing something?

There's a difference?

Well, that's on the other side of the coin, you know, the side that says: Must only file if assessable income exceeds the 60/120/20k arbitrary thresholds.

Question? Did that IRA consist of pre 2024 Income? Why, yes. And you have heard of FIFO, meaning that 300k remittance certainly didn't encompass any 2024 IRA activity, since your overall value was 3M at end of 2023. Ok. And Por 162 exempts all pre 2024 income, which, by definition of income, certainly includes your IRA. Ok. So, quit wasting my time and get out of here.

Before Por 162, if you had an IRA withdrawal, due, maybe, to Required Minimum Distribution -- and remitted in same year as withdrawal -- Thailand had primary taxation rights on this (but the US secondary rights -- per saving clause -- meaning they also could tax, but would have to absorb a tax credit for the Thai taxes). This was, and is, explicitly spelled out in the US-Thai DTA. But along came Por 162, which, in my reading (discussed in detail, earlier) exempted all IRA withdrawals (except those representing 2024 IRA activity, or later), since such withdrawals were from pre 2024 income, which Por 162 exempts. Anyway, jury, for some, still out on this. So, pre Por 161 and 162 days, the DTA is explicit about IRAs and 401ks having Thailand (country of residence) sole taxation authority, with, due to saving clause in DTA, allowing secondary taxation rights to US. And, for those not believing that IRAs fall under Por 162, then nothing has changed with the DTA, and all subsequent remittances of such IRAs to Thailand will be primarily taxable by Thailand (and secondarily by US, with absorbed tax credit). And, of course, such remitted IRA monies are assessable, and as such, are subject to Thai taxation filing. Roth IRAs are a little more difficult to address, primarily because the US-Thai DTA was approved prior to there ever being Roth IRAs -- so nothing addressing them. However, the US-UK DTA addressed this issue, and added an amendment /protocol that essentially said: If retirement monies, specifically Roth IRAs) are exempt from taxation by the US, such monies are also exempt from UK taxation (correct dialogue in technical explanation of US-UK DTA). Of course, nothing (yet) exists in the US-Thai DTA addressing this, so it's pretty much a quandary, for now. But, the latest OECD and UN Model taxation treaties are addressing this issue, coming to the conclusion that how the US and UK handled the Roth question is where future treaties/related protocols should go. What to do? Well, like my reading of Por 162 exemptions of traditional IRAs, I'd use the same logic for Roth IRAs. And, in fact, you'd probably even be on more solid ground, since the money in Roth IRAs is pre 2024 *after tax* income (at least for the principal, which FIFO nicely covers). Traditional IRAs had *tax deferred/pre tax income* --'tho it's still pre 2024 income, which Por 162 doesn't slice and dice to any degree seen (except maybe by the Expatthaitax folks). Anyway, long winded. Sorry. Just my take on matters -- having dealt with gray areas on the US Tax Code, as a CPA there for several years. Obviously, this doesn't give me any leg-up on Thai tax matters, nor whether or not TRD auditors would be as conciliatory as the auditors I encounters at IRS......

Actually it suggests one thing -- self-assessment is alive and well. Thailand is acting like an OECD nation, where only a cursory math check is done by algorithm before a refund check is issued. Only is your return possibly scrutinized in greater detail in the next year or two or three. And if there's a potential problem, you'll hear about it. Obviously if you pass the math test, you'll get the refund check and the benefit of any doubt, at least initially. To hold up checks for anything more than a quick glance at your return -- would not be prudent.

The majority of my remittances are non assessable monies -- govt pension, social security, savings, etc. That lump sum would have no value to TRD, unless the assessable amount is isolated. And that would require self-assessment from me.

Well, up to you, of course. But I'm certain (unless TRD publishes something that supports Expatthai's position) my argument would have a great chance to prevail -- but at worst, would certainly show a no tax evasion scenario. Thus, pay the tax, plus interest. But, a 100% chance of paying Thai tax on your IRA, vs a 1% estimated chance of random compliance audit, and then paying tax on your IRA -- doesn't seem like a contest. Anyway, based on your previous postings of your annual income, you would probably owe no Thai taxes anyway, after TEDA subtractions. So, this whole drill is only about needing to file 'cause you break the 60/120/220 filing thresholds.

Not if you don't show them on your Thai tax return. And, yes, there are some folks, even on this thread, that would like for TRD to demand you show non assessable income on your tax return. We ain't there yet -- and, hopefully, never will be

Actually, if you decide your IRA remittance is not assessable income, then, if you file a Thai tax return -- there's nothing on your Thai tax return to indicate your IRA income. What, exactly, would come into TRD's focus to warrant an audit? No, my argument, I'm sure, would be appreciated in any audit -- and worst case -- you then pay the tax owed, plus interest. But, this revisits the argument -- why even declare it, and pay tax on it -- when the chance that it will be identified for an audit is almost zip?

Well, Expatthailand is, if nothing more, forthcoming: Having said that, let's look at Por 162, which says: Expatthailand says this can only apply to foreign sourced income residing in a bank acount. Where, pray tell, did they get this interpretation? I can only assume they didn;t invent it -- so maybe somebody from TRD gave them a briefing..... However, unless a definitive TRD interpretation -- and one I could hold in my hands -- I'd still maintain that my interpretation would be solid enough to withstand scrutiny. And my interpretation of why my IRA account would qualify under Por 162: Anyway, sorry if this is a repeat -- but it really is pertinent for US expats, with IRAs or 401ks. First, your IRA consists of contributed income, that becomes tax deferred income. That in no way subtracts from the Por 162 definer: pre 2024 income. Then, like in my case, where my IRA is a mutual stock fund, that twice a year, takes my accumulated unrealized capital gains, and converts to realized cap gains -- and income -- that now also qualifies as pre 2024 income -- and subject to Por 162. So, remittances to Thailand of my IRA are, in my opinion, certainly covered by Por 162 -- and I can invoke FIFO to eliminate the 2024 cap gain reinvestment as part of that remittance. So, absent anything in writing from TRD, you can safely ignore Expatthai -- and use your own brainpower to interpret things. As a gray area, why would you not give yourself the benefit of the doubt? As I've previously said, if you do pay Thailand on your IRA, you still have to file with the US, who will take a tax credit for those Thai taxes -- and you'll probably be in a no net tax situation. So, my argument is from principal, not cash flow. But, as smooth as Expatthai comes across -- they still appear not to be completely above board (but, hey, they're in the business of making money).

Bingo. Nothing has changed from TY 2023 to TY2024, requiring a unique new form. In fact, if you look at the form for 2023, you'll see it's just boilerplate - for Tax Year at the top of the page, there's just a blank line to be filled in (unlike a US 1040, with an embedded tax year). Thus, why would you expect a new form for TY2024, since you just fill in the blank lines with your new self-assessed numbers -----? And, yes, your self assessment, banged against Por 161 and 162 guidance, would be different on a boilerplate 2023 form vs a 2024 form. But, hey, we're talking about a form full of blank lines, but categories thqt haven't changed between tax years. So, if you're going to file in person, quit waiting for a new form -- the online filers have already shown there's no difference in format from 2023 to 2024. So, don't expect a new hard copy boilerplate form. I know this observation will disappoint those wanting a new form, with lines to include non assessable income. Lord knows why they want this...but, fortunately, TRD is only interested in numbers pertinent to generating income for Thailand.

All DTAs with Thailand adhere to OECD and UN Model language. There is no language in any of these DTAs that addresses "remittances." Income in the DTAs address income where it arises. And which country gets to tax the owner of that income. Period. Thus, Thailand's DTAs won't require any rewickering, when things go to worldwide taxation by Thailand -- and the remittance baloney goes away. That Thailand wants to put a domestic tweak on DTAs, namely, the remittance aspect -- no problem, as long as it doesn't affect the purpose of the DTA, namely, preventing double taxation. But -- this peculiar Thai remittance aspect is not even part and parcel of any DTA (like the US saving clause). It's just a local law that addresses how Thailand treats income addressed in DTAs. Thus, it's not even a tax treaty override, which are frowned upon, but are allowed: https://repository.law.umich.edu/book_chapters/330/

Which was bizarre, since the subject at hand is the requirement for remittance reporting to adhere to CRS reporting requirements. There's already enough thread creep here -- but if you really want some more, then I'll explore "resident alien" in the US and how it pertains to CRS reporting. Should be interesting.