JimGant

Oh, come on, Mike. It's not that hard to determine what needs to be reported to RD. It's all determinable by a detailed explanation of your DTA, like with the US Technical Explanation. And, if assessable under the DTA, what about when remitted -- how hard is that? So, with such certainty, why would I want to go to RD and ask: "Sir, here is my spreadsheet on my worldwide income, with what I assume is taxable by Thailand. Do you concur?" What do you see as areas of disagreement? I just see an RD agent with caged eyeballs.

No. Mainly because Thai RD is not interested in income that isn't subject to taxation, 'cause there's no profit there, and the unnecessary filing of such a tax return has its own costs in manpower and trees. Practically, because a Thai tax return has no line items in which to place income not subject to taxation, due to nature of income (e.g., per diem); that it's excluded by DTA; that it's not remitted. Most of us can cull what's assessable and what's not. Otherwise, hire a Thai tax professional, of which, I'm sure, they'll be a lot more of soonest.

Ok, you win. If I have to file a Thai tax return, I'll include all my Air Force pensions, Social Security, and other income exempted by treaty. Now, where on the form should I put this? And after I do, where on the form would I back it out, since it's not taxable income -- which the RD would know, and wonder what kind of jerk would include it in the first place....

What I said: Does your statement mean that RD should be shown all your income in order for them to determine its assessability (taxability would be a better term)? I think you do, due to an earlier post by you (which I'll try and locate), where you state that you and the RD clerk go over all your income to determine what should be filed, and what shouldn't. I maintain that that is a step not needed, as most of us can determine whether our foreign income is subject to Thai taxation, or not. But, I guess you don't agree, which, of course, is your right.

Ok, then just say: "My social security benefit is not taxable by Thailand, due to the DTA, so it doesn't count for the income threshold for filing a tax return." Or you can say, " it isn't assessable income" if you're having a problem with "non-assessable." This thread is already the most larded discussion we've ever had on this forum; and now we're getting into a semantics "gotcha." Bizarre.

How about 100% chance? If they, or the banks, or whoever, find it impossible to parse out income remittance from capital remittances, you really think they're going to tax my 100% capital remittance to buy a condo?

Yes, gov't pensions (paid for services of past gov't employment) of most OECD countries are taxable exclusively by the country paying them. But for some countries, at least for Norway, this is not true. Norway requires (via DTA) its expats in Thailand to have their gov't pensions primarily taxable by Thailand -- thus those pensions remitted to Thailand are assessable income for Thai tax purposes. But this is not a simple credit to Norway for taxes paid to Thailand -- this is, if you have all your Norwegian pension earnings taxed by Thailand, and can show a tax return proving it -- a complete nullification of your Norway tax obligation on same pension payments. Thus, pay Thailand 1000 baht in taxes, and get relief from a Norwegian tax of 10000 baht equivalency (exaggeration, but you get the idea). Years ago, when I read this info on this forum, was the interesting part, where Norwegian expats were kicking and screaming to, first, be able to get Thai TINs -- then to declare their Norwegian pensions as taxable by the Thais. The Thai RD was throwing them out the door, saying, "We don't tax foreign pensions." Seriously. But, things did change, and if you wanted Thailand to tax your pension, I guess someone with authority decided, 'why not collect it.' Anyway, I mention this to emphasize that everyone should become familiar with their DTA with Thailand, as the new remittance rules (if implemented) will re-define assessable foreign source income.

How about a straw man that we can critique...... 1. Assessable foreign source income is PRIMARILY determined by one's DTA. Fortunately, most DTAs are fairly explicit as to which contracting country, source or residence, has primary taxing authority. -- But I use the word PRIMARILY because Thailand has its remittance clause as to taxability; so even if the DTA says it has primary taxing authority, if it is NOT remitted, it is NOT assessable income for Thai taxation purposes. 2. So, if the DTA gives Thailand primary taxing authority on certain foreign income (and under the new proposal, is earned and remitted AFTER Jan 1, 2024), then this is assessable income subject to being reported on a Thai tax return. -- But if this assessable foreign income, plus Thai based income, like the interest on your savings account, is less than 60,000 baht -- no tax filing is required. 3. Thai RD is NOT interested in non assessable income (again, income exempted by treaty, like gov't pensions for most OECD countries -- or, again, any income not remitted). Thus, if you have enough assessable income requiring you to file a Thai tax return, you would NOT include line items of non assessable income. And, for sure, if you didn't have enough assessable income to require you to file, you certainly wouldn't file a tax return containing only line items on non assessable income (or worse, line items on non income cash flow into Thailand, like savings, just to show how you're being forthcoming in reporting all your money transfers). 4. Banks aren't going to attempt to determine what part of your wire transfers into Thailand are assessable income, non assessable income, or savings. Impossible. I couldn't even tell the make up of my chunk of cash flow into Thailand, derived from a savings account containing old direct deposits of income, inheritances, new deposits of gov't pensions, i.e., non assessable via treaty, etc. How are the banks going to do this? -- And since they can't parse out income, the Thai RD isn't about to treat all cash flows into Thailand as assessable income. This will all have to come down to self assessment. --- And there are enough honest folks here that will comply, making for some new revenue, particularly as RD won't have the extra cost of hiring more folks for compliance investigations (well maybe a few, for random audits). ---- And these "honest folks", if paying tax at home on this same income, won't have a tax increase, due to the tax credit from the Thai taxation. All additions or corrections welcomed.

Yes. And they're taxable only in the contracting state of residency. What don't you understand? As I recall, you, for some reason, got hung up on the word "derived." Are you still maintaining that "derived" somehow means taxable in the contracting state where paid?

Well, they came to the right person for simple explanations. You lost my vote pages ago, when you advised to submit a tax return with all your income, not just assessable income. Then, recently, you gloat that "I submitted a return with no omissions." So, from pages ago, I remember your going through your return with the clerk, she checking off, "not taxable, not taxable, not taxable, etc" Yep, no omissions. But plenty of stupidity -- that RD office probably had plenty of laughs over the stupid farang that likes to report non assessable income.

Yes, but not much worry, in extra taxes, because, yes, Thailand will get first dibs on taxing that 10k -- but due to the saving clause in the DTA, you also have to declare that IRA distribution on your US 1040 return. And the US has to give you a dollar for dollar tax credit for what you pay Thailand in taxes. Thus, between what you pay Thailand, and what you pay the US (after the tax credit) is probably a wash. Plus, if 10k is your only assessable income for Thai tax purposes, you probably won't have any Thai taxable income, after subtracting out all the allowances, deductions, et al. Thus, your only tax bill will be with Uncle Sam, same as if you'd never left Kansas. Thus, you're treated AS IF you're a US tax resident, even tho' you're a tax resident of Thailand, not the US (are you listening, Jerry?)

Yes. But what's weird about the UK-Thai tax treaty is that private pensions aren't addressed at all, at least that I can find. And, there's not even an Article addressing "Other Income," like in the US DTA, where income not specifically addressed in Articles is discussed. So I can see why Brits scratch their heads when it comes to private pensions and Thailand. Was it intentionally left out of the treaty? And if so, then how do you know if Thailand has "assessable income" of your private pension -- or not? Maybe the answer lies in the Articles on dependent and independent employment compensation..... But, if I were a Brit, I'd sure like something definitive on private pensions remitted to Thailand.

Yes, and as a recent post shows, only assessable income is to be shown on your Thai tax return. Thus, income excluded by the DTA would not be shown -- or income not excluded by the DTA -- but not remitted in year earned -- would also not be assessable income. Thus, I would feel no lack of integrity by signing such a tax form, saying there are no omissions. Of course, under the aforementioned rules, I also would have absolutely no assessable income, thus the form I would sign would say I have no inclusions. As such, there would be no reason to submit a tax return. Thus, nothing to sign. Nevermind.

Not sure what lines you're reading between, but on Social Security, the Thai-US DTA couldn't be any clearer. The following from the Technical Explanation of that treaty, Article 20: Thailand's not about to break any tax treaty, as it gives them (in the US case) an actual advantage in what monies they have taxation rights over, like private pensions, IRAs, 401ks, annuities, et al. There are methods to tweak existing treaties. But tweaking the Social Security exclusion would make no sense -- nor would the US buy into it.

Well, yes and no. If a DTA says your gov't pension is not taxable by Thailand, but only by your home country -- then, yes, your gov't pension is not assessable income for Thai tax purposes. However, if the DTA says Thailand has exclusive taxation rights on private pensions (which the US DTA clearly states), then that would be assessable income -- IF (under the old rules) it is remitted in year earned. Under the new (proposed) rules, all pre-Jan 1, 2024 earnings are not assessable income - if remitted to Thailand after 31 Dec 2023. Which says you'd best open a new bank account for your 2024 and later earnings -- and do your wire transfers from your pre-2024 bank account -- not that they'll ever have the resources to efficiently investigate transfer sources.

How so? If all my remitted income was from an earlier year, I had no assessable income for Thai tax purposes -- thus no tax filing obligation. Are you saying you somehow had to remit current year income, thus having assessable income for Thai tax purposes? No savings or checking account from a prior year to "filter" your wire transfers through? Weird.

Under the recently expired rule, income remitted in a later year than the year earned -- was not assessable income, at least for taxation purposes. In my case, my Wise transfers came from a savings account, many years old, containing tons of earnings from previous years. As far as I was concerned, I was compliant with Thai law, in that remitted earnings were from (or at least could shown to be) from earlier times. Thus, no assessable income for tax purposes, no need to file a tax return. For those with direct deposits into Thailand, or who didn't have a checking/savings account several years old, from which to derive their wires into Thailand -- you might not pass the integrity test. However, Thai RD was smart enough to know that they didn't have the resources to ferret out such folks.

If you send USD, the rate is established at the receiving end. Thus, another reason not to convert at the sending end, especially between a major currency and a thinly traded currency like the baht -- where you get hosed by the spread.

They'd be remiss if they didn't, since they have 60 tax treaty agreements that give them first taxation rights on certain pensions -- mainly private pensions (but not gov't pensions). Identifying these private pensions would be easy, if they're direct deposited into a Thai bank account. Not so easy if these private pensions are part of a fungible glob of cash flow wired into Thailand, where much, if not most, are not private pensions, and not taxable per the DTA. Here, it would seem only self-assessment by the sender of what part of the wire is assessable income, per DTA, would be the only workable solution. But this might collect more money than you think, because it you're already paying taxes on these pensions in your home country (like in the US), should Thailand finally utilize the DTA to their benefit -- you'll now mainly pay taxes to Thailand, instead of the US (when you factor in the tax credit from the Thai taxes). So, your combined tax bill --assuming you do owe some US tax, after factoring in the tax credit -- will be the same as if Thailand never took advantage of the DTA (and even less, if you're Norwegian, where any taxes paid to Thailand will negate a tax requirement to Norway, which are higher than Thailand taxes). So, self assessment should be profitable, which is nice for Thailand, since there's no real alternative. No big deal for Yanks -- my IRA would now have to be declared to Thailand, so, yeah, some more paperwork. But, as previously said, my US tax on this IRA (payable due to the saving clause in the DTA) would be reduced dollar for dollar by the Thai tax credit. Ho hum. No new hole in my pocket. You're not paying taxes now on your pension -- and are horrified by your country's DTA now allowing Thailand to tax it? Welcome to the OECD's latest effort in re-writing their model tax treaties to, not just eliminate double taxation, but to eliminate no taxation, period. So solly.

They've improved of late. I just sent $20k Jan 1, afternoon, Thai time. It was in my Bangkok Bank account in less than 24 hours the next day, at 1400 (which seems to be the standard log in time for Wise transfers). For some reason, the larger the amount sent, the longer it takes -- or at least that used to be the case. 20 grand in less than 24 hours is right up there with a SWIFT transfer.

All transfers, income and capital...? Did you really think that through before you hit "send?"

PKF Nuobello issues two points that says they are staffed by uninformed personnel. User beware. First Point: Good grief. There would never be, nor is there any realistic discussion about, a flat 35% "final tax at source" on remitted income, or in the confusion, all remitted cash flows (see next point). If remitted income is going to go through the Thai tax process, it will be in the orderly laddered tax bracket method -- where, yes, 35% is the top rate -- but under the laddered bracket method, your effective tax rate would never reach 35%. Second point: Of course there is. There's just no way to parse out from a wired cash flow into Thailand what part is income, and what part is savings. The new proposed reg addresses taxing remitted ASSESSABLE INCOME -- not taxing after-tax capital savings cash flows into Thailand. But -- and here's why it's taking so long to sort out -- it's impossible to differentiate income from capital in a cash flow from a foreign bank. Yes, if that cash flow was a direct deposit of your Boeing pension check, then, yes -- prima facie on taxability (subject to DTA, of course). Otherwise, a Wise transfer from my savings account, primarily funded with inheritance monies, is going to be impossible to parse income from savings. Anyway, PKF Nuobello gets a thumbs down, at least from me.

Remember, this whole enchilada was about taxing remitted ASSESSABLE INCOME, not taxing all remitted cash inflows. Banks aren't capable of differentiating between income and capital in a cash flow wire from your home country's checking or savings account. Neither is the RD. And they're not about to tax ALL remittances -- no further discussion needed on that point. Where does that leave us? Self-assessment, I guess -- with some new RD hires to do random compliance audits. Obviously, if they dropped the remittance aspect and just taxed income where and when earned, they'd have a lot bigger tax base -- with CRS and FATCA reporting now in play. But I'm sure there's already push back from the high rollers over dropping the remittance aspect. That we haven't heard anything further of late says there must be some heated discussions going on.

Huh? That money was already here before Jan 1, 2024 -- thus grandfathered from the post Jan 1, 2024 remittance rules..... Please share your logic, if it exists..... Wise transfers of my Air Force and Social Security pay, which are exclusively taxable by the US. For the Mercedes purchase, I transferred money from my savings account, founded with an inheritance from Aunt Martha. Should the RD want to have a few rounds on income vs capital, that might prove interesting. But, I really don't think they have, or can afford to have, the resources for such scrutiny. No, they'll reap enough new money when they finally post definitive rules on their latest tax scheme -- and then rely on self-assessment.

An observation: Those with 800k in the bank for retirement extensions, as of 31 Dec 2023, will not come under Immigration scrutiny for taxes, since pre Jan 2024 monies are exempt from the new proposed rules. Just don't let that 800k drop down, as allowed, since the money you backfill with, before your next extension, WILL be tainted under the new rules -- and maybe subject to Imm scrutiny. But, kinda late now to switch from the 65k/mo to the 800k method. I never quite understood why those who had both options, complained about the opportunity cost of losing home country interest to the lower Thai rates. If this made the difference between you eating chicken instead of steak -- well, your problem was more extensive than opportunity cost.