JimGant

3 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

"The new rules state that if you spend more than 180 days in Thailand per year, you will be required to declare all of your foreign income, regardless of when it was earned or whether it was remitted to Thailand. This is a significant change from the previous rules, which only required you to declare foreign income that was remitted to Thailand. 

Finally some common sense, at least as far as remittance goes -- as remittance has nothing to do with income, just cash flow. This remittance Thai tax rule was apparently incorporated to allow Thai fat cats a very convenient tax avoidance avenue, by just enabling that there is no income liability on income brought into Thailand in a later calendar year. Certainly, this has cost the Thai treasury a bunch.

Per DTA treaties -- and using the US-Thai treaty, as an example: Remittance doesn't determine income -- in fact, it's not even mentioned. The US tax treaty just says that my Air Force pension and Social Security income are taxable only by the US. Thus, not declarable as income on a Thai tax return. But per tax treaty, my Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) on my IRA *IS* taxable (when earned, not remitted) by Thailand, as the primary tax authority per the treaty. But, their own tax rules have prevented them from taxing it, since I remit it in in a later year. Thus, two incomes under the tax treaty, and one income under a Thai tax rule -- says I don't have to file a Thai tax return, as I have no taxable income. So, it's ludicrous to say, "you will be required to declare all of your foreign income," since some, like my Air Force and Social Security are exempt by treaty. And my historical IRA payments, which were remitted in a later year, were exempt by Thai law then in effect.

Anyway, if Thailand is getting away from remittances, and just adhering to the tax treaty -- I guess I'll need to declare my IRA RMD on a Thai tax return. As this will be the only income declared on the Thai tax return, it will be only slightly above the deduction and allowances, and thus a single digit effective tax rate. Now, I'll also have to declare this RMD on my US tax return -- due to the saving clause, which says all worldwide income is taxable, regardless of treaty language. But, as this will be in the 22% effective tax bracket, the tax credit allowed will mean my total tax bill, between both countries, will be the same as if I only paid taxes to the US. So, just a little more paperwork -- but no additional tax.

So, it makes a lot more sense if the new Thai tax rulings get away from remittances. Much cleaner, plus data from FATCA and CRS can show income -- but not necessarily remittances. Thus, an easier hammer to yield when demanding, "why didn't you declare your foreign income on your Thai tax return?"

Certainly the reason we're seeing remittances in the new tax structuring is because it will still give the fat cats an "out." How? Because, if the new rules say income is not taxable until remitted -- then CRS and FATCA data on income earned abroad will not trigger tax avoidance alarms, since this data is not accompanied with remittance data. And the fat cats? I'm sure they'll have many avenues to get their foreign earnings back to Thailand.

Not sure how eliminating the remittance requirement helps, or hurts, some expats over here..... For Yanks, as shown above, it may mean that, finally, Thailand will at last be coming after income that, per treaty, it has "first dibs" taxation rights on. But, again, so what -- Thailand either gets our tax dollars, or Uncle Sam does -- zero sum game with tax credits (with a few exceptions).

Anyway, just more fodder for discussion.

10 hours ago, Misty said:

It's interesting to me now that the Royal Decree granting LTR tax privileges seemed to be specifically intended to thwart any change in interpretation of the Thai Revenue Department's Resolution No 2/2528.  It's almost as if the change in interpretation we see now was known, and expected, when the LTR visa system was set up.

Indeed -- and certainly BoI would've had knowledge of potential tax changes being discussed. Thus, the Royal Decree effectively grandfathers LTR visa holders under the current rules. Just change the phrase "the previous tax year" to "a previous tax year" -- and you eliminate considerable confusion, thus suggesting there was a translation error from Thai into English.

2 hours ago, Yumthai said:

Let me correct it with 2023 data at current exchange rate:

Thanx, Yumthai.

1 hour ago, TorquayFan said:

Does anyone know the % rate of tax that might be applied.

0% would be great ????

2% tolerable, 5% hurts and 20% maybe time to go home !

Using the 60k deduction, and two 30k allowances (me and wife), here's what I came up with:

-- Effective tax rate of 4.9% for $15,000

-- Effective tax rate of 8.7% for $30,000

-- Effective tax rate of 18.3% for $60,000

-- Effective tax rate of 21.2% for $80,000

Now, for Americans, you already pay Uncle Sam taxes on this income, even if the Thai-US tax treaty says Thailand has primary taxing authority. This is because of the so called "saving clause," which says the US can tax everything regardless of what's in the treaty -- but will give you a tax credit to avoid double taxation, assuming Thailand uses their option to tax (which, historically, they haven't -- but maybe under this new scheme, they'll finally start collecting taxes that the treaty says they're entitled to).

So, for Americans, if you're sending your IRA or private pension payouts to Thailand, you might see a Thai tax hit in your future. However, you'll get a tax credit -- within your tax bracket -- against your US taxes to avoid double taxation. [A YouTube video in earlier pages on this thread indicated the treaty gave Thailand an exception to the saving clause, meaning your IRA wasn't taxable on your US tax return. This is bunk, as it would mean Thailand is the only country in the world where you, as an expat, could live and NOT have to pay US taxes on your IRA distribution. Sound unreal? Yep. Anyway, he's been successful so far, as no one in the know at IRS has taken the time to analyze this. So, if you want to save on US taxes, look up Thomas Carden.]

But, yeah, for non-Americans -- if you've had a nice tax free ride living here in Thailand, maybe that's going to end.

But if you're at, or approaching the $80,000 category (i.e, Thai taxes at the 21.2% rate) -- go get the LTR Wealthy Pensioner visa. This will protect your foreign income from Thai taxes, confirmed by the latest reports.

2 hours ago, Debaurazl said:

Because I have a Thai husband, I was not required to show financial information for the Non-Immigrant O;

Presumably this means no requirement for 400K in the bank, or its monthly remittance equivalent, for an extension based on marriage?

3 hours ago, jaideedave said:

And you know that any US expats that have  more than 10K USD in Thai Baht in a Thai bank, The bank reports that to the IRS as well. 

Actually, the FATCA reporting threshold is $50K for bank reporting requirements; 10K is the FBAR threshold for individual reporting requirement. Sounds like there's something afoot in Congress about matching FBAR to the FATCA $50K threshold. Since Congress only elects idiots these days, can't see much happening with this ... not until Hunter Biden is tar and feathered.

46 minutes ago, K2938 said:

  If remittances are taxable, this would have a devastating effect on both the LTR and Thai Elite visa program. 

Not for Yanks. We already pay max taxes on our worldwide income. Should Thailand decide to tax some income they haven't taxed in the past -- I'd just get a tax credit for these Thai taxes against my US taxes, with the result being same total tax paid, only Thailand now gets a bigger share than the US. No big deal.

But, yeah, I can see some folks now getting a free ride on taxation becoming worried about having to pay someone taxes. So sad.

1 hour ago, gamb00ler said:

I checked the US/Thai  treaty to learn about treaty termination.  Either party can withdraw from the treaty with 6+ months notice.

But why would Thailand want to? There's nothing in the treaty hindering tax collections of US private pensions, for example. It's just that Thailand hasn't put out an order to identify all those direct deposits of private pensions -- prima facie of taxable income coming into Thailand in year paid. And I doubt Thailand would really want to rock the boat and put US gov't pensions in the taxable category -- not that the US would allow it.

No, I can't understand why the treaty somehow applies to where things are now headed....

1 hour ago, Ben Zioner said:

BOI must be quite worried, since the Taxation of incoming monies would kill LTRWP,

Why? I got my LTRWP based on military pension and social security. These are all untaxable by Thailand, under treaty rules. But, if Thailand did tax some of my income, I'd just get a tax credit on my US taxes -- and nothing would change.

9 hours ago, nglodnig said:

With my usual caveat of "I'm no expert" you get taxed in one country or another - not both. Otherwise the "agreement" is pointless. You would NOT be expected to pay the difference.

Example: US taxpayer, who must declare all his worldwide income on his annual US tax return, including private pension income, which the tax treaty with Thailand says is "primarily taxed" by Thailand (not to be confused with gov't pensions and social security, whose taxation is the exclusive right of the US).

So, Joe America, who has his Ford Motor Company pension direct deposited into a Thai bank account, knows that, per the tax treaty, Thailand has first dibs on taxing this private pension -- and, as such, he files a Thai tax return showing this income (yeah, right....).

Now, say the effective Thai tax rate for his $50000 income is 10%, which amounts to baht equivalent of $5000. But when Joe files his US Form 1040 tax return, including the $50000 Ford pension, same as reported on Thai tax return -- he finds that, since his effective tax rate is 15% -- his US tax on this $50000 amounts to $7500. But, he gets a tax credit of $5000 for the Thai taxes paid, thus he only pays Uncle Sam a net $2500 in taxes for his Ford pension. Thus, total taxes paid are $7500 --$5000 to Thailand, $2500 to the US. Which, means, no tax break here -- you end up paying a total tax bill equivalent to the higher effective tax rate of whichever of the two treaty countries. [If Thailand had a 20% effective tax rate, your total taxes would have been $10000.]

Anyway, we could get into semantics here about 'not expecting to pay the difference.' But, that's what happens in avoiding double taxation when you have to file with both countries (which, by the way, the US tax credit is NOT treaty driven, but is part of the US Tax Code).

36 minutes ago, Pib said:

Also exempt will be those who have been taxed in a foreign country

5 hours ago, mrmagyar said:

but it seems LTR visa holders would be caught in the net

My LTR application included my last year's tax return, with 1099's -- so certainly I've shown my exemption as having been taxed in a foreign country. But if somehow Thailand got first dibs on taxing, say, my IRA proceeds -- I'd just get a tax credit on my US tax return -- like I do today on my Thai taxes on my Bangkok Bank interest. No extra money out of my pocket, however things evolve. But, it is nice to see that Thai fat cats may have to ante up towards paying their govt's bills.

2 hours ago, Thailand J said:

I just did a new TM30 report on the new site.

Why? What travel event caused this -- did you move to a new address? If not, why fiddle with your current TM30 situation?

Sounds like this new online procedure is just for landlords, or other property owners who might have a TM30 reporting responsibility. Or am I missing something......?

For now, like with John, I'll just assume my 7 year old TM30, as a tenant of my wife's home, will suffice. Yes, when I did annual retirement extensions, they asked for my TM30. But now, I have an LTR visa -- and in that application process, the TM30 (unlike the TM6 and TM47) was never asked for. Thus, when I have to renew at the 5 year point, can't imagine a TM30 would, at last, be asked for.....

Anyway, I'll just assume that, if I return to my wife's home, i.e., my permanent TM30 address, after any domestic or international travel -- I don't need to worry about registering on the TM30 online site, per past guidance on these scenarios.

On 9/8/2023 at 1:23 PM, NextG said:

The exchange rate is what makes the difference with other currencies. 

Regardless of how superior Wise's FX rate is, compared to the rate received with a SWIFT transfer -- at some point the fixed cost of a SWIFT transfer will be less than the total cost of a Wise transfer, which, because its variable cost increases with every extra amount sent, will cross over the total SWIFT cost at some point. As mentioned above, this is about at the $25000 mark for US transfers. Fairly intuitive math, I would think....

Now, for SWIFT transfers from countries other than the US -- maybe some do have unlimited variable costs, akin to Wise. Then, yes, in these situations the superior Wise FX rate may rue the day forever.

2 hours ago, Dmaxdan said:

I had my stamps transferred to my new passport earlier this year at Chiang Mai and I can 100% confirm that there was an application form to fill in.

3 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Argued and explained over four years ago.

Indeed. The US understood that Thailand wanted absolute verification of income (doable thru State Dept apostilles or authentication certificates, but not practical, given the nature of finances being verified, plus Embassy/Consulate resources). Other countries interpreted the Thai request as "reasonable effort certification of income." And had minimum problem going that route.

The US was probably happy to get out of this sham, knowing that many (most?) income statements they were annually issuing were bogus. Thus, perfectly happy to no longer issue fraudulent income statements, as the Thais requested. But knowing legitimate US retirees had the resources to meet the Thai requirement for monthly cash flow to Thailand, or money balance kept in a Thai bank.

I certainly can't fault the Thai gov't for trying to eliminate faulty income statements from foreign embassies. But, actually, the Thai gov't should have eliminated all income statements, in lieu of having all foreign residents showing a positive cash flow into Thailand of sustainable resources, either periodically or lump sum in a bank account.

But, hats off to Norway, and similar others, that took the "reasonable effort certification of income" route. Sure, some extra resources required -- but it does give its citizens of character a additional option over cash flow to Thailand, periodically or in lump sum.

5 hours ago, BritTim said:

Until then, you will need both passports for the airlines and Thai airport immigration.

Why not just travel with both passports, until it's time to renew your annual extension? Why an extra step to Imm to transfer stamps, if not needed to continue traveling with two passports?

On 9/6/2023 at 10:20 PM, NextG said:

But anyway bank transfer via SWIFT is cheaper than WISE for when it comes to larger amounts. 

Of course, 'cause SWIFT transfer costs are fixed: I pay $45 front end, 500 baht back end (for amounts exceeding $5900). Period. Wise has a variable fee of around .63% for every dollar sent. Thus, for a SWIFT transfer, all my costs are in the first $5900. After that, every additional dollar sent has zip variable cost -- while Wise adds a variable cost of around 6 cents for every additional $10 sent. You don't have to be a math major to realize that, at some point, total fees for a Wise transfer will exceed those of a SWIFT transfer -- and there's nothing that Wise's favorable exchange rate can do to alter that math.

Having said that, the cross over point -- figured out on this forum years ago -- is around $25000. And since that's the amount I usually send, I use Wise, preferring to do the action on my PC, and not with a required phone call to USAA for a SWIFT transfer.

Anyway, a lot of variables with Wise, mainly depending on currency being sent, and to where. Maybe Wise does better in all situations involving Sterling transfers.... But I can't imagine how, as long as fixed and variable costs are the players....