JimGant

The DTA is completely silent on UK state pensions. And, as already shown, it is not a government pension in light of DTA language, which says the pension must be paid for services rendered to the govt. So, not a whole lot of help from the DTA. In fact, the UK-Thai DTA doesn't even have an Article on "Other Income," as most other DTAs have, which addresses income not specifically addressed in any of the Articles. However the conclusion in the US Article on "Other Income" is that, "generally such income is taxable only in the country of residence." Not much positive help for Brits on their state pension, should their DTA have a "Other Income" Article with a similar conclusion.

If your SS is $1800, that would cover the whole 65k monthly remittance, i.e., no Thai tax. In fact, with your TEDA now at 500k, you could transfer another $1160 per month with still no Thai taxable income. Send an extra $3000 per month -- Thai taxes would be $2900. Assuming you're paying more than this in US taxes -- this $2900 would be a one-for-one tax credit against your US taxes. Yes, Forms 1116 and 8833 would need to be filed. But you say you use an accountant, so no big deal. You seem to be the average American. So, as has been said all along, Yanks, already taxed on all our income, won't be financially affected by this new situation (nor most, if worldwide income taxation comes in). Unpack your bags.

You'll certainly by more knowledgeable about your DTA than a mid level TRD clerk. So why ask him what's what -- since he'll probably not know, but being Thai, and thus never ever saying "I don't know," he'll give a wrong answer you won't like. Just read your DTA, and self assess accordingly. Thus, (for Yanks) all government pensions -- to include State and local govt pensions -- are taxable only by the US, same as Social Security. So, these payouts need never be mentioned, since they're non assessable; plus, there's no where on any form even to mention them, should you want to for some unreasonable reason. Thus, there's no number recorded anywhere that the TRD could be interested in, and so call you in for a chat. So, why would you want to waste time in a TRD office mentioning a number that needs no mentioning -- but to which a blank faced clerk utters an incorrect edict, but to which you now need to file a tax return....... Duh. So, do your own self assessment, without involving TRD. For the US DTA, most is clear cut, to include: Don't declare govt pensions; but do declare remitted private pensions, to include IRAs and 401ks. For gray areas -- and you've a good, researched argument -- give yourself the advantage by not declaring it. Thus, there's no number on any tax return, should you have to file for other reasons, for the TRD to query. If, in the <1% chance you're called in for an audit, and the missing number comes up -- well, provide them with your well-researched logic. You may not win -- but you certainly would have -- hopefully -- shown you had 'good cause,' and weren't a flagrant tax evader. [A good example would be a Roth IRA remittance. Roth came about after the US-Thai tax treaty was approved, thus no mention of it; but modern OECD Model tax treaties allow monies exempted by treaty country A to also necessarily be exempted by treaty country B. Take a look at the US-UK tax treaty technical report -- Roth IRAs are specifically addressed as not being taxable by the UK.] Anyway, know your DTA; don't get a TIN if you don't need to; don't go chat with your neighborhood TRD office; and if your tax situation is simple to moderate, don't waste money on a Thai tax firm. At least not yet -- wait at least until the rules become so convoluted that your situation is no longer 'simple to moderate.'

Easier, my a--! Since I had cataract surgery, with the multifocus lens emplacement, the only time I have to put on reading glasses is -- when I want to read what's on my darn cell phone! Then, when I have to type something on that stupid phone, my fat fingers hit the wrong tiny key -- and in some situations, I can't find the reverse function key to override. I just want that stupid instrument to answer, or make, phone calls. Alternatively, sitting in my comfortable office chair, in front of a large monitor, with a full sized qwerty keyboard and mouse -- what could be better than that, in doing my banking business? Yes, I guess, with a cell phone I could sit in a food court, in a plastic chair, and do my banking business. But why would I want to? Anyway, hope BB realizes they have a target market with geezers like me, who don't like cell phones for other than talking. But why, if the cell phone mbanking software is so superior, can't this software be adapted for use on PC and laptops? What am I missing with such a simple question? Certainly, I could adapt to any new software -- but please let me sit in my comfortable chair, in front of a large screen and keyboard. Sigh.

Indeed, yes. Have you played with any of the number combinations? If you have $1200 in SS per month to remit, towards the 65k baht requirement ($1800) -- then the remaining $600 from your private pension would not be taxable. And this is so, even if you're under 65, so you don't yet get the extra 190k baht deduction for age, and thus your TEDA is only 310k. Turn 65 -- and you've a whole lot more wiggle room with that extra 190k. Only if, for some reason, your monthly SS is only a measly $1000 -- would you owe some Thai tax on that $800 make up amount, using your private pension money. But, even here, with a 310k TEDA -- the Thai tax on $9600 would only be $50. And this would be a completely allowable tax credit against your US taxes. Furthermore, unless you have a stash of Thailand-assessable income you're not remitting, particularly capital gains -- should Thailand go to a worldwide taxation system -- very little, if anything, would change for you. On the other end of the scale, if somehow the $12k SS and the $9.6k private pension were your only sources of income - then you'd owe no US tax and thus the $50 Thai tax could not be used as a credit. Thus, for Yanks of little means -- yes, a Thai tax could be a net tax payout. But, not your situation, as you've indicated you pay US taxes. Anyway, do some number crunching -- you don't need to pay an accountant to do this, if you have all the facts at hand, which you should from all the info on these forums. Good luck.

We're talking about the fine for filing a nil tax return, by having no taxable income, but being over the 120/220k threshold for assessable income. Fines for evading taxes is a whole another matter, about which this discussion doesn't involve.

Probably the best post of all, in this meandering thread.

MPG -- very reputable -- has already responded. But, who cares what you accept. I'll be happy that you continue to waste your time, and TRD's, by filing nil tax returns.

Gotcha, mate. You and I need to have a beer or two...

Haven't the foggiest what you're talking about..... Grumpy said assessable levels exceeded, but hadn't reached taxable income level. Thus, no requirement to file -- as verified by MPG. So, what does the "well over" (or 5 baht over) have to do with the requirement to file ?

Yes, they can quote the law very nicely. That the law is stupid, has never been enforced (no reports), and if somehow ever enforced -- chance near zip -- the repercussions would be extremely minor. That another powerful firm, like MPG, says, hey, the law is ridiculous, just file if you owe taxes. That's my kind of full service firm. But, even without their hand holding -- to go thru the process of filing a nil return, getting a TIN, and now becoming wedded to the tax data base -- would make the non filing decision a no brainer. Mike, your regard for the law is, well, admirable (?). But your tax advice xxxxs (not a personal attack!! please, mods -- just an observation)

And advice came from a large firm -- MPG-- if I read between the lines correctly. A very upstanding firm, dealing with many financial areas; thus they have no reason to solely rely on tax customers for their income, and thus no reason to treat their tax customers as suckers. So, their straight skinny: Never seen enforcement of a nonsensical law about having to file if assessable income exceeds 120k. Thus, common sense says -- only have to file if you have taxable income. Grumpy, thanks for your research. I'd only file if I had taxable income, as that's just common sense. But nice to see a professional backup to that decision.

Then, don't get one. Move on with your life, and quit whining on this thread. Not exactly sure of why such a big decision -- either a LTR visa, or you move out of Thailand? Obviously, if you plan to stay in Thailand, and you qualify for the LTR visa -- get one. The probability is huge that the LTR tax exemption will survive any scenario. But, if not -- and you had planned to live in Thailand indefinitely -- you're then just another peon, with a Non Imm O visa. Is that not survivable? Anyway, maybe you should take a course in probability analysis..

Darn. And here I thought my $80,000 Air Force retirement and Social Security were non assessable per the DTA. Nice that a smart, young fella like yourself put me straight. Many thanks. (Now, let me run this thru my semantics checker before I push the button.)

Probably so. I doubt Thailand would, if it had primary taxation rights, allow a Yank to say: 'Sorry, buddy, but this money has already been taxed by the US, so it is no longer income.'

Not sure what tax thread to throw this into. But, this seems as good as any. Anyway, we know that "savings" remitted to Thailand is not assessable income -- and thus not taxable. In fact, by definition, it's not even income, but savings. So, it would seem that, prior to being remitted to Thailand, income, if possible, needs to be converted to savings, if we want to avoid Thai taxes. But how? Certainly all those monies in my savings account were, at one time "income." When did they magically become savings? Best guess is when taxes were paid on them. And in, my case, all my income has taxes 'withheld at source." And, I've upped this withholding rate to more than cover what the final taxes would be, when I file my US tax return the following calendar year. Thus, my income is free of all taxes -- and I would guess -- it's now considered "savings." And all this "after tax" income -- now savings -- plops into my savings account, from which I suck out my Wise transfers. So, I would treat this as a non assessable income remittance to Thailand. As such, it's not reported on a Thai tax return. And for me, at least, I wouldn't be anywhere near having any taxable income -- and would not bother getting a TIN, or filing a tax return. In the remote situation where I'd be called in to TRD for a chat -- I certainly could explain that what I remitted were savings, not income. If you think about it -- the old rules, where income remitted to Thailand the year after it was earned -- was exempt for taxes -- could be, because in the "year after," it had morphed into non taxable savings. Hmmm.

I thought tax forms wanted only assessable income entered? Savings are NOT assessable income -- so why would you enter it -- and check "Savings" as source of funds?

And this, for filing a tax return with no taxable income, because the law says you must if you have over 120k in assessable income? Come on, folks. Even half (8.5k) is no "great bargain." I guess a sucker is born every minute -- and blood sucking companies will latch unto them. Hopefully, from what you've gleaned from this thread, if you didn't file a nil tax return, the chance of being found out, and fined 2000 baht, is zip, based on no positive reports that we know of. But, hey, if so -- what's 2k vs 17k (or 8.5k). Or -- heavens! -- possible 10 years of back audits of all your non assessable remitted income. Why would TRD waste scarce resources looking for nil tax return violators -- when the big money is using those resources to investigate tax evasion? Anyway, if anyone pays a tax firm to do a nil tax return, could you report back here as to whether or not you heard a chuckle as you left the office.......

Could you name that company? I'd like to present them the 'fiduciary of the year' award.

Right. Be firm. That's why my posts are so adamant about: Don't just listen to Mike Lister's monotonous dialogue about having to file a tax return, 'cause you have X amount of assessable income, and because it's the law. Use your head; evaluate other poster's inputs on "no reports of any enforcement." Or, if ever enforced, what damage could be done. But relatedly, yes, if you can file online in 10 minutes, maybe you should (but, again, now you'll be in the TRD tax filer data base -- which makes you a bigger target than if you weren't in the data base). Or, worst case, spend a day, hunt for parking, and pay 10000 baht -- to one of these tax preparers whose only interest is their own, not yours (go back and read about fiduciaries). Anyway, inputs here, in addition to Mike Lister's, are, I believe, helpful for allowing the reader to better make a decision. Unfortunately, Mike views these inputs only as personal attacks and thread creep -- and as unhelpful. Sigh.

Agreed. But they also want to get a feel for the probability that they'll suffer some consequence for not filing a nil tax return -- or for not getting a TIN after 60 days. So far, we've seen NO consequences reported; which, of course, doesn't mean there might not be in the future. However, I really doubt TRD would waste resources on the chance of collecting a 2000 baht fine. Anyway, you keep reporting the law, and I'll focus on probabilities. That should make for balanced reporting.

Well, yeah -- they certainly can't put down in writing something that is 180 degrees out from the law. But, if they know the law is ridiculous -- and that there is a 99% chance you won't suffer any consequences for not filing a tax return, if you have no taxable income -- then they just might whisper in your ear: "No need to file a nil tax return, as during all our years of dealing with taxes, we've never seen anyone pay a fine, or be subject to extended audit, for not filing when no taxable income due." [Hey, that's true, at least per the data provided, or not, on this forum.] And this would be more in evidence if you're a client of a financial company, where you do business, not only in taxes, but in other areas, such as financial planning and investments. Obviously, they would like to keep you as a client -- especially if tax prep is not your prime contribution to their business -- so a wise word may just be good for future business. Not so for a "tax prep only" operation -- as we've seen in an earlier report, where they're charging "7.5/10k" to do a nil tax return. You think they're going to shoot themselves in the foot by telling you not to file, 'cause there's zip chance of any consequences for not filing? Come on. These folks are already salivating by the reports they're getting from AN, where certain dialogue is promoting their future business thru scare tactics -- to prepare nil tax returns, for 10,000 baht. Anyway, an interesting contribution to this discussion is the term "fiduciary." This is big on US TV advertisements for financial advisors. Don't know if there's fiduciary related law here in Thailand. But here's what is says about it in the US: Hmmmm. So, if my tax prep guy holds himself out as a fiduciary -- is he obligated to tell me, "Save 10,000 baht by not filing a nil tax return, 'cause you'll suffer no consequences." Or, are the "client's best interests" in obeying the law? Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out to ponder on, since, as far as I know, there are no fiduciary laws in Thailand. But -- of course, there is complete merit in knowing that, who you hire, has your best interests, not his, at the forefront.

And my question to her: How would you know if I have over 120k in assessable income, since I'm an expat, and all my income is foreign source income, most, if not all, is non assessable via DTA. Or, under the old rules, was remitted from a previous year's financial account. Are you going to arbitrarily start calling in some farangs for a discussion on their remitted cash flow -- just to see if they should have filed, even with not taxable income? I didn't think so.

Are you saying, if in the old days, and you remitted your German pension to Thailand in year earned -- they wouldn't tax it, if you filed a tax return? I believe you're confusing not filing, and the "pension remitted is previous year's earnings" charade, as your observation that Thailand doesn't tax it. "They don't tax it" is, of course, the illogical extension of "I didn't file a Thai tax return for this income." Duh.

We did? Must of missed those reported examples.