JimGant

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Unless you can enlighten us with a valid reason on why the UK state pension would not be covered by the DTA, I will go by what the DTA actually says.

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.

17 hours ago, jmd8800 said:

My SS is well over the $1200 you mentioned but also my transfers have been over 65,000 baht per month. But, I think the numbers will just scale out OK. I'll simply transfer just a little bit over 65k for the rest of the year and hope for the best. I am over 65. I think I'll be fine.

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.

4 hours ago, Presnock said:

That is why many people will probably need a local tax agent who hopefully understands what the TRD will determine what is assessable or not or as others have suggested, go the the local DTR office (with a Thai speaker if you aren't fluent in Thai) and query their interpretation.

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.'

6 hours ago, Pib said:

Believe me....you want to get the Bangkok Bank mbanking app working.  It provides more security than their current ibanking, more electronic banking options, makes banking easier, etc...etc....etc

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.

3 hours ago, jmd8800 said:

I'm guessing I'll pay very little tax here and deduct that tax from the taxes paid in USA so it will likely be a wash.

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.

On 7/17/2024 at 5:16 PM, gamb00ler said:

Well.... since TRD doesn't use the term savings to refer to any funds belonging to a taxpayer, we are free to use it as we please.  In our discussions we need a term for funds that TRD no longer cares about and holds no sway over (all taxes due to TRD have been paid).  I think it's just fine if we call those savings

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

3 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

If I can see something in writing from a reputable well known tax consultancy that answers that question, I will accept the answer, as long as it's clear and definitive. 

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.

3 hours ago, TroubleandGrumpy said:

Thanks again Jim - but lets just let it go

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

19 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

The operational practicalities of the case are not proven, there is no independent evidence to state that his assessable income level was exceeded.

 

When somebody says they were, "well over the assessable income level", the difference between the 220,000 baht income threshold level and his probable TEDA level of 500,000 baht,  is only 280,000 baht, that's only USD 7.7k which is not a huge amount. So it's difficult to be "well over", I think you'd agree.

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   ?

10 hours ago, gamb00ler said:

So.... I would simplify the above and say that the DTA is what determines when and how your income is converted to savings.

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.

On 6/25/2024 at 7:28 PM, NoDisplayName said:

Enter amount of remittance and check "savings" as source of funds.

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?

2 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

I am certain that when members make decisions about how to proceed in specific areas of tax, they want to understand the penalties and downsides that exist so they can make sound decisions.

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.

7 hours ago, Dogmatix said:

Her reply was that anyone with 120,000 income from employment (including employment pensions) should file a tax return

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.

2 hours ago, stat said:

Th for some reason does not tax German government pension. In the DTA,  TH has the sole right to tax, but they don't do it.

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.