JimGant

Unless it's unrealized cap gain existing -- per its value in the overall portfolio -- pre 2024. As already stated, this is a no nevermind, as the OP's $1000 remittance from a portfolio that existed pre 2024 doesn't need to be one-for-one from the unrealized gain pile of money. But, under FIFO, would be at the beginning of the pile.

Again, there are no published rules that I'm aware of. Are they known to you? If so, do we go FIFO, LIFO, or moving average.? If not existent, or known -- can the reader make his own decision, possibly based on intelligent discussion?

Several months ago I asked BoI about mail-in 365 day reports. They weren't too keen on it, but advised to look at the SMART site and use the address given there. Well, yesterday I brought up that SMART site to get the address -- and it had disappeared. So, I asked BoI about it, and about reporting by mail. Here's their answer: So, no more mail-in options for 365 day reporting, for both LTR and SMART visa holders. I would imagine Immigration just didn't want to deal with mail call. Mail-in was my backup plan. Plan A was using the LTR agent here in Chiang Mai -- Star Visa. So, today I took my filled in TM95 and -- as they said was absolutely required -- my TM30. Imagine my surprise when they said something like, "You're our first TM95 customer; we're not too sure if Immigration has total grasp on this; we'll keep you advised" Gulp. Now, maybe I'll have to go to Bangkok -- or hire a mule to go for me. Probably easier just to fly out and back across the border.

No, it's not that I couldn't find their rules -- it's that they don't have any rules. (although it sounds like you're alluding that they DO have such rules....care to share?)

Go back and reread what I wrote. Your total portfolio, as of Dec 31, 2023 -- to include savings and unrealized cap gains -- is exempt from Thai taxes when remitted after Jan 1, 2024. Thailand doesn't care, nor will it investigate, whether those funds remitted are savings, assessable income, non assessable income, a gift, a loan. It makes no difference -- because this is a one-time good deal that exempts ALL remittances, regardless of how they are characterized. The law calls all these funds "foreign -source income." The OP is not remitting a specifically characterized -- like unrealized gains -- chunk of fungible money. Thailand only cares that it is from a pre 2024 source. Period. In fact, when the OP sends off that $1000, it needn't be specifically identified as an unrealized gain -- in fact, using FIFO, that $1000 of fungible money -- is probably the first $1000 he used 20 years ago to open the account. You're confusing normal remittance processing, whereby it's necessary to break down whether such remittance is assessable, or non-assessable, income. And, yes, whether these funds are savings, or income, becomes part of the equation. But in the OP's situation -- and for most of the rest of us -- Thailand is only interested in whether or not the remittance comes from a pre 2024 source -- in which the case, the whole enchilada is automatically, per law, tax exempt/non assessable monies. No need to differentiate between savings and non savings.

There is no discussion about what is, and what isn't, savings. Savings make no difference in this once-only ruling, that says: All your pre 2024 monies are tax exempt -- if remitted into Thailand post 2023. Period.

In a vacuum of no guidance from TRD, of course you can decide your own accounting rules-- what guidance are you supposed to use? In the 1% chance you're called in for a chat, you've certainly got a prima facie case on why you used FIFO. Again, they may finally issue some guidance on this; but we ain't there yet -- so use whatever accounting rules are in your favor.

Oh, barf burgers. I think you're the only one who thinks "it was quite scary to behave that way."

Wow. Why is so much being made of the interpretation of this: Thus, we're talking "FOREIGN-SOURCE INCOME." Nothing about "savings," which could be construed as income already taxed by the home country (but which taxation plays no part in the Thai tax situation). And it applies to before tax income, like unrealized capital gains (which, again, plays no part in the Thai tax situation). All Thailand is saying is that: The value of your portfolios on 31 Dec 2023, if remitted in part or in whole, will be tax exempt in Thailand. Period. No need to keep in your records which remittances were savings; which were stock principal; which were unrealized stock cap gains, etc. They won't care. They'll only care that the remittances were, indeed, from financial sources existing before 2024. And, as said, they certainly won't care if it has, or hasn't, been taxed by the source country. Right now you're cleared to use whatever accounting rules are to your advantage. Thus, FIFO (first in, first out) would assure your pre-2024 monies are being used first. This would certainly be wise, should your accounts still be active, and are thus accumulating post 2023 income. It is possible they'll mandate LIFO -- there is precedent for this for UK remitted based taxation. And if so, would it be retroactive......? Hmmm.

Yes. The value of your financial accounts as of 31 Dec 2023 is what's exempt from Thai taxation upon remittance. So, any increase over this number in later years would not be exempt, to include cap gains and reinvested interest and dividends. Easy scenario to explain to TRD.

OK, good point. I wonder if your situation is an outlier, or more normal than I considered. All my cap gains are ordinary income within my IRA -- and I have no rental income. Maybe I'm the outlier......but, I think, I'm the typical retiree, with pension, SS, and an IRA. But, I guess, you too could pack your bags, and head for the border -- given your new situation.

Oh, barf. Yanks -- as has been said ad nauseam on this forum -- realistically have no dog in this fight. Since all our income is already taxed by Uncle Sam, should Thailand suddenly get a piece of the tax pie -- per international tax treaty -- then US taxes will decrease dollar for dollar, as the IRS will have to absorb a tax credit from Thailand. Yes, a few outliers -- the poor Yank, who doesn't pay any US taxes, may wake up to a Thai tax. But nothing substantial, at their income level. And the guy who has to take a big chunk out of his IRA, to finance whatever in Thailand. Depending on how big the chunk -- this could be a substantial Thai tax hit. But -- no one taking an RMD would normally fall into this situation -- unless your IRA contains several millions of dollars. So, Yanks. Relax, have a beer, and read more enlightening threads on this forum. Yeah, except for a few misguided Yanks, these seem to be the folks screaming "179 days, then I'm outa here." So sad.

Right. That's why they're wisely considering switching to taxing worldwide income -- and not remittances. No more the problem of trying to determine whether or not that cash flow into Thailand is assessable income, or is it not.

I would assume the reporting mechanism would be sophisticated enough to ferret out income from other cash flows. Otherwise, it would just be a train wreck.

And how will they determine which cash flow is exempt via DTA?

Nope, just numbers with a 1099 (US, or foreign eqivalent) delineating income. Other cash flow will not be considered income. Thailand may get final income numbers, when you do you 1040 tax return -- and include income from self-assessment. But right now, it doesn't appear FATCA reporting of US income involves reporting a 1040 tax return. Reporting worldwide income to Thailand should be similar to doing your US 1040, with exceptions for income excluded via DTA. Income not subject to 1099s or W2s could be ignored, if you'd like to cheat.

You really thought that through before you pushed "send?" If so, I guess I won't waste any of my future time wading through your posts for any germane contributions.

I would imagine the algorithms used by CRS and FATCA reporting are sophisticated enough to discern income from other cash flows. Otherwise, these reporting systems would be worthless. I said tax year, not current year.

That's probably going to become history, because under the new CRS and FATCA reporting rules -- which don't address remittances -- it will be a lot easier for Thai RD authorities to identify foreign income -- and tax accordingly, without the added implement of needing to be remitted. That's why the remittance rule is probably going to be history. Monies in an account, after the latest tax year, will be considered after tax (savings), and thus not subject to taxation. Thailand is looking to join the rest of the world, which taxes only current year income, regardless of remitances (with the some very minor exceptions, of no real note).

Geez, that bomb about taxing worldwide income just came out -- without amplification. How could BoI possibly have a read yet on that?

As has already been said, have her accomplish a Will, with you designated as the inheritor of her house and land. Then go to the land office and record either a 30 year lease, or a usufruct, on the back of the Chanote. Thus, the Will says you get the land. But, because you can't own it due to Thai law, you get "right of first disposition," meaning you can give it away to a relative, or sell it to a stranger. Makes no difference to you, at least for the next 30 years, as no one can remove you during that period, because of the lease (or even longer, if a usufruct). Only if you didn't want your relative to get the land would you sell it to a stranger -- and that would be at a substantial discount, since the stranger can't do much with that land, with your butt stuck on it for 30 years.

How'd you get started on this tirade? My response was to someone who said "they never carried cash," opting to only pay by phone. I merely mentioned, it might be nice to carry some cash, in case the phone went south. Also, cash may come in handy to pay a tow truck, when your EV vehicle has run out of electrons.

Stupid statement. Phones DO die, for battery, or other lesser reasons. Thus, for someone to say "they never carry cash" -- would seem to seem to say they haven't considered alternative -- and possibly necessary -- options.

Ah, burp, just finished a nice, expensive meal. Take your bill to the cashier, turn on your phone, and -- whoops, battery's dead. No cash? I guess you get a free meal -- or go to the kitchen to wash dishes.

Actually, not true. To extend for retirement off of a Non Imm O-A -- you still needed to meet the medical insurance requirement -- unlike extending off of a Non Imm O. And they would only accept one of the designated Thai insurance companies. Bummer. LTR visas, however, tho' requiring health insurance, would accept my US govt Tricare insurance. Thus, a main reason for switching.