JimGant

Adios, and good luck.

Americans have no dog in this fight, since all our worldwide income is already taxed. The only new wrinkle might be, according to the DTA, Thailand has "first taxation rights" on certain income, like private pensions and IRA payouts. But my other US income -- Air Force retirement and Social Security -- is exempt from Thai taxation, per tax treaty. So, maybe I'll have to file a Thai tax return, declaring my IRA income, and paying Thai taxes on this. But, per DTA, I'll just take this as a tax credit on my US tax return, and come out zero sum tax obligation. Anyway, Thailand gets the tax revenue they deserve, per treaty -- and the US pays for it via credit. Actually, I won't mind paying Thailand the taxes that the treaty says are theirs. Surprised they haven't reached this point earlier. Sharper minds in the Thai tax department these days....? Maybe -- but obviously several sharp edges still needing to be filed down. For those non-Yanks screaming about no more free ride from somebody's taxes? Welcome aboard.

Foreign remittance tax?! What happened to tax on assessable income that gets remitted? I fear things have gotten way over analyzed, as Thailand is certainly not going to tax all monies coming into the country, to include Foreign Direct Investments, which are largely capital (not income) raised in foreign financial institutions. So, credit card purchases aren't income, but a loan from your bank to pay BigC. And remitted loans ain't income; so assuming we're still addressing assessable income remitted to Thailand, forget credit card payments somehow being scrutinized. A debit card transaction, which is a direct payment made by you, and not a loan, maybe could be scrutinized, as in my case, it would come out of the same pile of money in my bank account that I use to send a wire transfer. Then, discerning which of these monies is deposited income, and which are after tax savings -- is the largely unsolvable problem that makes focusing strictly on remittances ludicrous. And if Thailand wants to use FATCA and CRS reporting data, especially when it further matures in a few years, they'll only be able to identify income, not remittances. So, it they stick with this remittance BS, they're chasing their tail, and costing themselves gettable taxable income. [I went through the 66 page US-Thailand FATCA agreement -- and nothing there involving remittance reporting.]

Then, they'd be pretty stupid, to torpedo an incentive to bring in (or maintain) wealthy pensioners and global citizens. Actually, this new gov't has shown several positive inclinations -- and not much stupidity. We'll see.... In any event, as a Yank, these new rules won't affect my total tax bill, as I pay Uncle Sam on all my worldwide income -- but maybe in future years Thailand will get to keep the tax on my IRA required minimum distribution -- and that amount will be subtracted out of my US tax return as a credit. Ho hum.

Actually, the article you mention addresses the impact on FDI, which includes condos, and buyers who have lived here a long time, but who bring purchase money in from abroad. BoI, a major player in Thai economic guidance, is the personal protector of FDI, a major player in economic growth -- so I doubt they'll allow things to go forward as now presented. If they just got rid of the "remittance" aspect of all of this, and just concentrated on income earned abroad, regardless of remittance, then things could be workable. CRS and FATCA reporting aren't going to show remittance; heck, all my taxable income is direct deposited into my US savings account, from which Wise sucks it out for transfer to Bangkok Bank, mixed with five years of previous income and non income (inheritance), to become a mass of fungible dollars -- how is FATCA (or CRS) going to trace that as identifiable income? They can't (at least for now -- AI may be down the road. Barf). Anyway, there are too many loose elements with this new proposal for it to go forward -- not the least of which is torpedoing FDI, to include condos.

Oh, the new proposed regulation says it will only apply to Thai citizens, but not expat tax residents? I must of missed that....

What a misleading article. If a Tax Resident (180 days or more cumulative), then worldwide income is taxable in Thailand, if brought into the country in the year paid. That may change, of course, and is the subject of this thread. And, per DTA, not all worldwide income is subject to Thai tax -- things like gov't pensions and social security are exempt per treaty. But to flat out say, Thai tax only applies to money earned within the country -- is just bad info, and I'm surprised Thaiger published it. Yes, if you're here for less than 180 days, your worldwide income is exempt. But this article is aimed at folks planning their retirement -- and I doubt they plan to only retire for 179 days, or less.....

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.

Oh, yawn. As an American, nothing changes in my total tax bill, in sum between the two countries. All my income is already taxed by Uncle Sam, who has first dibs on most of it (Air Force pension, Social Security) under the US-Thai tax treaty. Only my Required Minimum Distribution on my IRA is first dibs by Thailand; but under current rules, this remitted RMD to Thailand is several years old, under FIFO rules when sent by Wise from my savings account. So, not remitted in year received. All of this, of course, supported by 1099's, showing amounts paid and and amounts of tax withheld -- should Thai tax folks ever care. But, under the new rules, they may finally come after my IRA RMD remittance. Fine and good, as this is what they're entitled to under the tax treaty. So, I'll just take a tax credit against my US taxes on this RMD, which is in the 22% tax bracket -- well above the Thai tax bracket. Thus, Thailand gets full benefit from taxation of this RMD, with the remainder tax bill paid to Uncle Sam. Total amount of taxes paid by me between both countries is same as if I just paid the US; but now, Thailand gets some tax dollars they're entitled to under the treaty; and I provide some support to the tax base of the country I now live in. Seems fair. And I got a LTR WP visa. But it wasn't because of any tax advantage -- my US tax bill hadn't changed, and the LTR visa didn't give me any relief against Thai taxes, which I didn't have to pay due to the "remitted in later year" policy. Now, per the above paragraph, I may end up paying Thai taxes on my IRA RMD. But, again, my total tax bill won't change.... And I'll feel good about some of my taxes finally supporting my adopted country. So, as a Yankee, nothing much going on here to affect me. But I can feel the pain (NOT!) for those Europeans that now may finally have to pay somebody some taxes. Just sorry you haven't been paying your mother country all these years -- so maybe they could have paid their NATO bill.....

Oh, come on. You think all cash flow into Thailand will be looked at as taxable income? First and foremost, this would kill foreign direct investment by individuals -- and FDI is a major item in a strong economy. And guess who rides herd on FDI? Why, no other than BoI. So, their new golden boy on the street -- the LTR visa -- isn't going to be torpedoed, as long as BoI maintains its substantial horsepower. But forget just LTR visas. Remember, one of the "get out of jail free" cards was having a DTA between your home country and Thailand -- and there are 61 of those. But the kicker is that you have to pay taxes (they don't say what kind) to your home country. I would presume such taxes would be income taxes against income taxable by both Thailand and your home country. For Yanks, you're home free with this, as you're already paying Uncle Sam taxes on your worldwide income. For Europeans not paying tax to anyone -- well, you may now become part of what the OECD wants, namely, everyone paying taxes to someone. But back to FDI: Thailand is NOT going impede cash flow into Thailand for investment, by branding all wire transfers, and similar, as "taxable income." That would be ludicrous. And for Yanks, they'll probably just leave us alone. For Europeans, well, maybe a peak at their tax returns -- or maybe not. But don't expect too much until CRS and FATCA reporting are more mature -- and Thailand can finally have a clear look at income that should be, but has not, been reported. And somewhere down the road, the stupid "remitted" requirement for delineating income will be cancelled -- and Thailand can join the rest of the world on how to tax foreign income. Anyway, if you're about to transfer 250k USD to buy some real estate, and this is easily identifiable as from after-tax entities in your transfer account (or probably even not ---), have at it, as Thailand is not going to shoot themselves in both feet by screwing around with your transfer, as regards FDI.

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.

Thanx, Yumthai.

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.

Do a Google on "thai inheritance tax." It doesn't kick in until 100million baht ($3M US dollars). Plus, no tax if inheritance is between spouses. It would be ludicrous if the Thais treated all cash flow into Thailand as "income." Now, as others have discussed, they may put the burden of proof on you, to parse out what is and what isn't "income" (and if income, what part, or maybe all, was taxed by your tax treaty home country). I would think a cash flow of estate proceeds, coming to Thailand as inheritance, could be parsed out as such.

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

Doubtful. There's no way they can parse a cash flow into Thailand, especially if its from a savings, checking, or credit union account -- to determine what's income and what's principal. The holdings in my savings account, from where my SWIFT, Wise and ATM transfers occur, has my after tax withholding direct deposits from my Air Force retirement; Social Security; and IRA RMD annual payment. Only my annual reinvested interest is not after tax payment (withholding). But, if we're going FIFO for my wire transfers, last year's interest shows up as taxed on my IRS 1040 tax return. Anyway, if I send a load of cash to Thailand from the account mentioned above, there's no way the Thai RD folks could parse what's what for income tax purposes. Stupid if they even tried. And for those arguing about ATM remittances, since these come from the same kind of accounts I'm talking about here -- same argument. So, it will be interesting to see how cash flow remittances into Thailand will be scrutinized to determine what's income taxable by Thailand -- and what's not. That's where this whole new drill breaks down. Best option is to just concentrate on income earned abroad, and identified with the new CRS, or equivalent, data reporting systems. Forget remittance.

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.

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.

This is where it gets cloudy. First and foremost, Thailand is looking at taxing only income REMITTED to Thailand -- not identifying taxable income generated abroad, and identifiable from all the new, modern data sharing records under FATCA and CRS, and other schemes -- but not necessarily remitted to Thailand. So, how in the world is Thailand going to identify what is, and what is not, taxable cash flow from a WISE transfer from your savings account, which contains a basket of funds, mostly after-tax deposits, but also net deposits after withholding of taxes, plus, yes, taxable interest. They can't really come knock on your door and say we believe you have a taxable event here. So, if you have a firehose transfer of money from a savings or checking account, don't worry about some Thai tax authority pondering its contents. Yes, a direct deposit from a private pension to Thailand could draw more attention. But even here, I doubt there would be resources for such scrutiny. Bottom line: Don't worry about it.

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....

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.

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).

Wow, what a bunch of misconceptions on this thread. First and foremost, this new rule is not about the timing of cash flow (or no cash flow) from abroad, to Thai tax residents. It's about taxing income earned abroad. Period. And before today's FATCA and CRS reporting avenues, plus similar worldwide financial reporting processes, incoming cash flow was the only method of identifying income. And if that was next year, yes, you could make a rule exempting such cash flow from taxation. No more. Now, with all this financial information sharing, you can identify income earned abroad by Thai tax residents. And it would make no difference if remitted next year, this year -- or never -- because it's in the worldwide data base as income. Period. Why care when remitted.....? So, the Thai gov't has finally gotten smart on collecting taxes, courtesy of modern data collection methods. So, no need to monitor the source of cash flows coming into Thailand -- not that this could ever be cost effective. So, farang retirees, quit worrying about the Thai gov't wondering about the source of your 65k baht monthly remittances. Not sure why countries with DTA's would be exempted..... As a Yank, my Air Force and Social Security checks are exempt from Thai taxes, per treaty. However, if I had a pension from Boeing, or even my IRA payout, the DTA says that Thailand has first dibs on taxing this income. And it would make sense, that if Thailand could discover this in the FATCA data base, that they would knock on my door and ask why I hadn't declared this income in a Thai tax return..... Today, of course, I could just say this money was sent from my savings account, co-mingled with other funds -- so it's from last year. The new rule, of course, would end this charade. But, as a Yank, if the Thais taxed my Boeing pension, and my IRA -- and since I have to also declare this income in my US tax return (due to the "saving clause" in the DTA) -- I would just take a credit for this Thai tax. And break even. Thus, nothing to worry about re additional taxes with this new proposed Thai tax law. Now, for those farangs who somehow no longer pay taxes to their mother country -- and haven't paid taxes to Thailand due to the next year remittance policy -- welcome to today's world of CRS reporting: Thai taxes may be in your future.

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.

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