JimGant

Why did you even file?

See previous post -- to not be blinded by all these webinars of tax authorities -- who, with a little research, come across as clueless.

Wrong. Domestic law changes to a DTA are called "overrides." The most famous is the US saving clause found in every DTA with the US, that says: We, the US, don't care what this treaty says about our treaty partner having exclusive taxation rights. We, the US, reserve the right (with a few named exclusions) to also tax this income. But, yes, treaty partner will have primary taxation rights, per DTA, and thus get to keep all taxes collected, without having to absorb a tax credit for the taxes paid to the US. Overrides (as the following link explains) are frowned upon -- but if they don't violate the DTA spirit, namely, the avoidance of double taxation -- then they're acceptable. https://repository.law.umich.edu/book_chapters/330/ And, in the case of the US saving clause, what's going on here is the avoidance of "no no taxation." Example: treaty country has exclusive taxation rights, but doesn't avail itself of those rights (eg, Thailand -- old policy of bring it in next year thus no taxation). Thus, we the US, will step up and make sure someone collects taxes. And this is the name of the future in DTAs. Check out this link: Sounds like the move to eliminate the "bring it in next year and it will be exempt" was a result of this referenced MLI agreement by Thailand. Hmmm.

You went 4 times to your tax office -- just to have it confirmed that you owe no taxes? Hopefully your trips were to get a refund on tax withholdings on your bank interest........

No, the reason for the disparities among provincial TRD offices -- is because there is no STANDARDIZATION.

You can get cold air over your phone? 🙂

As far as I know, only Thaitax has come out to say bank savings are the only allowed monies for Por 162; no others, that I recall, have said that. Probably because TRD hasn't clarified the situation, at least officially. And these more professional tax advisories would rather say nothing than make a statement as stupid as "bank savings only." Say my bank savings account had a $100k balance on 25 Dec 2023. But, as interest rates for CDs finally had climbed to where they looked attractive -- I bought $90k worth of CDs on 26 Dec 2023. What's my Por 162 'value' on 31 Dec2023 -- $10k or $100k? If you say $10k, you're implying that Por 162 exempt income -- must be in the form of liquid assets, not near liquid assets. Do you (and Thaitax) really believe that's what TRD meant when they said "INCOME existing before 2024?" Give it your best shot.

Right -- but the value of that property or stocks on 12/31/2023 would be non assessable, per Por 162. However, some (or maybe it's just one) tax advisory outfits are saying, "Por 162 is limited to pre 2024 savings in a bank account." And a shill on this forum keeps echoing that. I think you'd be well within your reasoning powers to interpret Por 162 as NOT being restricted to bank savings accounts.

Hey, sounds like a great replacement for Guantanamo as a place to dump your trash.

Actually, Trump has used this law to deport over 200 Venezuelan gang members -- which is a good thing, if you're an American. Not exactly xenophobia or racism.... just house-cleaning realpolitik. Yeah, he's a bull in a china shop -- but much of that china needed breaking. Just too bad that, overall -- he's an arrogant buffoon.

This is starting to get monotonous. You keep genuflecting to tax advisory firms -- particularly Expattaxthai -- who have often stumbled on reading the TRD tea leaves. Expattaxthai, in their FAQ section, advised that LTR visa holders must still file a tax return, completely filling it in with zeros. Completely bonkers. Fortunately, I can sniff out folks who don't have a full grasp of the situation, or who don't admit there's nothing solid enough yet coming from TRD to allow a full grasp. And act accordingly. So, from this statement re Por 162, how does your INDEPENDENT reasoning conclude only pre 2024 monies from "savings accounts" (your quote) apply under Por 162? Come on, Jingthing. Think for yourself for a change. Your certainty on uncertain matters is losing you any credibility you might of had.

Well, it was (maybe still is) a scam ginned up by a tax advisory firm in Bangkok. If you're really curious, and have some time and a sixpack, the following threads will fill you in: https://aseannow.com/topic/1008555-tax-specialist-in-chiang-mai/page/3/ https://aseannow.com/topic/1250834-how-is-the-us-tax-treaty-deduction-going/page/2/#comment-17239943

Using a 34bt FX rate, John's Thai tax bill -- assuming a 560k TEDA/150k freebie -- would be about $1300 (assuming the IRA is his only assessable income remitted). And since the saving clause mandates that John must also declare that $30k IRA on his US tax return -- this would amount to $6600 in US taxes, if in the 22% tax bracket. But, yes he can file a Form 1116 (and also Form 8833) and take a tax credit against that US tax -- so after that credit, his US tax bill on the IRA would be $5300. But your composite tax bill equates to the country having the higher tax bill -- in this case the US, with $6600. Two conflicting scenarios here. One, if you believe your IRA's value on 12/31/2023 qualifies under Por 162 as "pre 2024 income." Or two, you believe some reports that only cash savings in a bank account qualify under Por 162. In the above example, it matters not which scenario you choose: Believe your IRA qualifies under Por 162, so don't even file a Thai tax return, with its $1300 tax charge. But do pay full fare of $6600 to the US, since there's no credit to be had -- total tax bill the same under either scenario. So, the argument over Por 162 and IRAs would be moot, at least in the above scenario. In this scenario, Thailand doesn't exist as far as your US tax return filing. No Thai tax, no tax credit against your US taxes. Now, the opposite side of the coin would be -- a Thai tax on your remitted Roth IRA -- but no US tax on same, on which to apply the credit. This is where you want to believe that Por 162 covers Roth IRAs -- so that remitted Roth IRAs would thus be non assessable for Thai tax purposes.

Did you read my link, and particularly the Swiss ruling on how the saving clause definitely applies to IRA distributions to US expats who now are tax residents abroad, whose new country has 'exclusive' taxation rights on that distribution.....? That, hopefully, will show you how the saving clause "has anything to do with IRAs." And how Carden's assertion that Thailand is unique in being exempt from the saving clause when it comes to IRAs -- is totally ludicrous.

What I was saying is, only you and Thomas Carden have gone on record as saying you aren't required to file on your US tax return your Traditional IRA distro, because the saving clause uniquely doesn't apply with the US tax treaty with Thailand. This scam is equally applicable today, if Thai taxes are less than US taxes on same distro -- or you just don't remit your IRA distro to Thailand. But my main point is: You're dead wrong about your Traditional IRA not being taxable by the US because the DTA says Thailand has 'exclusive' taxation rights on your remitted Traditional IRA distro.

Neither type is taxable in the US for Thai tax residents. A little education here, Jingthing. Thus, with but a few exceptions (like alimony and child support payments), there are no "exclusive" tax rights in the Thai-US tax treaty, like the "exclusive" tax right mentioned in the DTA that Thailand has on US private pensions and Traditional IRAs. Instead, the US -- per the saving clause -- always maintains a "secondary" taxation right in the DTA situations giving Thailand "exclusive" rights. In effect, Thailand still gets "primary" taxation rights, meaning, they get to keep all tax collections, and don't have to absorb a tax credit; but the US gets secondary rights -- but DOES have to absorb a credit for the taxes paid Thailand. Nothing violating the spirit of "no double taxation" with this situation, since credits come into play. But what it does do -- is ensure that there is not a "no no tax situation." A situation the OECD is trying eliminate with its new Model Tax Treaties. And a loophole the US plugged many years ago, with its saving clause insertion in all DTAs. Jingling, click on this link and prepare for an educational read: https://aseannow.com/topic/1008555-tax-specialist-in-chiang-mai/page/3/ It's about a scam -- dreamed up by a US tax advisor in Bangkok -- who went around to various Thai cities with his sales pitch that he had found a glitch in the treaty language between Thailand and the US, that would exempt US IRAs from the saving clause. Thus, just come to Thailand for 181 days and become a Thai tax resident -- and you're exempt from US taxation on your IRA withdrawals. And -- even better -- remit that IRA withdrawal to Thailand the following year (remember, the old rules), and don't even pay tax to Thailand! Thus, Thailand -- per this scam artist -- would become the only country to which a US expat could move to -- and never have to pay US tax -- nor Thai tax! Too good to be true? Duh. Anyway, read the link and pay attention to the IRS ruling vis-a-vis Switzerland, from the IRS top legal person, on how a US person, who becomes a tax resident abroad, but who has annual Traditional IRA withdrawals -- still is subject to US taxes on these withdrawals, per the saving clause. And note how the Swiss DTA is similar to the Thai DTA with the US, including treaty language. No surprise here, as both follow the OECD and UN Model Tax Treaties. So how this charlatan tax advisor in Bangkok has gotten away with this (as he apparently has, as we've seen nobody questioned by the IRS) is curious -- and sad. He apparently charges an arm and a leg -- but, heck, I guess, if the deal wasn't such an obvious scam, my $300k Traditional IRA becoming tax exempt would be worth the price. And many, apparently, have gone this route. And even with Por 161, if Thai taxes were much less than US taxes on the same IRA withdrawal -- it would still be a money maker for Thomas Carden, er, Elmer Gantry. But, hey -- if my theory on Por 162 is correct (i.e., don't even declare it to Thailand, as it's pre 2024 income) -- Carden's scam is still completely in play. Anyway, Jingthing -- be careful on how much credence you give to tax advisors. As Ben Hartman has raved on and on about -- they're all illegal crooks. And, yes, Ben is referring to not having legal credentials to practice in Thailand. My example is about a crook who lacks integrity. But, of course, none of this helps in determining if correct interpretation of TRD dicates are correct -- from any of these questionable so-called tax advisors....

The only acronym I've used recently is "IRA." So, what exactly are you talking about?

That's why I said "traditional IRAs....." are subject to the saving clause found in the DTA -- and thereby taxable by the US.

Traditional IRAs and 401ks are certainly subject to US tax, per the saving clause found in all DTAs. So, all this argument about IRAs not being taxable by Thailand, per Por 162, is only a matter of interest, but certainly not one of tax savings -- since either Thailand or the US, or both, will collect your taxes (subject to credit relieve, of course).

The annual reinvested cap gains of my stock mutual fund have now become "tax deferred income," same as the original wage that established that stock mutual fund. Thus, Dec 31 2023 value of my IRA is all covered by Por 162 edict -- i.e., it's non assessable savings.

Sadly, much of this advice is questionable, no doubt due to the lack of any definitive/consistent language out of TRD. A situation where ones own reasoning can make more sense.

Actually, they are covered. And the DTA gives not only primary taxation of such pensions to Thailand, but "exclusive" taxation rights. However, the US "saving clause" reduces this to only "primary" taxation rights, meaning, the US has secondary rights -- so can also tax these pensions, but has to absorb a tax credit for the Thai taxes paid. Now, the DTA treats IRA payouts as "pensions," for DTA purposes -- but since IRAs are really tax deferred income/savings -- this is where Por 162 comes into play, and exempts all those pre 2024 IRA savings/income from Thai taxation.

As of Dec 31, 2023, my IRA consisted of stock mutual funds. All originally funded with pre 2024 wage income, then every year subsequently, these mutual funds declared dividends and cap gains -- thus more tax deferred INCOME reinvested in the fund. So, by Dec 31, 2023, my IRA was ALL pre 2024 income. That is was ALL tax deferred income, by US tax standards, is a no never mind in the eyes of Por 162. Thus, my IRA balance on Dec 31, 2023 is non assessable income, as far as Thai taxes are concerned. Again, as previously said, Por 162 overrides the DTA language saying this remitted income is primarily taxable by Thailand.

Yes, but IRAs are.

This is an on-going argument -- especially by jingling. Yes, prior to Por 162 -- which exempts all pre 2024 income -- private pension remittances were taxable by Thailand. But Por 162 exempted pre 2024 income, which both traditional and Roth IRAs consist of. Thus, Por 162 'trumps' the DTA language that, otherwise, would make IRA remittances to Thailand taxable. And Por 162 just says "pre 2024 income." It doesn't say that income can only be in a bank account -- which grifters like Expat Tax Thailand expound on. Anyway, I'd certainly be confident in excluding my IRA remittances from assessable income -- you really do have Por 162 at your back. And, as such, why wouldn't you give yourself the benefit of the doubt -- which, in the 1% chance you're ever audited, would certainly exclude you from any tax evasion charge, or criminal charges. No brainer.