JimGant

Gosh they're stupid. By saying that, they're chasing away customers, who might have paid 7500 +15000, but didn't owe any taxes -- but had read on this forum about the horrors of not filing if you exceeded the 60/120/220k assessable income thresholds.

John, if that were true, it would be headline news in the expat community.... I can't believe you went to Carden. First, I know you're smart enough to do your own taxes. Second, you were in on that thread several years back regarding Carden's illegal scheme -- which he successfully sold to many Americans -- whereby you never have to pay any taxes, to either Thailand or the US, on your Traditional IRA cashout -- as long as you're a Thai tax resident. Imagine. Move to Thailand -- the only country in the world where Americans, according to Carden, uniquely have an exemption in the tax treaty language to avoid IRA taxation. Wow! Too good to be true!? Duh. And I just re-read some of your comments on this old thread, namely, that Carden's advertised educational bonafides are really weak. Plus, he's only an Enrolled Agent, whose only educational requirement is a "high school diploma." Yes, there are a lot of good, sharp EAs out there. Carden isn't one of them. He's a charlatan, and I believe Ben Hart has already honed in on this. Oh, did you ask him about tax exempt IRAs? I believe Por 161 may have put a knot in his tail. Which is good, since apparently his scheme was under the radar as far as the IRS was concerned.

Or, how about we say some or our remittances are non assessable, while others are assessable. Let's call this novel notion: self-assessment. We fill out the tax return ourselves, using the grey matter between our ears -- and file online, or by mail, or drop box. No hand holding by TRD. And TRD's limited resources could then be restricted to compliance audits. And maybe -- this is why they're collecting bank statements but not analyzing them -- they're looking at the bottom number -- and a large remittance number but not a comparable tax return -- brings you to the front of the line for compliance audit.....

Nope. Just in Germany. Their DTA pretty much looks like all the others, since they all follow pretty religiously the OECD and UN Model Tax Treaties. Actually, the only country's DTA I came across, where Thailand has primary taxation rights on civil service/military pensions is Norway. [And here, Norway will tax it all, if you can't show you paid tax to Thailand on it.]

How did you carve that up, using the DTA and Por 162? (Obviously, only you could provide the info) 1. 30% from govt pension, so non assessable per DTA 2. 10% from military pension, so non assessable per DTA 3. 30% from rental of home; secondarily assessable, but have to grant credit for tax paid to home country- DTA 4. 10% from private pension, so assessable income per DTA 5. 20% from pre 2024 savings, thus non assessable per Por 162 Re-reading your post, I see where they didn't ask you for any details. So just why did they ask for this information, as it doesn't drive assessable vs non assessable income to be filled in on your tax return? Lunacy.

I don't know what that quote was intended to convey, or from whom, or at what level. It came about early in the Por 161 goat rope -- and maybe we'll hear no more about it. Actually, the US always (because of the saving clause) has the right, albeit secondarily, to tax income the DTA says is "exclusively" taxable by Thailand. Thus, if this phrase resurfaces with some authority, certainly Yanks should have no reason to file a Thai tax return. Germans, for example, will -- if they remit private pensions to Thailand.

DTA gives exclusive taxation rights to US on "pensions paid for service to the government." This is NOT exclusive to the Federal govt, but also includes state and local govts. Which would include pensions paid to policemen and firemen. Is the key here: Paid taxes on it already? Thus, would private pensions, which ARE assessable by Thailand per DTA, also be treated as non assessable, like govt pensions, 'cause you've paid US tax on them? Back in Sept 2023, when Por 161 came out, remember this phrase from somewhere in the Thai govt: Would be nice if they reiterated this formally. For Yanks, because we do have to pay tax on all our worldwide income, this would certainly put to rest the requirement to pay taxes on foreign income to Thailand. But for those who, because they're no longer residents, don't have to pay home country taxes on their income -- well, Thailand has their hand out to you. Welcome to the world of having to pay someone taxes. So sad.

Read the LTR thread. I think you'll find that BOI -- the LTR visa folks -- have snuffed the notion that only prior year income is exempt from taxation. Their say on LTR visas, and the tax exemptions derived from, certainly should hold more sway than Siam Legal. Again, all these firms reaching out to hold your hand, and pocket book, re new tax regulations -- should be discounted accordingly.

Yeah, a real Elmer Gantry.

Carden's a friggin' snake oil salesman. He's the one, as you remember, advertised to US tax payers that, if you're here for over 180 days (i.e., a tax resident), you can cash-in your Traditional IRA tax free -- no US, no Thai taxes, because of how he interprets the wording of the DTA. Bonkers, really -- move to Thailand and cash in your tax deferred Traditional IRA tax free ....? Seemingly, however, he's gotten away with this scheme, as the IRS has bigger fish to fry. Not sure how he manages this now, with Por 161 in effect... Anyway, keep Carden at arms length, and more.

FATCA reports income, not remittances. You think FATCA was reworded to accomodate weirdo countries like Thailand and Malta, the only two countries that tax remittances, not income per se. Nope. FATCA only looks at income -- to include Thailand and Malta.

Bingo. A video by Integrity Legal points this out -- the requirement to get a TIN, if assessable income exceeds some number, is NOT codified. Also, not codified is the 60/120/220k filing thresholds. Relax,folks. Yes, if your assessable income exceeds TEDA/zero bracket amount -- and then you now have taxable income -- by all means get a TIN and file a tax return. Otherwise, chill out.

Barf burgers.

They do show some integrity, with this disclaimer, that their BS "should not be relied upon for personal tax decisions." Amen

I think Guavaman aleady did, in a call to the TRD hotline:

And, as you say, you're well aware that your knowledge of the DTA makes your self-assessment ironclad. Why not leave it at that? Why not? Since your self-assessment seems right on, I think a "we'll call you, don't call us" is appropriate. What numbers, exactly, would you put on a tax return -- since they have no interest in non assessable income and, as a result, have no place to include such on a tax return. Might that be your first clue that non assessable income isn't wanted on a tax return? I don't doubt it. They've wasted enough time on you already.

I guess I need to work on my tongue-in-cheek routine...

Well, you can show you remitted money from a bank account in home country. Now, that bank account had a lot of pre 2024 income, plus current income from your military pension and social security, and, yeah, some reinvested interest, that would be the only assessable income -- but it only amounts to .5% of average account balance. But, hey, you can spend a nice part of an afternoon dazzling the TRD agent. Don't be surprised if she doesn't offer you an refreshment.

Best I can determine, there are no "common standards" saying you must file supporting documents with your tax filing. There have been some recommendations that you should provide such documents -- but nothing to say you have to. Have I missed something? And if I haven't -- if you decide to send copies of your ATM slips -- particularly if they're from a bank account containing no assessable income, or maybe comingled assessable income -- please rethink this decision, for your own sanity.

Why would they do that if the point of the exercise is to broaden the tax base and bring in more funds? Why would Thailand unilaterally give up taxing rights if they have authority to tax under the DTA? Why would they do this? Because this is what's now incorporated in the latest OECD and UN Model tax treaties. Kind of an adjunct to no double taxation -- but in this case, no taxation by country B, if no taxation by country A (assuming it's subject to taxation by country A, and not exempt because you're a non resident). The US-UK DTA is the prime example. Written after Roth IRAs were invented (unlike the Thai-US DTA, written before Roth), the US was able to incorporate, via subsequent protocol into the DTA, the following (from the US-UK tech explanation): So, this is probably where Carden was coming from -- TRD is looking at doing what the US-UK protocol did re Roth IRAs. But, for now, it's kind of in limbo. The US-Thai DTA has no mention of Roth IRAs (Code section 408a not mentioned), so there's nothing in the DTA that says Roth IRAs are treated the same as Traditional IRAs or private pensions. So how are they treated? I dunno. It wouldn't be that hard for the "competent authorities" (the nomenclature for the folks who can modify DTAs) to do a handshake protocol. Or, even Thailand could go it alone, with a modification of its domestic tax law re Roths, which would be allowed, as it wouldn't violate the DTA policy affecting double taxation. Meanwhile, if you are remitting Roths, I'd do a good screening of the arguments for Por 162 encompassing Roth IRAs -- and feel confident that Roth income is definitely pre 2024 income -- and even more so than traditional IRAs, this income is 'after tax' -- and thus even more solidly considered "savings."

Out of curiosity, why do you need it? If you got, at the end of 2023, "Your 2024 Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment" -- you already have all the numbers needed to punch into a tax return. But, maybe you didn't -- and that's why you're asking. And, of course, if filing electronically you don't need a 1099, as there's no requirement to attach them to the filing. And even filing hard copy, 1099 only required if it has withholding tax indicated. I had a couple slow 1099 folks this year, but had all the applicable numbers, so didn't need them. Did my TT on Jan 20; IRS opened up for filing on Jan 28; got my direct deposit refund Jan 29. Pretty smooth.

BOI has never, that I recall, suggested we contact TRD for answers to our questions. I actually imagine they put themselves above TRD, as they work directly for the Prime Minister. Anyway, this is another situation where it's easy, at least for me, to use the interpretation best to my advantage -- and take advantage of the tax exemption promised by the BOI. To do otherwise, and declare all that 2024 income I remitted in 2024, on a tax filing in 2025 -- would be ludicrous.

Sent the following, yesterday, to BOI: Their answer, same day (nice, timely response): Sounds like she's confirming the theory presented by oldcpu, that the "derived in the previous year" simply refers to normal filing procedures, i.e., income from tax year Y is covered in a tax filing in tax year Y+1.

Sadly, they won't have to concern themselves with the particulars of your tax situation. They'll just need to require a form from TRD asserting TRD has evaluated your tax situation. To go along with your TM30 and TM47 presentations. Now, will TRD be equipped to evaluate tax status of a hoard of farangs, in order to issue a TM xx? Probably not -- unless this will snag some significant tax revenue that otherwise would have gone uncollected.

OK, I'm not trying to pull your chain. I'm just trying to understand why, if all your personal income was fully assessable, that you needed to provide documentation? Maybe if you needed to prove that some income was not assessable, would you feel compelled to show supporting documentation - and have a nice chat about DTAs and Por 162. But this was not your situation. And you've already said that you weren't required to provide supporting documentation. Just trying to understand. No big deal -- just a curiosity.