JimGant

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

So the ultimate question is if applied consistently would Thai Revenue accept LAST IN, FIRST OUT as a legitimate accounting method in such cases? Or not?

According to an article in the Bangkok Post, yes. In your situation, a fungible pot of money equates to scriptless securities. Once you pick LIFO, you're supposed to consistently stick with that accounting method. Sounds like no problem in your situation, since FIFO wouldn't make any sense, since all the earlier money is SS, where timing makes no difference as to its taxability.

Quote

For scripless securities, the taxpayer is allowed to use any acceptable accounting method such as FIFO, LIFO or weighted average method in calculating cost of securities.

- Once any of the accounting methods is used for calculation of cost basis, such method has to be used consistently.

https://www.bangkokpost.com/business/general/299691/when-the-revenue-department-changes-its-mind-the-taxpayer-gets-the-headache

On 5/20/2025 at 3:09 PM, craig letvin said:

I'm considering getting my LTR VISA-  can anyone suggest a good place to go that will basically do everything for me?

 

What any agent can't do for you -- is take your passport to BoI in Bangkok to finalize matters, and to pay your 50k, and get you new visa stamp from the co-located Immigration. This must be done in person. So, if you live upcountry -- pack your bags. But an agent can do your annual residence report, without you having to go to Bangkok, or to your local Imm office.

5 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

In a remitted taxation system, the Revenue Department nominally only wants to know about foreign remitted income that it can tax. A global tax system wants to know about all of one's global income. 

Actually, if we go to a global tax system, Thailand still won't want to know about income it cannot tax -- like my US govt pension and Social Security. Those figures need not ever be introduced into a Thai tax return -- at least for now, where they're not interested in non assessable income.

9 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

I asked because I looked , and I spotted NO SUCH PLACE.

 

If there is such a place, it might be helpful to many on this forum.  And if there is no such place, then while you have good intentions, you are simply incorrect.

Incorrect -- and good intentions questionable.

6 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

The individual needs to self assess if he is above or below the filing thresholds

If he self-assesses that the remitted income is non assessable -- why in the world would he have to assess if he's above or below the filing thresholds? Get a grip, man.

5 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

That would be up to the Individual to supply the evidence of why they are claiming an exemption / tax credit / any other.

You mean up to the individual to self assess why he's omitting certain income from his tax return because he's determined that it is non assessable.

Hard to reconcile that with your:

Quote

Section 40:of the Revenue code dictates what is assessable income

I think you've lost the bubble. Maybe a good night's sleep might help.

2 hours ago, oldcpu said:

so again - that begs the question, ... is foreign remitted income, referenced in a DTA signed and agreed by Thailand, where DTA notes that Thailand has  no taxation rights on such income, is it still to be included in a Thai tax calculation?

No! That there's no place to include it should be your first clue.

2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

Section 40:of the Revenue code dictates what is assessable income.

 

Not DTA's or Visa's

Ah, Section 40 has all 61 DTAs memorized.

23 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

The Revenue Code ( Thai Tax Law ) is quite clear what assessable income is, the Revenue code applies to Foreigners that are thai tax resident.

The Revenue Code hasn't the foggiest what 61 DTAs define as income subject to Thai tax, thus assessable, or not assessable.

Never mind.

42 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Black and white according to Thai Tax Law. Pensions are assessable income.

Unless exempted by tax treaty. Treaties override domestic tax law, when push comes to shove.

Now, domestic law *can* override treaty language. But the result is usually a betterment of the purpose of the treaty.

Quote

How serious of a problem are treaty overrides? This chapter argues that the seriousness of the issue has been exaggerated. In practice, most countries, including the US (which was clearly the target of the OECD Report), rarely override treaties, and when they do, in most cases the override can be justified as consistent with the underlying purposes of the relevant treaty. Moreover, treaty overrides can sometimes be an important tool in combating tax treaty abuse. Thus, I believe that if used correctly, treaty overrides can be a helpful feature of the international tax regime, albeit one that should be used sparingly and with caution.

https://repository.law.umich.edu/book_chapters/330/

An interesting example is Thailand's purported position that, if you pay income taxes to your home country, Thailand will give you a credit against the Thai taxes on same income -- if such income is deemed assessable by DTA. Now, most treaties say that private pensions may ONLY be taxed by Thailand. Meaning, Thailand has primary taxation authority, and thus gets to keep all the collected taxes. But, Thailand is saying: We'll change the treaty with our domestic override to make Thailand the secondary taxation authority, and thus absorb a tax credit for the taxes paid to the home country.

Why they would want to do this, resulting in lost taxes -- is beyond me. But, it in no way jeopardizes the policy of 'no double taxation.' So, such an override has no apparent consequence, except to the decreased amount of taxes collected by Thailand.

Another example is: domestic tax code being overriden to accommodate treaty language. The US tax code says no tax credit for foreign taxes on US income (only foreign income). But, US income remitted to Thailand, and taxed by Thailand, is protected by treaty from double taxation, in many cases, by the US absorbing a tax credit for these Thai taxes. Thus, a US tax filer needs to file a Form 8833 when he wants to override the US Tax Code, and accommodate treaty language for the avoidance of double taxation.

22 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

A DTA does not state that XX income is considered " Non Assessable Income " under Thai Tax Law. They normally state only taxable in XX Country.

Model OECD treaty language has some general terminology which can be misleading, if not defined. For example, the tech explanation of the US-Thai treaty has the following explanation for Article 6, Rents of Immovable Objects:

Quote

The first paragraph of Article 6 states the general rule that income of a resident of a
Contracting State derived from real property situated in the other Contracting State may be taxed
in the Contracting State in which the property is situated. [my emphasis]

This Article does not grant an exclusive taxing right to the situs State; the situs State is
merely given the primary right to tax.

For tech explanation of Article 20, Private Pensions and IRAs:

Quote

....pensions and other similar remuneration paid to a resident of a Contracting State in consideration of past employment shall be taxable *only* in that State. [my emphasis]

So, income ONLY taxable in home country definitely means it is non assessable for Thai tax purposes. Now, in the rental example, there is no ONLY stated -- so both the US and Thailand can tax this income: thus assessable income for Thai tax purposes. BUT, "may be taxed" by the US, gives the US primary taxation authority, and Thailand only secondary authority. Meaning: US keeps all the collected taxes, and Thailand has to absorb a credit for these US taxes. So, yes, assessable income for Thai tax purposes -- but heavily discounted by being second banana in a "both can tax" situation.

On 5/19/2025 at 10:12 PM, NoDisplayName said:

Aside from that, do you see any errors in my understanding of the old/new/proposed rules for taxation of remitted assessable income?

Quote

Foreign income (not exempt by DTA) earned after 2024 remitted in subsequent years is assessable.

Did you mean "2023?" Which has year 2024 not protected by Por 162, or by the new proposed rule, whose protection begins with 2025 income.....

53 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

I think that is a rather narrow view of the motivations that Canadians felt at the outbreak of WWII.

Sacrificing your young men in a war with absolutely no threat to your shores -- is insanity. The US learned this in WWI. I can only believe Canada, had they imitated the US in getting rid of the Crown, would have also imitated the US in not knowingly sacrificing their youth -- unless, and until, war was declared on them. "God save the King" has an interesting ring to it. But marching off to war, as a colony and not as an independent country, is madness.

55 minutes ago, No Forwarding Address said:

I have a question, any hope there will be a waiver of taxes for any money brought in to purchase a Condominium in Thailand……

Sure. If that money is not assessable income per the DTA, like govt pensions and Social Security. Or pre 2024 income, as found in savings accounts, CDs, IRAs, etc (exempt per Por 162 decree). Or a loan from your bank, or a loan from mortgaging your house or other assets. Inheritances. Gift from Aunt Agnes.

Still short, 'cause you only have assessable income, like from a 2024 or later private pension? Instead of remitting it to Thailand (and thus subject to taxation), buy an asset you can collateralize, then take a loan and send that money to Thailand.

By the way, no one is going to scrutinize the assessability of your remittances. It would be too resource intensive -- with few gains -- to talk to everyone with large remittances. Besides, BoI is doing all they can to encourage Foreign Direct Investment. And harassing potential investors ain't in the cards.

Just curious: Why do you think the money you might forward to Thailand for a condo purchase -- would be assessable for Thai tax purposes? Are you cashing out a large chunk of IRA? If so, literal reading says Por 162 exempts all pre 2024 monies in this IRA -- just pay Uncle Sam.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

I have not heard even one "expert" in these matters say IRAs and 401ks are mutual funds under Thai law.

Sure they could be anything under Thai law.

Somehow I've lost the whole point of this discussion. Money remitted to Thailand from an IRA has lost any identity it may of had in the IRA. If it was a stock mutual fund, those stocks were sold, and it is now fungible cash, with no mutual fund identity. This cash is remitted to Thailand, and the DTA says Thailand has exclusive taxation rights on this remitted income -- because it represents IRA income. There's no mutual fund identity to this remittance -- it's strictly nondescript cash representing income deemed assessable, per DTA, for Thai tax purposes. So, how do you play the "mutual fund" card in this scenario, particularly if only a small percentage of your IRA withdrawal represents mutual fund holdings in your IRA?

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

Thats not destruction of infrastructure

Well, yeah. But because of the war you don't have the resources to maintain that infrastructure, and it falls down.....

Nevermind.

11 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Ok, let's look at the historical record on participation;

Australia: 3 September 1939 

New Zealand; 3 September 1939

Canada: 10 September 1939 (official declaration after announcement  on 7 September 1939)

What stupidity, maintaining loyalty to the British Crown. And thus throwing your lads into that meat grinder against the krauts, with no need, as your own countries are completely safe from any German attack. And for the Aussies and Kiwis -- come Dec 7th -- their countries are now wide-open to Japanese attack, 'cause their lads are all fighting the European war. Fortunately, the US had a vested interest in preventing the Japanese from occupying Australia and New Zealand.

Madness.

6 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

The only reason it entered was because of Pearl Harbor. Otherwise, the USA would have been content to sit back and profit from the war.

And rightfully so. Most of our ancestors left Europe, and never looked back. Except one time: World War I, where, for some stupid reason, we got involved, and got 116,000 Americans killed for absolutely no reason. So, yeah, without Pearl Harbor, hopefully we would have been smart enough to let the Europeans settle just one more of their endless wars.

5 hours ago, WorriedNoodle said:

Mocking the commemorations of V-E Day, which honors the sacrifice and cooperation of Allied nations in defeating Nazi Germany, can be deeply offensive to countries like France, which suffered heavy civilian and military losses,

The friggin' French virtually sat out the Normandy invasion, the wonderful Maginot Line warriors they are. The only Frenchman making any noise for the invasion was DeGaulle -- whose arrogance kept demanding he lead the invasion:

Quote

On 6 June 1944, Operation Overlord launched the first wave of Allied forces onto the Normandy coast to free Western Europe of the Nazi yoke. Only 209 Frenchmen took part as infantrymen - 177 commandos and 32 paratroopers

Earlier, whole lot more Frenchmen were in defense of North Africa, and succeeded in killing a lot of Americans as they came ashore. Wonderful people, the French.

Here are the statistics for killed in the D-Day invasion:

Quote

US: 2500 killed

UK: 1760 killed

Canada: 370 killed

French civilians paid a high price on D-Day; but no statistics on casualties for the mighty 209 French infantrymen -- I'm sure at least one wounded himself opening his K-ration can of escargots.

5 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

It was not a problem for 20 years, why is it an issue now

Actually, it was in the closet for most of those 20 years. And, there's no proof that having one's junk removed -- at taxpayer expense -- actually converts a male to someone now pyschologically sound enough to be a full contributor to military service. But, maybe I'm wrong.... Still, there's no need to use taxpayer dollars for this experiment. Let those already "converted" remain in the military; but draw the line at further recruitment, as any minimal void caused can easily be filled with normal recruits.

Couple of questions. 

I wonder if she/he can still use the traditional male-oriented relief tube in her fighter jet?

And, as her partner is a female -- is she/he now really a lesbian? Or, is residual male hormone still calling the shots toward sexual attractiveness -- so she/he is actually still sexually straight?

Nevermind. This whole transgender BS, with which pronouns to use; which bathroom to use; can George now really be on the girls Olympic team -- is mind boggling. Can't we just return to normalcy, at least in outward appearances?

41 minutes ago, RocketDog said:

my greatest thanks to you Mike for the Herculean and continual effort you have taken on and accomplished.

 

This latest version seem definitive to me and I will use it as such.

Mike disappeared from this forum on July 21, 2024. There have been no "latest versions" since.

4 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

According to the Treaty, Americans are to be treated in the same way as Thai Nationals. Pensions are not taxed.

Yeah, pensions from companies owned by Americans and established in Thailand. Has nothing to do with pensions remitted from America, which the DTA has sole guidance over, with absolutely no conflict with pensions subject to Treaty of Amity. Curious: Who's this lawyer giving you this guidance?