JimGant

Where in the world did you get that "file in previous year" dictate?

If you have no remitted income, you have no foreign assessable income. And if your only Thai income is bank interest, that doesn't have to be declared as assessable income on a tax return, as you can opt to just treat it as 'withholding at source final tax.' So you're saying it wouldn't be unreasonable for RD to have you file a tax return where all income lines are blank? And where there are no lines to show non assessable income?

It's up to you....😉

Informed decisions "based on the law," rather than common sense -- and a clear understanding that they're not subject to penalty? Ludicrous, from another angle.

I assumed it was a State pension.

Because it's unenforceable, or at least too ludicrous to enforce. Only if a too large a bank account suggests a tax return should have been filed -- might you get a knock on the door. That's why the expat needs to keep good accounts. How the fat cat rice farmer wiggles out of this -- I don't know. But I certainly can guess... Why are you so insistent that we should file, even with no taxable income? Oh, enforce how? There's no fine or penalty for failing to file, if no taxes owed. What are they going to do? (rhetorical question)

Looks good to me. Is there a trick there we're supposed to see...?

This is starting to get tiresome. We KNOW they have such a requirement on the books -- but, NO, they don't enforce it -- because it's a stupid requirement, to enforce a requirement that generates no taxes or penalty income, if assessable income doesn't result in taxable income (i.e. assessable income that exceeds allowances, deductions, and the 150k freebie). And, it would be even harder for RD to think an expat is holding out on filing, because an expat has a DTA to negate any income as assessable, unlike a Thai citizen. For my two-cents, I'd just put an asterisk on this paragraph saying, "Until further guidance, if any, from RD -- consensus and common sense suggest not filing a Thai tax return, unless your spreadsheet figures show you have taxable income."

If they ever did, as an upstanding outfit, they'd grandfather you.

That's bizarre. Never heard of airport immigration asking about health insurance -- only visa issuers and extenders. They certainly didn't when I was traveling on my OA visa. Anybody else experience this? If so, I guess if I ever travel again on my LTR visa, I need to carry a copy of my Tricare bonafides.

The right thing, according to who? You obviously have no Thai taxable income. So, as many of us here have said (except Mike), you have no tax obligation, no taxes owed, no fines or penalties for not filing, as no taxes owed -- so why the blazes file a Thai tax return?! Tell me -- are you of the opinion you should have filed because you had an assessable income over 120k bt? If so, does that make any sense to you?

I could care less if I'm ever happy with it -- as said, I haven't even bothered reading it. Just want the confusion factors eliminated, so the man on the street, wandering in for a look see, sees facts, not word pies. I guess I took too giant a leap in reading between the lines with this:

Ah, what threshold is that? 120,000baht that PWC says the Code stipulates as when you need to file a return, even if no tax owed? This completely defies logic. My workers, even the new hire earning min wage (400bt/day), will earn 125000 per year, and thus, under the guidance, will have to file a tax return. Insane. You think I'm going to give him, and the other higher paid workers, the bad news that they now have to file tax returns -- by hiring, and paying, someone who knows how? Yeah, right. And do you think I'd advise an expat, who after subtracting out deductions, allowances, and the 150k freebie from his assessable income -- comes up with a negative number -- that he must file a tax return, just 'cause his assessable income exceeded 120k? Come on, man -- I didn't advise tax clients over all those years to take the stupid road (fortunately, the US Tax Code has few stupid roads - just gray roads, that two reasonable folks can arrive at two reasonable alternatives). Anyway, Mike, if you don't want to give advice that's in favor of your client, er reader -- even tho' there's no penalty for not filing if no taxable income -- it's up to you. But, if you meant "threshold" was where assessable income, less TEDA, equaled a positive taxable income -- then I apologize.

Your implication that Thailand might violate the DTA ( "various tax treaties do not limit the extent...") is nonsensical. And, I don't even know what point you were trying to make. Suggest you just flush it, unless you finally figure out that there's something germane to be said re the power and limitations of a DTA. As for the man in the street being an idiot, and not understanding double taxation -- you can't say there will be no taxation in Thailand, then say, if so, you'll get a credit to avoid double taxation. You have to find better words; but as written now, the second sentence contradicts the first sentence. The man in the street may think you're the idiot. This is the first I've ever read any of your tax guide. Have kept abreast of concerns by just reading the critiques from the gang hanging out on these threads. Actually, a nice sample of expats.

You're right. English should be mandated for everyone in Thailand.

You're saying Thailand may violate treaty provisions? How are you going to issue a credit if it's not re-taxed?

Yes, there's definitely a lack of information. And, if in fact, there is no definitive guidance in any official Thai documentation -- well, you're clear to follow omnipresent Thai guidance: It's up to you. So, in your example, use FIFO, which prioritizes the original investment over latter gains and earnings. If ever questioned, you certainly haven't violated any rules and regs not yet in evidence (to my knowledge). But, if there are any adults riding herd on this, we probably will eventually get some guidance. And Thailand has only the UK to emulate, as they are the only other country (that I can find) that taxes remitted income. And here are their rules: And further reading in this UK pub shows that a mixed remittance is, indeed, income first, capital second. Hmmmm.

There are many examples of both countries having taxation rights on the same income -- otherwise, why would you need a credit system, if only one country could tax..... The rental example is the purest, because others involve the "saving clause," whereby the US has secondary taxation rights on all income taxed by Thailand, even tho' the DTA gives Thailand certain "exclusive" taxation rights. [Private pensions, IRAs, etc.] Thus, because of the "saving clause," even tho' Thailand has "exclusive" taxation rights on my private or IRA pension, it practically results in Thailand only having "primary" taxation rights, with the US having "secondary" rights. In this case, Thailand keeps all the collected taxes, and the US gets to keep only the taxes collected after absorbing the Thai tax credit. So, double taxation is avoided, but the country getting "first dibs" per the DTA, gets to keep all the taxes, by not having to absorb a tax credit. But back to Article 6, and rentals. Here, the US is "primary" taxation authority -- per the DTA language of "may" collect taxes -- if the DTA said "may ONLY" collect taxes, then the US would be the exclusive taxation authority, and Thailand would not have secondary taxation authority: Thus, Thailand also has the right to tax your rental income, but must absorb a tax credit equal to the taxes paid the US. A fat cat Thai, with rental property in the US, and in the Thai 35% tax bracket -- would probably find he owes quite a bit of tax to Thailand, as the US tax credit for this rental income would probably be small. But, this is why Thailand would like to have this option of secondary taxation rights, even tho' for paupers like you and me, the US tax credit would probably cancel out any Thai taxes owed.

It's not an either/or situation -- both countries get to tax your rental income, per the DTA. In this case, the US is the primary taxation authority, and Thailand the secondary. Thus, the US taxes you with no regard to Thailand, and keeps all the tax collection, since, as primary, they don't have to absorb a credit. Thailand, on the other hand, can consider your rental income as assessable income, but, per the DTA, has to use the US taxation as a credit against its taxation. So, if in a low tax bracket, your US taxation credit may completely wipe out any Thai taxation. In higher tax brackets, Thailand could net some taxes from your rental income. Anyway, if you figure out on a worksheet that you'd owe Thailand no taxes, after it absorbs the US tax credit, don't even bother to include this rental saga on your Thai tax return, should you have to file for other reasons. Obviously, keep that worksheet should RD come knocking down the road.

You forgot to copy this part of the technical explanation for rental receipts: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-trty/thaitech.pdf Thus, Thailand has secondary taxation rights on rental income from your US (situs) rental property, i.e., the situs country does not have exclusionary taxation rights. For practical purposes, this means the US gets to keep all taxation on that rental income, while Thailand only keeps any taxation left after subtracting out a tax credit for the US taxes. Thus, in many (most) cases there won't be any taxes left for Thailand to collect. Today's Thai tax forms don't allow for you to show a rental taxation net of a US tax credit. So, do the math on a matchbook, and if zero or negative, just don't report it. If there is some taxation due, after subtracting out the tax credit on a worksheet, fiddle with the numbers to arrive at that number, to insert on your tax return. This concept, seen in many DTAs, of primary and secondary taxation countries, is fortuitous for the secondary country, should the primary country not tax the income in question. But, if country A is designated as having "exclusive" taxation rights, well then, country B has no rights, even if country A chooses not to exercise its taxation rights. Exclusive taxation rights are also contained in the DTA phrase: "May be taxed ONLY in country A", while "may be taxed" is code language in OECD Model tax treaty language as having primary taxation rights. Got that? Now you know why the Treasury Dept has seen fit to write technical explanations for certain tax treaties.

There are no laws written about FIFO and LIFO for remittances, at least that are discoverable by the Thai taxpayer, or at least for now. Thus, you're free to choose how to identify a remittance of co-mingled funds. If you got into an argument on this point with an RD official, I believe you'd have sufficient grounds to stand on. Your approach of, "I don't know, you make your own decision" is, I guess, one way to present guidance to folks looking for advice. To me, it's a cop out: You don't even offer a pros and cons scenario, with a recommended best choice. My years as a CPA, doing taxes for airline flight personnel (yes, not expats), showed me the US Tax Code is full of omissions and conflictions. As such, there are gray areas, that have two or more avenues, and where you give your client the avenue best to his advantage. I won most of my audits (and the few I lost weren't with prejudice). You give it your best shot, and if you lose -- because it wasn't a frivolous tax dodge -- you're in the, "well, we gave it our best shot." So, Unkown1, I present a gray area that you can take advantage of, without any possible negative consequence, that I can imagine, under the current law. Or you can take Mike's Simple Tax Guidance, which is so simple, it doesn't provide any guidance, or at least alternatives, at all. Good luck.

Looks like an uninformed decision. There is nothing -- yet -- that says using FIFO to categorize remittances is illegal. You're completely kosher to consider that 30k remittance as non-assessable, by being principal, not income. And, do you think you're on their radar screen, with your (relatively) piddly remittances? Or, you'll be one of the 300,000 expats, with remittances, to be called into the office to parse those remittances? No way, Jose. Forget filing. Go have a beer.

Yeah, they may eventually demand LIFO, or some kind of average. But until they decide, if they ever do, I say you're free to pick and choose, to your advantage. What advice do you have?

At the beginning of all this, the authorities (which office, undefined) said: If you can show a home country tax return, plus a DTA with Thailand, you owe no taxes to Thailand. Not much further news on that, so maybe they had their toes and fingers crossed when they put that out.

Until something is stated on how to treat co-mingled monies, my two-cents says, use FIFO. Thus, your oldest money, the principle, is where your 30k remitted money comes from. You're not going to get audited (certainly RD scarce resources will be reserved for the fat cats). But if you did, you certainly have a plausible explanation -- since until declared otherwise, FIFO is perfectly acceptable.