JimGant

Why not submit nothing, as they weren't interested in anything you submitted this year. Just do a comprehensive self-assessment -- and drop off your return, samo samo doing an electronic filing. Any supporting documents would, of course, be salted away for any potential audit. But since the chance of an audit is almost non existent, I certainly wouldn't go to any extra effort to get 12 months of bank statements, etc.

And, as you previously reported, the TRD agent never perused the statements, instead giving you a "what's this sh**" look. I hope you didn't waste too much of your time and money getting bank statements not required.

I think she didn't have a clue. Did her eyes glow when you explained how the DTA says this chunk of money is assessable, and this one is not? How about this chunk is not assessable because it falls into Por 162 exemption territory. And, this rental income is only secondarily taxable by Thailand, per DTA, thus it has to be decreased by the tax credit from my home country taxes. Oh, I forgot -- all the income you presented was assessable, somehow determined by you. And this made her very happy, as she didn't have to chat with you over DTA language, and Por 162 language -- subjects she no doubt has any knowledge of. And, you've already said: She had no interest, of even knowledge why presented, of your bank account statements. Nope. Forget hashing your return over with a clueless front line TRD clerk. Do it electronically, or mail it in, if you can -- or drop it in a drop box at the local RD's front door. Otherwise, you piss** in the wind.

And if you E-file? Monty Python would have loved TRD for source material.

When both countries are allowed to tax, one country is primary, the other secondary. Primary country gets to keep all taxes collected, while the secondary country has to reduce its taxes collected by the amount of the credit, meaning, if the primary country's taxes are higher than those of the secondary country, secondary country collects nothing. Good example with US-Thai DTA is income from rental properties. If I'm a Thai tax resident, but have rental property income in the US -- the US gets to keep all taxes collected and doesn't have to absorb a credit from Thailand. However Thailand -- as secondary country -- does have to absorb a tax credit. Only problem here is that a Thai tax return has no place to enter a credit. So, you would have to do some sleight-of-hand and determine what your total Thai tax would be after absorbing the tax credit; then figure out what fictitious income figure to insert that enables arriving at this total tax figure. The opposite scenario, private pensions, has Thailand as primary taxation authority, and the US (per the saving clause) as secondary authority. Thus, the US is supposed to absorb the tax credit..... But Thailand has given lip service to, "you pay taxes to home country, we'll give you a credit for these taxes against any Thai taxes owed." Not sure why Thailand doesn't want to collect full fare, as the DTA stipulates. But, they can fiddle with their domestic tax rules, as long as it doesn't violate the DTA policy of 'no double taxation.' And clearly this doesn't. But like so much of what we're hearing, it's not certain what's gospel, and what's not.

Let them eat cake.

Well, the Brit TRD equivalent certainly does (per my posting,above). When the TRD even figures out what a Roth IRA is, they could just do a Por exempting it from taxation, with no need for a meeting with a US "competent authority" to do a protocol arrangement -- unless they agree Por 162 already exempts it.

The US and UK dealt with Roth IRAs, and their tax exemption aspect, by the following. Thus, the difference between Traditional and Roth IRAs is dealt with in the US-UK DTA. Nothing (yet) in Thai-US DTA similar to this. But a protocol handshake between "competent authorities" dealing with DTAs (Ministry of Finance rep, US Treasury Dept rep) could rectify this.

I think you have things backwards.... Traditional IRAs are assessable per the DTA. Roth IRAs -- not mentioned in the DTA -- are a completely different breed of animal, so there "would be doubt" as to their assessability in comparison to a traditional IRA. (See my response to potless, below.)

TRD actually used the phrase "Roth IRA" when they defined assessable income?

Roth IRAs came about in 1998. The Thai-US DTA was signed in Nov 1996. There is no mention of Roth IRAs in the DTA, of course, and no subsequent protocols to address them. How, then, you decide to treat them, especially in light of Por 162, might not be too difficult to do.

You made my day! Keep up the super excellent analysis.

Actually, if it's only a partial remittance, you can use FIFO to break out principal from gain. If on dec 31 2023 a stock your purchased for $10000 with pre 2024 income was worth $15000 -- and you remitted only $10000 in later years to Thailand -- then there is no assessable income for Thai tax purposes -- per FIFO. Samo samo gold bar purchased with that same pre 2024 $10000 -- only remit $10000 to Thailand, after you sell gold bar for a gain, or a loss -- no assessable income. Samo samo Rembrandt painting. Remit only what you paid for it with pre 2024 income, no assessable remittance involved. Etc. Investments made with pre 2024 income, later sold and cash sent to Thailand, in an amount not exceeding the original cost of investment -- is not taxable by Thailand, per Por 162:

OK, I'll drop arguing about IRAs. But, I'll still use my own logic in interpreting Por 162 when I file (or don't file) my Thai taxes. I think the effect of Por 162 is still sorting out.... For example: What about the near-liquid money market account and the CDs I had on Dec 31 2023? Their value on that date, converted to cash and wired to Thailand post 2023 -- would logically fall under Por 162 (in my mind, anyway). But the guidance from the Webinar, about "only capital for bank accounts or cash accounts" -- seems to not allow this. However, I bet if you asked someone with decision making authority -- and a brain -- at TRD about this, they would not restrict Por 162 to "bank accounts or cash accounts." I'll throw in, "what about the money in my mattress on Dec 31 2023?" Anyway, when specifics aren't (yet) codified, take the road that's to your advantage. In the minuscule chance you're audited -- if you have a sound, non frivolous argument, as in the above -- worst that can happen, I believe, would be back taxes plus interest. Worth it, IMO.

You tell 'em. First, let's assume you're an honest US Citizen, so you declare your Thai interest from your Thai bank account on your annual US tax filing. Let's say your average amount in the bank is $25000 (850k bt). Based on what Bangkok Bank paid me last year on my savings account interest (.40%) -- that would be $100 in annual interest income to report on my US 1040 tax return. So, that's what you report on Schedule B of the 1040. Or, you don't, 'cause you have no taxable income (standard deduction greater than gross income). Or you don't, 'cause you're dishonest. In any of these situations, it won't matter that Uncle Sam knows you have a Thai bank account, because under FATCA, there's no reporting on aggregated accounts under $50000 at year end ($75000 any time during the year), so in my example, nothing about your account will be forwarded to the US. But, of course, if you have well over $50000 in Thai bank accounts, and you don't report the interest on these on your US tax filing -- that's why FATCA came about. So, yeah, if you're a tax evader, best not give your SSN to the Thai bank. But, if honest, what's the big deal....?

I guess I misinterpreted this: Sounds clueless to me.

So, a bank letter is also required with electronic filing? And this bank letter is what -- your Thai bank's report of all annual remittances received? (That's probably been reported somewhere, but I must have missed it.)

I'm a little confused.... Did you voluntarily submit supporting documents/bank statements -- or was this a requirement of this office? Did you advise the head of the dept that his subordinates didn't have a clue....?

I suggest most of us reading this aren't spring chickens anymore; moved to Thailand several years ago, settling in with their then, or now, Thai spouse; no longer have a house back in home country; have a home here in Thailand; and, for all these reasons, ain't flexible enough to become vagabonds, and jump country every 179 days, to avoid a potential tax hit.

You're talking about your Thai bank statement, listing all your remittances? You mean you expect to have a meaningful conversation with the agent of the day, explaining : This remittance represents non assessable income, because it is a pension from govt services, and the DTA says it's exempt. Watch his Oriental eyes glaze over. But, then, show him your direct deposit Social Security remittance -- also exempt by your DTA -- which this agent wouldn't have the slightest knowledge of. Then, of these remittances are from pre 2024 income, thus exempt by Por 162 (by this time, his eyes have glazed closed). No, sitting down with a lower level TRD agent, with your bank statement showing un explained remittances, would be ludicrous. Even if you had your home country statements, where you could show remittances originated from a pre 2024 savings account, or from an account solely devoted to your military pension, or even more confusing, from a pre 2024 brokerage account. Good luck with any of this. No, I don't think this would replace self assessment. Should something look way out of line, in a random assessment of returns somewhere down the line -- then bring in your bank statements for a chat. But, no way will filing in person at TRD require, nor be manageable, going thru this drill. Being able to file electronically already substantiates such action would be senseless.

Agree, but would go one step more -- I have the right to remain silent about any assessable income that does not exceed TEDA, plus the 150k zero bracket. Why? Because in this scenario, I would owe no taxes, so would not be evading taxation by not filing a tax return. Yes, there are those arbitrary 60/120/220k thresholds that require you to file, if your assessable income exceeds such. But, as Ben Hart, in his recent Integrity Legal video, points out: Just where in Thai tax Code is this stipulated? (He also says, no need to get a TIN where there's nothing in the Code requiring such.) But even if he's wrong, it seems a simple matter to decide on filing a tax return, or not: -- If you have assessable remitted income exceeding TEDA plus the zero tax bracket, you have taxable income and must file a tax return (as penalties for tax evasion can be severe). Absolutely no rational argument against that. -- But, if you have no taxable income (TEDA/zero bracket exceed assessable income), then don't file a tax return. (If Ben Hart is wrong about filing thresholds, worst case --2000bt fine.) -- By not filing, not getting a TIN -- 'cause you have no taxable income - you're off the TRD radar, so there's absolutely nothing being indicated by a non existent tax return to attract their attention to you. You don't exist to the TRD, and their data base. jBest case, no? So, your assessable income doesn't reach the level of becoming taxable -- so you don't file. What could possibly happen to you? Well, if TRD is smart, and knows they have to manage scarce resoures -- they'll only consider folks with very large remittances for potential audits. And even here they'll have to now whether these large remitters are tax residents, or not -- so will have to coordinate with Immigration on 180 day status of these high remitters. Bottom line: If you're a large remitter (whatever TRD determines that is..) and a tax resident, what might be the odds you're selected for a random compliance audit? And in the minuscule chance you are selected, certainly if you're on the up an up, you can substantiate how you've determined assessabiliy from non assessability. Thus, why would you file a tax return -- and get a TIN -- if you owe no taxes?

Yeah, be proactive to the extent possible -- even if their book is in complete disarray, and it's up to you to determine 'worst case.'

Yeah, maybe BOI was advertising: "New rule coming into effect in Sept 2023 -- Por 161 -- but getting a LTR visa will grandfather you under the old rules, of no tax on income remitted in later year." Perhaps, then, BOI should take a course in marketing -- and how subterfuge can be negative in the long run.

Of course! You're beginning to overthink this situation, as it is one of the non gray areas. Sadly, not more are such.

Yeah, these motorcycle food deliverers are an annoyance -- speeding, weaving in and out of traffic. Sure, time is money. That one met his comeuppance, however, seems like justice -- although dying for being an annoyance seems a little harsh... Oh well.