JimGant

Not sure what tax thread to throw this into. But, this seems as good as any. Anyway, we know that "savings" remitted to Thailand is not assessable income -- and thus not taxable. In fact, by definition, it's not even income, but savings. So, it would seem that, prior to being remitted to Thailand, income, if possible, needs to be converted to savings, if we want to avoid Thai taxes. But how? Certainly all those monies in my savings account were, at one time "income." When did they magically become savings? Best guess is when taxes were paid on them. And in, my case, all my income has taxes 'withheld at source." And, I've upped this withholding rate to more than cover what the final taxes would be, when I file my US tax return the following calendar year. Thus, my income is free of all taxes -- and I would guess -- it's now considered "savings." And all this "after tax" income -- now savings -- plops into my savings account, from which I suck out my Wise transfers. So, I would treat this as a non assessable income remittance to Thailand. As such, it's not reported on a Thai tax return. And for me, at least, I wouldn't be anywhere near having any taxable income -- and would not bother getting a TIN, or filing a tax return. In the remote situation where I'd be called in to TRD for a chat -- I certainly could explain that what I remitted were savings, not income. If you think about it -- the old rules, where income remitted to Thailand the year after it was earned -- was exempt for taxes -- could be, because in the "year after," it had morphed into non taxable savings. Hmmm.

I thought tax forms wanted only assessable income entered? Savings are NOT assessable income -- so why would you enter it -- and check "Savings" as source of funds?

And this, for filing a tax return with no taxable income, because the law says you must if you have over 120k in assessable income? Come on, folks. Even half (8.5k) is no "great bargain." I guess a sucker is born every minute -- and blood sucking companies will latch unto them. Hopefully, from what you've gleaned from this thread, if you didn't file a nil tax return, the chance of being found out, and fined 2000 baht, is zip, based on no positive reports that we know of. But, hey, if so -- what's 2k vs 17k (or 8.5k). Or -- heavens! -- possible 10 years of back audits of all your non assessable remitted income. Why would TRD waste scarce resources looking for nil tax return violators -- when the big money is using those resources to investigate tax evasion? Anyway, if anyone pays a tax firm to do a nil tax return, could you report back here as to whether or not you heard a chuckle as you left the office.......

Could you name that company? I'd like to present them the 'fiduciary of the year' award.

Right. Be firm. That's why my posts are so adamant about: Don't just listen to Mike Lister's monotonous dialogue about having to file a tax return, 'cause you have X amount of assessable income, and because it's the law. Use your head; evaluate other poster's inputs on "no reports of any enforcement." Or, if ever enforced, what damage could be done. But relatedly, yes, if you can file online in 10 minutes, maybe you should (but, again, now you'll be in the TRD tax filer data base -- which makes you a bigger target than if you weren't in the data base). Or, worst case, spend a day, hunt for parking, and pay 10000 baht -- to one of these tax preparers whose only interest is their own, not yours (go back and read about fiduciaries). Anyway, inputs here, in addition to Mike Lister's, are, I believe, helpful for allowing the reader to better make a decision. Unfortunately, Mike views these inputs only as personal attacks and thread creep -- and as unhelpful. Sigh.

Agreed. But they also want to get a feel for the probability that they'll suffer some consequence for not filing a nil tax return -- or for not getting a TIN after 60 days. So far, we've seen NO consequences reported; which, of course, doesn't mean there might not be in the future. However, I really doubt TRD would waste resources on the chance of collecting a 2000 baht fine. Anyway, you keep reporting the law, and I'll focus on probabilities. That should make for balanced reporting.

Well, yeah -- they certainly can't put down in writing something that is 180 degrees out from the law. But, if they know the law is ridiculous -- and that there is a 99% chance you won't suffer any consequences for not filing a tax return, if you have no taxable income -- then they just might whisper in your ear: "No need to file a nil tax return, as during all our years of dealing with taxes, we've never seen anyone pay a fine, or be subject to extended audit, for not filing when no taxable income due." [Hey, that's true, at least per the data provided, or not, on this forum.] And this would be more in evidence if you're a client of a financial company, where you do business, not only in taxes, but in other areas, such as financial planning and investments. Obviously, they would like to keep you as a client -- especially if tax prep is not your prime contribution to their business -- so a wise word may just be good for future business. Not so for a "tax prep only" operation -- as we've seen in an earlier report, where they're charging "7.5/10k" to do a nil tax return. You think they're going to shoot themselves in the foot by telling you not to file, 'cause there's zip chance of any consequences for not filing? Come on. These folks are already salivating by the reports they're getting from AN, where certain dialogue is promoting their future business thru scare tactics -- to prepare nil tax returns, for 10,000 baht. Anyway, an interesting contribution to this discussion is the term "fiduciary." This is big on US TV advertisements for financial advisors. Don't know if there's fiduciary related law here in Thailand. But here's what is says about it in the US: Hmmmm. So, if my tax prep guy holds himself out as a fiduciary -- is he obligated to tell me, "Save 10,000 baht by not filing a nil tax return, 'cause you'll suffer no consequences." Or, are the "client's best interests" in obeying the law? Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out to ponder on, since, as far as I know, there are no fiduciary laws in Thailand. But -- of course, there is complete merit in knowing that, who you hire, has your best interests, not his, at the forefront.

And my question to her: How would you know if I have over 120k in assessable income, since I'm an expat, and all my income is foreign source income, most, if not all, is non assessable via DTA. Or, under the old rules, was remitted from a previous year's financial account. Are you going to arbitrarily start calling in some farangs for a discussion on their remitted cash flow -- just to see if they should have filed, even with not taxable income? I didn't think so.

Are you saying, if in the old days, and you remitted your German pension to Thailand in year earned -- they wouldn't tax it, if you filed a tax return? I believe you're confusing not filing, and the "pension remitted is previous year's earnings" charade, as your observation that Thailand doesn't tax it. "They don't tax it" is, of course, the illogical extension of "I didn't file a Thai tax return for this income." Duh.

We did? Must of missed those reported examples.

Your fearmongering is unwarranted. If you have no taxable income, but you file a nil tax return, you're now on the TRD radar as a tax resident -- at least for the tax year of filing. Otherwise, they don't know if you're a tax resident, or ever have been. And, once you're on their radar screen as a tax resident -- because you filed a nil tax return -- well, you've now entered their "people of interest" data base. No thanks. And I doubt that they have all the Thai banks report the names of all those with "exceptionally large" remittances. But, if they do -- for that year I sent a huge bundle for a new house -- I could survive a sit down to show it came from my savings account. Doubtful they would want to audit another 9 years of my remittances, if no bank reports of exceptionally large remittances were in evidence. Anyway, this discussion is getting stale. Do what you're comfortable with. Analyze all the probabilities, particularly that TRD even knows that you're a tax resident, and that your remittances are even assessable income. And, in particular, don't let anyone suggest you're a "bad person," and that you're heading for ten years of back audits. Geez!

BINGO!

Sigh. I'll just let it lie that others here have substantiated that TRD is not interested in folks filing tax returns where no taxes are owed. Again, let the reader decide on, whether reality or legality, makes more sense.

Practicality vs reality. Sometimes we just have to move around a nonsensical decree -- and do the realistic thing. That this doesn't seem to bring law enforcement down upon anyone's head -- seems to state that the Thai govt realizes the stupidity of the existing decree. Anyway, readers are, of course, allowed to make their own decisions -- based on the merits of this forum's discussions.

I believe the exemption lines on the tax return are for items -- like per diem -- to net out gross domestic income. Foreign source income is, of practicality, treated as already netted-out income. But, yeah, you could report foreign source income gross, then line item out exempt expenses. But why? The whole game is to not even report any foreign source income on the tax return -- it is -- by Royal Decree an "exempt", ergo, "not assessable" amount of income.

The only nonsense is Mike Lister's constant drumbeat about having to file a tax return if your assessable income exceeds 60000, 120000, or 220000 -- depending on your status. All my workers -- probably all the workers in my Moo Baan -- exceed these numbers. But few, if any, have income that exceeds the taxable threshold. So, why in the world would TRD want to see any filings from them -- or from farangs also without taxable income. Thanks, T&G -- for the most sane utterance to come out of this discussion. Mike, not sure why you're such a troublemaker over this issue.....? Thailand -- and TRD -- are not interested in folks with no taxable income. Only you are, apparently.

AMEN!

Please report "no." I've got print outs from this forum, from two different sources, who reported they were denied a TIN, because they didn't have work permits. Those are in my file, should I ever be audited about taking a tax credit against my US taxes, for the piddly amount I pay in taxes against my Bangkok Bank savings account interest. Why? Because I'm supposedly not allowed a credit -- if I'm able to have the Thai taxes refunded. But, of course, for that refund -- I need a TIN. And, since I got advice on an upscale forum, like Asean Now -- that I can't get a TIN -- and thus can't get a refund -- well, hey Uncle Sam, there you have it. Anyway, nitnoy credit. But minimum effort, as only an entry of the credit on one line of my US tax return (the more involved Form 1116 is only required for tax credit amounts exceeding $600 -- married, filing jointly). So, happy not to have a TIN, nor, apparently, required to have one.

No, you've just been brainwashed by reading too much on this forum, about having to file a tax return, because your assessable income is 60000 baht (about one/third of what my gardener is paid -- and who, of course, files no income tax form). Ludicrous. Worse that can happen is a 2000 baht fine - and the chance of that happening is zilch. Time to grow a set -- and read the royal decree literally -- your foreign source income is NOT assessable. Yes, this was written when remitted income was the flavor of the day. But, I would bet a bundle that this will extend to worldwide income, should that come about. Frustrating that BoI won't say: I don't know. But, have you ever gotten such an answer from a Thai? Nope. They're maddeningly adept at not losing face, by admitting they don't know. Department store clerks are the worst. But, that's part of the price we pay for living here -- and it pales in comparison to the good aspects.

There were rumblings of that, early in this game, that had said something like, "If your home country has a DTA with Thailand, any you pay taxes to your home country, then Thailand will not tax same income." And a recent article in the Pattaya rag, without reference, said basically the same. Such language would make matters much easier on both you and me, as well as TRD. However, it would also cost Thailand lost tax revenue, by cutting Thailand out of the pattern, where the DTA gives it primary taxation rights. And primary taxation rights mean Thailand keeps all the taxes, and doesn't have to absorb a credit. Only the home country absorbs a credit. Don't really believe Thailand wants to forgo a taxation windfall by saying, "pay taxes to home country, forget paying full fare taxes to Thailand, per DTA."

You can give up your Virginia residency -- for tax purposes -- but still keep your current drivers license. However, should you renew that license, that's prima facie proof that you're still a resident of Virginia -- and thus subject to Virginia income tax.

Wrong. Here from the Thai-UK DTA: The term "may be taxed" is OECD speak for: Country A has primary taxation rights, but Country B has secondary taxation rights. If the treaty had said, "may ONLY be taxed", then Country A has exclusive taxation rights. The US-UK DTA also has the "may be taxed" language for rental income. However, the technical explanation for this treaty goes on to explain: So, for the UK-Thai DTA: The UK has primary taxation rights, and thus gets to keep all the taxes collected; while Thailand, with secondary rights, can also tax the rental income, but has to absorb a tax credit for the taxes paid to the UK -- meaning, of course, they may not collect anything, should the credit exceed the Thai tax amount.

Exactly where on the return would you put this information? Per the DTA, this income does not exist for any Thai taxation purpose. Are you suggesting the TRD wants footnotes of all non assessable income not being reported?

Yes. For example, US DTA has Thailand as secondary taxation authority on my US rental income. So, Thailand has to absorb a tax credit for the US taxes paid on that rental income. If this credit exceeded what the Thai tax would be (as figured out on the back of an envelope) -- then, I could just ignore including any line item for taxable US rental income -- since, after the credit, there wouldn't be any. The above scenario works well when netting out credits leaves a negative figure. But when a US tax credit doesn't erase all the Thai taxes due, you're kind of whistling in the wind on how to incorporate that US tax credit on your Thai tax return (since there's no provision for doing so). I guess you could jigger the rental income figure to, after taxation, reflect what it should be after absorbing the US credit. You'd be completely kosher here in paying Thailand all that's due on that rental income. But, trying to explain how you arrived at these figures would be an interesting discussion, should there be a subsequent audit. Anyway, while the above seems somewhat mysterious, it is completely doable without hiring a 90k tax agent to navigate the mysteries of DTA tax reporting.

Hear! Hear! For Yanks, at least, the DTA with Thailand is straightforward (as are most, since they're based on OECD or UN Model treaty language, where every treaty is a 90% replica of all the others). What's so difficult about excluding all income from Thai taxation that the treaty says is excludable, like govt pensions? Or for including income in Thai taxation, like a private pension, where the treaty says Thailand has exclusionary taxation rights on such income? This is pretty much straightforward guidance on how income is treated by two countries involved in a treaty. What could be hard about figuring out how this income is treated on each country's tax return..? And can be done without any reference from a DTA on the actual tax return. But stat says he's had some difficulty invoking DTA guidance. Would love to hear what those circumstances were; I don't doubt they existed, but I'm just curious as to what they were, since my US DTA seems rather straightforward.