JimGant

Well, granted. But the preponderance of readers here have the King's English as their primary language, with, of course, the exception of we Americans, whose language is anyone's guess.

Well, the DTAs have a separate Article dealing with "Non-Discrimination" -- here from the US DTA: Could be interesting if push came to shove on such matters. The US State Dept takes treaty matters very seriously, so I would hope our Embassy (and others) would take any treaty violation seriously. But, I guess it would all depend on the golfing weather at the time.....

Come on, Mike. This rental question has already been explored vis a vis the US and the UK DTAs. Thailand is secondary tax collector, meaning you pay taxes primarily to your country where rental property exists, and those taxes are used as credits against any Thai tax assessed. Please don't scimp on the full picture of how expat landlords will be treated here in Thailand.

The US-Thai DTA uses the same language, i.e., "may be taxed" without the "ONLY" qualifier. And, the US DTA has a technical explanation that probably would apply to the UK-Thai DTA: And, the primary taxing country gets to keep all the taxes collected, while the secondary taxing country (in this case, Thailand) has to give a credit for those taxes paid in the situs country. From a practical standpoint, I'd do a back of the matchbook evaluation of what, if any, taxes I'd owe Thailand, after factoring in the credit. And if none, I wouldn't even bother to include this rental income on any Thai tax return I filed, particularly since they haven't gotten around to providing a place on their tax returns to show credits. No evasion here, of course -- just a practical solution.

Yeah, Yanks can be bloody arrogant. I apologize. Aussies have been our finest allies, sticking with us through our worst follies, like Vietnam. OK, enough thread creep. Sorry.

Hey, it takes a lot of money to defend the free world. We're still paying for kicking out the Japanese from Guadalcanal, so that Oz remained free, and allowed our Marines to have the best liberty of their lives in Melbourne. My grandfather died telling Oz stories, before he had to head out for Cape Gloucester.

It's your gross rent receipts, less expenses, that tax agreements are concerned with as far as income is determined. That your UK personal allowance -- or for Yanks, the standard deduction -- means you pay zero taxes in your home country. That's nice -- but completely divorced of the income figure you declare to Thailand. Here's something from the US Thai technical explanation. Chew on it for awhile: Probably most DTAs have something similar, since they're all based on the OECD and UN models. But, what's important about giving taxation rights to both contracting countries -- with one designated as having primary right to tax, like here, with the situs country having the primary right -- is that, if the primary taxing country doesn't tax subject income (due, here, to the UK personal allowance), then the secondary country has the right to tax same income -- and doesn't have to offset it by any tax credits, because there aren't any tax credits coming from the UK, in this example. So, declare your net rental income to Thailand, if remitted -- and if exceeds TEDA and becomes taxable income, well, pay your taxes and have a beer. This, actually, is what OECD current doctrine addresses, namely, model tax agreements don't just address avoidance of double taxation -- they address avoidance of NO taxation. So, if you've got remitted rental net income receipts to Thailand, looks like the rules say, file a Thai tax return (if higher than 120k baht). Home country, as situs state and primary taxing authority, gets to keep all their tax receipts. But has to issue a tax credit to Thailand for these collected taxes. Net result: Pay taxes only to home country; or pay full tax bill to home country, plus some extra tax to Thailand, should the tax credits not subtract out all taxes owed to Thailand. Fun, huh.

I guess I got that from ACA: Actually, reading further down on this excellent ACA article, you'll find my biggest dislike of the Patriot Act, namely, making expats with US bank accounts restricted from many banking activities.

Granted. But, ignore this rule at no peril. Up to you.

The FinCEN 114 FBAR form takes about five minutes to fill out, even with single and joint accounts, using last year's refillable PDF form. Not sure why some get so worked up over this requirement. Granted, it's a stupid requirement -- FBARS's $10000 threshold should be acclimated with FATCA's $50000 threshold -- and apparently there are efforts to do that. Meanwhile, I'll leave my 800k in its bank account, and bring more over -- as it's becoming clearer that my money in the States, slated by POD for my worthless niece and nephew, would be better served left to my wife's Thai nieces and nephews, who have become very helpful. Opportunity cost of having my money in a Thai bank account? One day's movement in my stocks corrects for that. Nope. A lot easier in the long term by getting my money over here soonest, to be left to Thai relatives -- than retaining a lawyer in the States for final settlement -- since I can't POD my Thai relatives.

Who the hell is going to "test" that for exemption or assessability from my latest Wise transfer? Impossible.

Humbug. CRS will let the Thai tax authorities know what their citizens are earning abroad. Period. What amount of that they remit to Thailand is not a data element of CRS. Thus, Thailand, if they want to tax their citizen's foreign income, will have rely on the data element of income earned, not remitted. So, this is probably where we're headed in the future, if Thailand wants to collect some additional taxes, courtesy of CRS (and FATCA). Meanwhile, cash flows coming into Thailand cannot possibly be parsed as to what is income, and what is not. Use your common sense. Instead, as has been said ad infinitum, the Thais will have to rely on self-assessment, from those who filter their income through a home bank account. For those with direct deposits into Thailand of their pensions -- maybe, if these pensions are taxable via the DTA -- you might get a summons from RD. Not likely, however, as such detective work would cost more than it would reap. Relax. Be honest. Parse your own remittances for what is taxable, via your home DTA, then file a tax return -- if this taxable income exceeds the allowance, deduction, exemption number. If not, forget that ridiculous 120000 marker for mandatory filing -- it's nonsensical. Thus, nothing will happen to you -- you think they're going to haul you away for not filing taxes you didn't owe? Not likely, as Thailand really is trying to become, or emulate, a first world country. Just unofficial forum advice. If it makes you comfortable, then use it.

Well, of course, you can always take your benefits statement, received a year ago, and take your monthly entitlement, pre medicare deductions and tax withholdings, if any, multiply by 12 -- and there you have it, a self generated 1099. And since, if you efile or have no tax withholdings on your SS payments, no real 1099 is needed -- just the numbers. So, yeah, like to do my taxes as early as possible -- and like others have said, TurboTax, and other tax software, will just hold my tax return until the IRS opens its doors. Like to have this out of the way earliest, in case I croak. Do the same with FBARS -- filed mine and wife's Jan 2, using the Bank of Thailand Average Bank Interbank Exchange Rate -- which is allowable when the asked for Treasury Rate is not yet available.

Presumably, this money helps create jobs, particularly for the lower tier, non skilled hotel cleaners (hasn't the hotel industry reported labor shortages at their lower ends?). "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Yeah, and you can't even buy it -- you have to subscribe, and pay annual membership fees. I'm using an old pirated copy of Acrobat, bought in the back allies of Chiang Mai years ago. I guess those days are gone. Sigh.

Yeah, and PWC is a good company, but I guess they're just passing on what the translation comes out to be. But since Thailand can't fine me or imprison me for not filing when no taxes owed, just what can they do? Well, this is certainly an area where I'd take my chances -- going back to my CPA days, where I'd always recommend the grey area that is in your favor, at least when I added up the probabilities. Here, however, there are some unknowns, like, can they mess around with your visa for not filing..... So, do what you're comfortable with, at least with the current information. But I'd bet they'll modify the 120k rule, just to prevent a flood of tax returns with no check attached.

Well, you could include alternative recommendations, like from retired CPAs, particularly if that alternative recommendation saved a lot of time and effort -- and was completely safe from punitive actions, like fines or imprisonment. Certainly, including a sidebar of other opinions, is the professional way, particularly in fluid and confusing situations, like this subject. Just my thoughts.

It depends on the nature of the non-compliance, anywhere from a fine for late filing when payment is due, up to 10 years and 200k fine for evasion. If you owe no taxes (because you have a negative taxable income of 380k baht, after you subtract 500k of allowances et al from the 120k required minimum filing threshhold of assessable income), then the penalty for no filing is a fine equal to (in some cases, twice) the taxes owed. But, you don't owe any taxes -- thus, no fine, or any other kind of penalty. So why file? My gardener is paid 500bt per day. Thus, six days a week times 52 = 156k. So, by law, she's expected to file, although she'll owe no taxes after subtracting allowances et al. So, you think she, and all the other minimum wage earners will file? Of course not -- fortunately, since only trees and man hours, not collectible taxes, are involved. And, as usual, the people often know better than their government, and react accordingly. Point being: No taxable income, no reason to file. And no penalties. So, don't file in this situation.

And an excellent opinion, in my opinion (do I hear an echo...)

Presumably your plastic sucks money from your bank account; just make sure this account had sufficient pre-2024 deposits, plus gov't pension and social security deposits, going forward (for Yanks, anyway). Then, same advice as the above posting.

Presumably that US bank account from which your Wise transfer came from had funds in it pre 1 Jan 2024. And maybe a deposit on 1 Jan 2024 of a private pension, and a deposit of a government pension. So, from which part of this fungible pot of money did your Wise remittance come from? Until they come out and mandate Fifo or Lifo (first in first out, last in last out) -- which they probably won't -- it's up to you. And since GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) defines fifo and lifo relative to inventories, not remittances -- I'd say you're free to pick and choose what tranche of your bank account funded your Wise transfer. So, if you had sufficient pre-2024 funds in your bank account, or your government pension was large enough, or a combination of the two -- there you have it, as these are non assessable income remittances. With no instructions to the contrary, you can pick and choose the non assessable tranches of your bank account. In this example, you would not pick the private pension tranche, as this is assessable income. Just keep good records, particularly showing the tranches you choose had enough funds to cover your remittance. Anyway, this is my guess. All part of what's going to necessarily be a self-assessment drill.

Can you provide further details on this, like the online link? Thanx.

Wrong. CRS reporting is for showing income earned abroad by a resident of a CRS reporting country. Then, the relevant tax authorities can assess taxes. What happens to that taxable income, in terms of if, when, and where transferred -- is irrelevant (except in weird cases, like Thailand). And, more importantly, if all income streams remitted between countries would somehow be scrutinized for taxability -- Foreign Direct Investment, among other items, would come to a screeching halt. Not going to happen. So, CRS will certainly help determine income being earned abroad by Thai tax residents. And once the remitted proviso is done away with -- Thailand stands to reap some nice tax revenues. But, until then, the remittance proviso neuters CRS reporting.

I believe it will, especially for international money transfers. You implied that CRS data was now going to allow determination of foreign income earned by Thai tax residents. That's nice --except because of Thailand's remittance qualification, and because CRS -- and FATCA -- reporting doesn't include remittance information, that ain't going to happen. Here's a quote from you: "I believe it [CRS] will, especially for international money transfers." My point: international money transfers aren't a data element of CRS reporting.

I think we can ( politely )agree to disagree on that one I believe it will, especially for international money transfers. Nope. CRS, and FATCA, don't track international money transfers -- they're interested in reporting money earned abroad by citizens of member countries. So, as long as Thailand adheres to the bizarre income reporting proviso -- "only if remitted," then reports of income earned abroad, by Thai tax residents, ain't worth anything. And that's why I think the remitting thingy will go away, in the interest of a lot more revenue collection, due to it being much easier to identify foreign source income -- and how it shakes out against one's DTA. Of course, the Thai fat cats, with a lot to lose, may have something to say about this....