JimGant

Well, yeah. But we're talking about remittances made post Jan 1, 2024 from a pot of money established pre-Jan 1, 2024. Ergo, certainly not remitted in year earned.

Or just prevent any new inputs to that savings or checking account that you were filtering your remittances through. And open a new one for post Dec 31st inputs. Then, just remit from that old account, which you could clearly show only held pre 2024 inputs. Again, under this new rule about pre 2024 funds, not sure how you'd work this into a tax filing, since by definition, these are non assessable monies. But, I guess, if someone really wanted these monies identified, they would have to design some kind of reporting form or instruction. This has all become so mind boggling, I can't believe the Thais haven't cried "uncle" yet.

..... or wants to buy a condo. No, the Thais aren't going to kill FDI, a golden goose, the pride of the BoI, who works directly for the Prime Minister's office. And to screen all remittances as income is not only self-defeating and stupid -- it's impossible to parse income from capital. Nope, this scheme will either be dropped; or put on hold until they can regroup and tax foreign income, not remittances. FDI would be saved, and CRS and FATCA information, worthless for remittance reporting, could now be used to flush out tax avoiders. Stay tuned.

Doubtful the filing threshold was established well below the taxable income level due to sneaky farangs....

If push came to shove between a country's Tax Code and a Tax Treaty, the treaty would prevail. As an example. The US Tax Code says that you can get a tax credit on your US tax return for taxes paid to a foreign country IF those taxes were against foreign earned income. But, under the US DTA with Thailand, for example, if Thailand gets exclusivity (overriden by the saving clause, however) in the taxation of my IRA or private pension (which they do, if, currently remitted), the treaty says I can get a credit for those taxes paid on my IRA, even tho' this is US income, not foreign income. You simply have to attach Form 8833 to your tax credit Form 1116, which tells the IRS that their Code has been trumped by an international treaty. Hopefully, we won't have to get the Embassy involved with the Ministry of Finance over any misunderstandings.....

Actually, Taxable Income (TI) is Adjusted Gross Income (AGI) less your Standard Deduction (or itemizations, if those are greater than Standard Deduction). So, AGI is equivalent to the Thai "assessable income" (AI). And in a similar fashion to the US, Thai Taxable Income would be what's left after you subtract out allowances and exemptions. Thus, if single, you automatically have at least 210,000 (150+60) subtracted out from your assessable income to arrive at Taxable Income. But, you're required to file a return if you have 120,000 in AI; but you have no Taxable Income until your assessable income exceeds 210,000..... So, why do the Thais want all these tax forms filed if there's no taxable income, thus no check attached? Are they taking a survey? Dumb. To the US example, you don't have to file a tax return if you have no Taxable Income (unless you're self-employed). Of course, most do file, mainly to get back over withholdings of taxes.

Pure conjecture. Why Thai RD would want to be inundated by a forest of paper, to prove a negative, is beyond me. Where are getting your information?

I would not need to declare the US taxes paid on my Air Force pension and Social Security as a credit -- since my Air Force pension and Social Security would not be assessable income, under the DTA, for Thai tax purposes. Thus, posting a credit against nothing would be wasting ink. So, I don't think any amended Thai tax forms will have line items for non assessable income.

Amen. Or just stomp on those trying to close the loophole. We may wake up tomorrow and have nothing more to discuss on this thread, as it will have all disappeared.

Interest earned in an IRA has the same complexion as the tax deferred principal that funded the IRA, namely, it's not taxable until withdrawn. So, if you're currently not drawing down your IRA, you have no tax liability with either the US, or the Thais -- the interest is blended with the principal. In my case, I have a Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) which is taxable, but which is an amalgamation of principal and compounded interest, but which there is no distinction needed -- it's just a glob of taxable income. Now, if the Thais go to taxing "income" (and not income remitted), then I'll have a very reportable income amount from my RMD (here's where FATCA and CRS reporting comes in -- with income, not remittances). And per the DTA, Thailand has first dibs on taxing that. So be it -- the credit for this against my US taxes will make this neutral. But if they stick to the "remitted" fiasco, I can just play games with the fungibility of the savings account from which all Wise transfers are made -- and claim FIFO and Aunt Martha's original funding as the source of remittances. That could prove interesting, but I doubt they're sophisticated enough, or adequately funded, to go down this road. We'll see....

Not sure I understand your logic.... Yes, many Thais work abroad to get a decent wage. That their country of employment doesn't tax them, and that Thailand doesn't tax them (because of the next year remitted rule), has been a nice bonus. Now, apparently, they'll have to pay Thai income taxes on that nice wage earned abroad. But what's unfair about that? The tax is at the same rate as their Thai neighbors with jobs in Thailand. Why should they get the added bonus by working abroad of no income tax? I guess this is why we're seeing the new ruling proposal -- the Thai working abroad, who has a fatter paycheck than his hometown neighbor, should also be subject to Thai taxes.

The DTA already says the type of money I'm remitting is not taxable. And, where on a Thai tax return would I put my Air Force and Social Security income, and designate it as "exempt per treaty?" No, declaring to Thai RD my "non assessable income" just opens up more areas for confusion. A poster here has been declaring his non assessable income on his return for years, and has gotten nods, "yes, no taxable income -- thank you very much white man (snickers in the background)."

Yeah, but the operative word is "income." And how will they know what part of my remittance is income, and which part is an inheritance from my Aunt Martha? They can't know, so self assessment will necessarily come into play, because the alternative -- tax all cash flows coming into Thailand -- is bonkers. Thus, I'll memorize the DTA, and know that amounts I send to Thailand that don't exceed my Air Force and Social Security payments (exempt by treaty from Thai taxes) are not taxable; and additional amounts, since it's a Wise transfer from a savings account established with inherited money, I'll just claim FIFO. Now, that accounting term is probably only applicable to inventories, not remittances. But I'll let them chew on that, because who's to say I can't pick and choose from a fungible pot of money. My take: no assessable income here. No tax filing required. (stay tuned, of course)

In one of these threads, someone asked about Thailand's taxation rights on Roth IRA distributions (which are tax exempt in the US), since Thailand has exclusive taxation rights on ordinary IRA distributions (remitted, of course -- for now). Here, in the first quote, is what the IRS says: Well, unfortunately, there's nothing in the US-Thai DTA covering this, unlike in the US-UK DTA, where this, from the tech explanation, is said: I mention this, even tho' the Thai-US DTA doesn't have such exemption language, so that folks with Roth distributions, and the like, can, with full integrity, assume the treaty intended (or would under a protocol) such exemptions. In fact, the latest OECD Model treaties include such language, meaning, if the Thai-US treaty had been written under current OECD guidance, such language would have been included. Hey, it's never going to come to this. Thailand doesn't have the resources, but does have the smarts, to know dissecting every DTA out there for what's what in taxation priority wouldn't be worth the cost or effort. Instead, self-assessment seems to be the way forward, at least as a first step. In my case, I'd now declare my IRA distros to Thailand for taxation, take a tax credit against my US taxes, and have the same total overall tax bill as before. Multiply me by thousands of others, and Thailand could reap some impressive new tax income -- without hiring a zillion new clerks and treaty lawyers. Yeah, a little more paperwork for me -- but not much. So, if you've got a Roth distribution, use the OECD consensus that it's not taxable in Thailand (and that the DTA just hasn't caught up). No integrity issues here -- and it would be an interesting Perry Mason moment if it ever got to that, which it wouldn't.

...... unless he's a tax resident of Thailand, and certain incomes defined in the DTA say Thailand can tax these. If you parse the language in the Code, it doesn't say all US citizens are tax residents of the US -- it says they'll be "treated" as if they're tax residents of the US, meaning, whether their residence is in Boston or Bangkok, their annual tax bill will be the same (with a few exceptions, like having an FEIC). Anyway, yes, some of this language can be confusing. The term "derived" particularly. However, logic would dictate that para 3 is not addressing an American tax resident of Thailand's treatment of an annuity generated by a Thai insurance company. Instead, an immediate pay annuity from the US would logically be treated just like private pensions, IRAs, etc addressed in para 1, namely, Thailand has first taxation rights.

Ok, replace derived with obtained or received. And as previously discussed, taxable "only" means -- in this para on annuities -- exclusivity in the Contracting State of residency, i.e., Thailand. How you arrive at the US having taxing priority over these kinds of annuities is beyond me. But why care? You're liable for taxation on an annuity by both Thailand and the US (due to the saving clause). This should be a neutral taxation situation, due to tax credits -- unless you owe no US taxes (i.e., standard deduction greater than AGI), but owe Thai taxes because your annuity exceeds the allowances and deductions. But, as you've already said -- if you do owe Thai taxes, it won't be much. Relax.

That's what the DTA says that Ben provided. But that's not the norm, at least for private pensions. Here's what the US-Thai tax treaty technical explanation says: "Generally taxable" sounds a little wishy washy. Here's what the actual treaty language says: "Taxable only in that State" implies exclusivity (but, again, there is no exclusivity in US DTAs, due to the saving clause). Anyway, this is why advice on this forum over the years has said to not have your Boeing or IBM pension direct deposited into Thailand, since Thailand would have obvious taxation rights, to include remitted in year earned.

Thank you.

This may help define terms. It's from the Technical Explanation of the US-Thai DTA, and it pertains to Article 6, rents; but the highlighted terminology applies to all articles. The language of the OECD and UN model tax treaties uses this language to define: Exclusive taxation rights, e.g., "taxable only in the first mentioned contracting state." The next level is illustrated above, where "may be taxed" defines the "primary right to tax," leaving the second contracting state with a "secondary right to tax." In the above example, the US would have first taxation rights (primary rights) on rents from property located in the US; but Thailand, if that's where you're a tax resident, can also tax this income. In this example, the US gets to keep all the collected taxes, while Thailand's tax revenue, if any, is what's left after having to absorb the US taxes as a tax credit. Sounds like a waste of time, unless you're in a high Thai tax bracket, and a low US tax bracket..... But, how Thai RD sorts out all these DTA subtleties, if they even decide to, should be interesting.

We must be on different frequencies..... I was responding to your, "If the the USA-Thai DTA article 20 Pars. 2 & 3 are applied, I won't have any tax bill in Thailand at all." And, yes, para 2 will keep your Social Security from being taxed. But para 3 clearly states that any income from an annuity owned by you is taxed by the contracting state in which you are a resident. Thus, Thailand, if you're a tax resident, gets first taxation dibs on your annuity income (if remitted). If you're just saying you won't have any Thai tax bill, it's not from any protection you believe para 3 is giving you.

Yes, for para 2 (Social Security). But para 3 treats annuities the same as private pensions, IRAs, other 40x type plans (para 1), namely: Thailand, as resident country, has exclusive taxation rights (although "exclusive" is moot, since the US also taxes this money via the saving clause, found in all US DTAs). So, if you won't have any tax bill in Thailand, great. But it won't be because of para 3.

If your US tax bill is $100/mo, your Thai taxes will be a one for one tax credit.

I assume your "retirement savings fund" is an IRA, 401k, similar. And, unlike Canadians, the US does not have exclusive taxation rights on private pensions and IRA type programs. So, Thailand has priority taxation rights on your IRA -- but, not your Social Security. So, if remitted, your IRA would be subject to a Thai tax filing. As there's probably no other income to include, maybe after allowances, that IRA would be little enough not to be taxable. If not, it probably wouldn't be much. However, as you say you wouldn't owe any US tax on this, the Thai tax credit would be for nought.

Christ, here we go again. Until they abandon the "remittance" angle, they'll never be able to parse out money "sent" to Thailand (and an ATM pull could be construed as "sent") between savings and income. In my case, all money sent is from a Wise transfer from my savings account, which has money from inheritances, IRA drawdowns, direct deposits of gov't pensions, interest, stock sales, etc. It's a fungible pile of dollars -- and the only before-tax income in there is interest. Now, Thailand says they're going to tax "foreign source income." Fine -- if foreign source income is direct deposited into a Thai bank. Other cash flows coming into Thailand cannot have any income aspect separated from the whole. Thailand knows this -- and that's why we're occasionally hearing, 'we'll just tax all remittances.' I won't even honor that statement with the obvious. So, the only alternative is to identify foreign income at the source, which thru CRS and FATCA reporting, and info exchange language in DTAs -- is relatively easy, compared to the impossible task of identifying income in remittances. Heck, Thailand knows all my income from last year, when I presented a package of 1099 tax forms to BoI -- in my LTR application. Certainly, under the info exchange rules and avenues available today, Thai RD could suck up 1099's of all Americans (and similar for other nationalities). No, the remittance avenue won't work. They'll have to abandon this approach, and go to the income scenario. Or, just abandon the whole thing (which may happen, if Thai fat cats have their say). And, as far as how DTAs might be affected -- Thailand is not about to violate treaties protected by Vienna conventions. Heck, if things go where I think they will, the Thai-US DTA is to their advantage, as now Thailand will have "first dibs" on taxing my IRA proceeds, and other private type pensions. I won't be out any more money, as the Thai taxes will be a credit against my US taxes. But Thailand will now be able to use DTAs to their advantage.

According to the Thai-Canada tax treaty, Canada has exclusive taxation rights on both government and private pensions: Thus, per treaty, your Canadian pension(s) are not "assessable (taxable) income" for Thai tax purposes, and thus there would be no reason to file a Thai tax return showing such income strictly for information purposes. At least under current guidance.