JimGant

The Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) requirement for geezers who used tax deferred contributions to more quickly grow their retirement assets -- seems fair. Uncle Sam wants its tax deferred income back into the tax spot light. Now, it does seem reasonable that, if you don't want or need a distribution -- just wait 'til you die and your heirs will then have to pay tax on this IRA/401K ineritance. And at a much faster clip, if they're a young spouse, or younger relatives. Uncle Sam will eventually get it -- but maybe at a slower clip than with the current RMD rules. But, hey, why not move to Thailand, live here over 180 days, then have a certain tax charlatan in Bangkok file your taxes, to include IRA and 401k distributions. According to him, the tax treaty says these distributions are completely free from US taxes. And he's been getting away with this for several years. Sound too good to be true? Duh. (Several threads here on Asean Now about this. Obviously, this guy doesn't advertise this windfall, but he does travel the Thai circuit, giving lectures on his gimmick.) Sorry to depart the reality of this thread.

Translation by whom? A lawyer's office, looking for an opportinity to write your Will in "official" format? Any of a thousand official translating services in Thailand will translate, to the best of their ability, whatever document you provide. Ludicrous to say they would refuse to translate your Will based on "it doesn't follow the Thai format." As if they would even know, unless this is, again, a law office, what the correct Will format is. You can write your Will (and Living Will) in longhand, using whatever free form you find useful. No witnesses required for longhand, but recommended nevertheless. Also, turn on your cell phone movie taker, talk your way through each line of your Will, amplifying as appropriate. Then, sign on camera -- and the witnesses (if any) as well. Heck, even video record a translation of this Will into Thai. Oh, why not incorporate your Living Will basics into your Last Will and Testament. Completely kosher. What probate court would ever deny admittance of this video......

Or not..... One of the best recent ambassadors to the UK, politically appointed by Clinton, was retired Admiral William Crowe (Chairman of JCS under Reagan and HW Bush). Hardly a billionaire -- six figure estate, at best. But certainly a quality politically appointed ambassador -- moreso, I would think, than Shirley Temple and Caroline Kennedy. Having said that, a career diplomat would seem, in most cases, a better choice to be better able to efficiently run a diplomatic post.

Yeah, but they're treated so badly -- their offices don't even have windows.

Correct -- she isn't a "US person" for FBAR purposes. And even having an ITIN (presumably so you can file a joint US tax return), this doesn't mandate that she file a FBAR, even if she had individual accounts exceeding $10k. So, with no requirement for her to file her own FBAR, you as a couple need only file your FBAR, with your individual accounts listed, plus your joint account, where your wife would be the "principle joint account" owner, listing her ITIN, and where number of joint owners would be "one" (you're not included in the picture for this summation). And, yes, you're supposed to fill out a Form 114A if you're listing the wife as a joint account holder; but this is not filed with the FBAR folks and is only for your records. So ignore, with no risk. Cheers.

Perhaps adding a co signatory is not "business as usual." It certainly was for me -- but as DrJack has found, not everyone has such success. The following thread has some excellent facts on co signatory accounts -- and some success stories, and not..... https://aseannow.com/topic/1151433-wife-co-signatory-on-bank-account-bangkok-bank/

Co-signatory accounts are 'business as usual' at Bangkok Bank. The co-signatore can be anyone you like -- no need to be a wife or relative.

Wow, here we go again. Much discussion on all of this in the Will forum topics. But, just to summarize years of discussion, and conclusions: Your 800k account for extension purposes needs to be solely in your name. BUT, you can designate your wife/gf as a co-signatory, meaning, she can show up at the bank with your passbook and do a withdrawal, as her signature shows up under UV. Just like being a power of attorney. But a power of attorney authority, in the West, dies upon death of the account owner. What about a co-signatory in Thailand? No info, and nothing in the code. Maybe, then, the wife can legally empty your account after your death -- or maybe not.... Probably makes no difference, as it's a fait accompli -- bank manager has no responsibility to freeze account if not nofified of death, and why would she be notified? Certainly my embassy/consulate has no knowledge of nor reason to have of my bank accounts. Who else would be in the loop to notify the bank? No one. And the wife is your Will's executor and sole beneficiary. It says, she gets it all. Who's the aggrieved party? Certainly not the bank manager -- she wasn't told that you're dead. What's the crime? Who presses charges? Naaa. The wife is well briefed to log on to our Bangkok Bank internet accounts and to transfer my 800k immigration account amounts over to her. All this before I'm even cold, should somehow my bank manager becomes aware of my death. (In which case, the wife will pay my lawyer 50000 baht to begin a 6 mos probate. No thanks.) No big deal, actually.

It's all relative. $280m would buy 3 and a third F-35s -- a fraction of what the total buy comes to. Plus, the $280m consulate property just may appreciate, unlike the instant depreciation of an F-35 that bumps into the stern of an aircraft carrier. No, I'm sure the Thais are onboard for a chunk of this future intelligence, mainly anti drug. Good Good for both countries. A little sino intelligence serendipity for the Yanks -- may prove invaluable sometime down the road. Hey, we all know that consulates are spook centers -- why so much amazement..... But, the most important thing is: Will the parking be adequate for my car? Having to take a tuk tuk to the old consulate was a pain.

Here's an irony. USAA caters to the military, who, of course, spend a lot of time overseas. But, from the following article, USAA certainly isn't the military friendly company I joined 56 years ago. If you read the entire article, the active duty individual was merely trying to upgrade his USAA savings account to the next, higher interest paying level. No Can do, as this would be the same as opening a new account. As my address with USAA is my Thai address, just wonder if, when I croak, will the wife have a problem changing our joint account to a single account in her name........ Will be checking that out soonest, although my latest experience with USAA is that they've hired their latest phone answerers off the streets. Sad. Once a great company.

I stand corrected. And you're saying it needs to be a US phone number?

The only place they ask for a phone number is if you're a third party preparer -- and even that field is not mandatory.

The PDF route would seem to be the way to go, particularly if most of your bank account information, except amounts, remains static year to year. Since the form is still version 1.0, from Oct 2013, just pull up last year's PDF submission, unsign it, then change what changes have taken place. Then re-sign it. Sure a lot more efficient than having to type in all that static information that hasn't changed from last year, which you have to do with the online approach. Mo' betta last year's PDF as a template -- why would online be a better approach, especially if Thai power fails three quarters of the way through preparation (even with battery pack, you can't save it and complete at a later date -- must start over)?

Indeed. Modern, clean facilities; abundance of speedy, efficient admin help; and great, professional medical doctors, at least those I and my wife have encountered the last two years. All the doctors we've had, besides being skilled, have taken the time to explain the situation to us, as a couple sitting in the office. No rush rush, as in a gov't hospital (if you even get an explanation, instead, a 'just do as I say.') Of course, such professionalism comes with a price -- you don't get the best doctors in town on the cheap. But, my US military insurance (Tricare) has covered every procedure I and the wife have had at Bangkok Hospital. Even my recent cataract surgery, where I opted for the multifocal lens implant, which Medicare (which Tricare follows) says they won't pay for -- only the single focus, cheaper implant. BUT, the cost for the multi focal lens procedure at Bangkok Hospital was cheaper than the Medicare allowed cost for a single focus lens. Result: Tricare covered the entire cost for both multi focus lens implants. And, for expensive out patient procedures, like the above, Bangkok Hospital will direct bill Tricare, charging me only a 40% deposit (fully credited back after Tricare pays the hospital). There's a Tricare rep at the hospital. Anyway, nothing to do with urologists -- except, should I need one, on my old age descent into more and more medical issues -- nice to know Bangkok Hospital has one more area of recommended expertise.

This is the beauty of the saving clause, which requires you to file a US tax return on your worldwide income, whether or not you pay taxes to the treaty country. This was by design: Should a treaty country choose not to use the treaty language to tax its US tax residents on IRAs, well, then, you pay full fare to Uncle Sam. But, if they do tax your IRA, you get a full tax credit for this Thai tax -- all under the treaty's language about avoiding double taxation by using tax credits. So, sorry fellow Yanks, Thailand is not a tax haven, due to the saving clause -- unless you hire certain tax firms in Bangkok. By some of the questons this thead is generating, I can tell that some are not familiar with a 2017 thread that had a much more thorough discussion of this subject. So, here it is: https://aseannow.com/topic/1008555-tax-specialist-in-chiang-mai/page/2/ Key on this thread was a link to an IRS evaluation of the saving clause as it applies to IRAs and the US-Switzerland tax agreement. Substitute "Thailand" for "Switzerland" in this OECD cookie cutter language treaty -- to include no saving clause exceptions for IRAs -- and you have what would occur if the same senior level of evaluation at the IRS occurred with what's going on now in Thailand. Meanwhile, all IRS refund checks are cut with only a low level cursory look (mainly by computer algorithm) at the return -- you think tens of thousands of refund checks are held up for a senior GS of SES to look at? Nope. Those of interest will be flagged for possible further evaluation down the road. But a five figure IRA report, using a treaty exception, probably wouldn't be flagged, as long as all the t's were crossed on the Form 8833. Now, a six figure IRA might trigger a response -- but the firms in Bangkok probably wouldn't process such a high value return for you ...... (someone prove me wrong). So, just because you got a refund check doesn't mean the IRS has vetted your position. Here's the Swiss evaluation: https://hodgen.com/ira-distribution-to-u-s-citizen-living-in-switzerland-which-country-taxes-it/

They do, at least the non governmental variety. But what's at play here is Thailand's choice to not tax any income brought into the country -- officially, if it's income paid in a prior year, but unofficially, any income brought in, since they don't have the resources, or inclination, to determine whether or not this is a previous year's income. But having said that, the one fact remains: Thailand is opting to NOT take advantage of the US-Thai tax treaty that gives them exclusive tax authority, i.e., first dibs, on taxing US private pensions, IRAs, 401ks, and SEPs of US tax residents of Thailand. If this were the Swiss-Thai tax treaty (and most others), where Thailand also has such exclusive tax authority, Swiss expats here would have total tax avoidance, since Switzerland doesn't have an equivalent of the saving clause. Most seem to think tax treaties are solely for the prevention of double taxation -- in fact, they're called Double Tax Agreements (DTAs). But, they're also written with the intent to prevent tax avoidance -- although many countries don't seem too concerned about this, since the treaty language says the other country has exclusive tax authority, so, hey, we're not in the loop for any tax revenue, based on the exclusivity of the treaty language. Let it go. The US, on the other hand, said: If you're not going to use your exclusive tax authority under the treaty -- and thus become a tax haven -- then we'll invent the saving clause and use it to collect those taxes you're not collecting. As you might imagine, those potential tax havens squawked loudly about inserting the saving clause into treaties with the US -- but they lost. And today, an OECD committee is looking at re-writing their model tax treaty to plug this tax avoidance loophole, namely, if you're not going to use your exclusivity right to taxation, then we'll return this right to the other contracting country. Pretty much what the saving clause does. Some other countries, like Norway, have already modified their tax codes to only give a tax break to their expat citizens in Thailand -- if they can prove they've paid taxes to Thailand. Pretty much the same effect as the saving clause. Anyway, this thread is about how one tax firm (or is it two now?) that has a unique interpretation of the treaty language that somehow exempts private pensions and IRAs from the saving clause. That this hasn't become a ground swell amongst other tax prep firms and AARP retirement blogs -- is probably because the intent of this tax treaty is much easier to interpret than the arcane treaty language. For those still scratching their heads about the saving clause, check out this link: https://www.irsstreamlinedprocedures.com/tax-treay-saving-clause-impact/

Well, maybe because it sounds too good to be true if, the only country in the world where you can retire and not pay any US (or Thai) taxes on the proceeds of your traditional IRA (401k, SEP), is Thailand.... ... due to some dedicated folks' unique interpretation of treaty language. Having said that, why not take advantage of AI's interpretation of the tax treaty -- get rid of that 5-figure tax bill on your 6-figure traditional IRA. Suggest you not cash out the entire IRA, but take the 'required minimum distribution' (if over 72) to stay under the radar. But, keep the money handy, should the IRS finally wake up and realize the treaty was not meant to allow tax avoidance -- and they come knocking for past taxes due, plus interest (but no penalty). Seems worth the risk. Hey, if you can't trust your local Enrolled Agent, who can you trust.....

Any chance of sharing AI's interpretation of the treaty? I guess if you agreed not to divulge AI's Form 8833 language, then that's that. However, if you made no such handshake, I'm sure a lot of folks, in addition to me (as a retired CPA), would like to see how solid AI's argument is that Thailand is the only country in the world where you, as a US citizen, can retire, live for over 180 days of the tax year, and not pay one iota of tax to either Thailand or the US -- on your IRA, SEP, or 401k withdrawals, and on your Ford, GM, Boeing, whatever private pension pqyments (as long as not remitted to Thailand in year of payment). There's another thread currently running, asking for, 'What's the best country to retire in?' If, indeed, Thailand is unique in the world in having an exception to the saving clause in its DTA with the US, covering private pensions, annuities, IRAs, etc -- then Thailand should should go to the head of the line. Heck, you don't even need to retire -- just spend two 90 day vacations per tax year in Thailand -- then have AI file your taxes. (Does AI have that on their advertising brochure?) Anyway, would love to see the AI interpretation of State Dept legalese on the DTA. I would imagine it's as interesting a trip as I've had over the years in dealing with the US Tax Code legalese. PM me, if you want, and I'll not let it go outside of that. Thanx.

Is LA offering IRA -- and other private pension -- tax avoidance?

I guess you're not sitting on a traditional IRA, say, one of $200,000 (about average, for a "boomer") which, if cashed in, would normally owe around $40,000 in taxes (more, if filing singly, not jointly). So, why not pay yourself $40,000 for the mere pittance of, say, $750 in fees to the green eye shade sharpies in Bangkok? From the reports we're reading here, the GS-11's at IRS are dazzled by the language of the sharpies, in their Form 8833 presentations, that Thailand is apparently unique in having IRA's as exceptions to the "saving clause" restriction. Yes, the language in each double taxation agreement (DTA) can -- and does -- vary from the boilerplate OECD model; so I guess the sharpies found a way to have the Thai-US DTA language trump the intent of the saving clause, namely: Preventing not paying any contract nation taxes, not just preventing double taxation. The US is unique with this concept, although there's a movement afoot by the EU to copy the US in having their citizens pay someone, somewhere, taxes. Anyway, back to Thailand. If the sharpies can bamboozle the IRS, why not take advantage of it? If you get audited, you're not on a legal hook -- just the sharpies. Worst case -- they're told to 'cease and desist,' and you're told to repay the ilgotten gains. Maybe not even any interest due..... So, why not go for it. Win win. And tell your retired neighbors to plan on a 180 day holiday in Thailand and unload their traditional IRAs/401ks tax free -- the only country in the world where you can do this (apparently due to a loosely worded DTA). And these tax savings can pay for the whole holiday! TAT should take note. I guess if you unloaded a big bundle of your IRA, maybe somebody higher than a GS 11 would take note at the IRS.......like M Grace Fleeman, the lawyer, SES3 at Treasury, who ruled that IRAs are, indeed, subject to the saving clause -- at least in particular with the US-Swiss DTA. Anyway, sounds like the risk is worth it. Besides, GREED IS GOOD!

Yep. Those who 'can,' get ahead. Those who 'can't,' are just relegated to 'getting by.' Marxism's attempt to equal things out, taking from the capable and giving to the incapable -- didn't quite work out: Having such a disincentive to succeed financially was the downfall of the Soviet Union. China learned from this flaw in Marxism -- and changed course. The imperfections of democracy need to be managed. Singapore does this -- with great success. The US, when established, did this by trying to limit voting to the educated, i.e., white, male, land and business owners. This evaporated when the 'left' successfully argued for universal suffrage. Thus, every tom, dick, harry, and mary got the vote. Now, white, chubby, balding uneducated males, with red caps, and leopard skinned females, with double chins -- drive how America approaches democracy today. Thailand? With the added factor of the Monarchy, Thailand needs to also have a managed democracy that encompasses the full package of Thai society. Take the best from the West -- and from the Chinese model of incentivizing its entrepreneurs -- to get a unique Thai model of government.

Huh? If I ever need to use an ATM, I use my Schwab debit/ATM card, which charges no foreign transaction fee and charges no bank fees. Thus, I get the Visa rate of the day, which is north of the banks' TT rate -- and just south of the Interbank exchange rate (equivalent to the mid market rate). Hard to beat that. And for most of my shopping, outside mom and pop stores, I use my US Visa credit card, with no foreign transaction fees -- and with a 2.5% cash back. The only way I could beat that with Thai debit and credit cards -- is if the money in the Thai bank I'm drawing down against, was wired in at a more favorable exchange rate than the floating daily Visa rate. And, yes, that can happen. But, for security reasons, my Thai debit card is locked away, as debit cards in general, and Thai debit cards in particular, are much more problematic with fraud than credit cards. And why I'd want a Thai credit card, with all the hoops that requires, when I have a perfectly useful fee free, 2.5% cash back card.......

Not sure why you're hesitant about getting the wife an ITIN....? If you do, you get double the standard deduction, thus an additional $12950 exempt from taxable income (for 2022 taxes). As a Non Resident Alien, even with an ITIN, she has no FBAR responsibility. And, yes, if she has Thai income, this must be included on your joint 1040 filing -- but if she's paying Thai taxes on this, then she gets a tax credit for this on your 1040 filing. So, few scenarios where not getting the Thai wife an ITIN has any benefit. Plus, your Form 8938 threshhold, living overseas, moves to $400k, since you're filing married jointly, not singly. Nope, no reason not to get the wife an ITIN.

Form 8938, in compliance with FATCA, attached to your Form 1040, showing amounts and earnings for each applicable financial account. Hard assets, like your home and rental properties, aren't involved. High reporting thresholds, compared to FBAR: For end of year amounts, filing single, $200k if living abroad for over 330 days; $400k if filing jointly. Divide these amounts by 4 if not living abroad for 330 days. And, if at any time during the year you exceed these amounts by x1.5 -- e.g ., $300k filing single and living abroad, you've met a threshhold. Probably not too many reading this affected -- and as a rare nod to the expat, the thresholds emphasize the live-at-home money finaglers, not us expats with foreign financial assets to just get along.

That's why you need to get a 30-year lease, or a usefruct (assuming you want to remain living there). This encumbers the chanote so that any potential buyer would not be too excited about buying a piece of property with a non rent paying farang firmly ensconced on such property. But, for sure get a Will, even a simple handwritten one. This will confirm to any probate court that you have the right to own the land -- or if Thai law does not permit, you have the right to designate who takes title to such land. Other property, like cars, would come under the cover of the Will, for you to take title. For sure, a Will and a lease (or usufruct -- get a lawyer to figure this out) is certainly in order.