JimGant

And, of course, you believe the election was stolen---. Well, you were almost right, except true patriots discovered the Maga Republican's phony electors scheme. Gawd, what happened to the rational America I grew up in.....?

How applied differently? If both Thais and farangs are being honest in their assessable income declarations, the same deductions and allowances apply -- and the same taxes owed. You're saying Thais will be able to cheat, but no so farangs?

Interesting. For taking a Thai tax credit on my US tax return, no supporting documentation is required. So far, I've only taken a credit for taxes withheld on my Bangkok Bank savings account. As this has been below $600, I only need to plug in the figure I arrived at on a single line on the tax return. Maybe in the future, if the new rules mean I have to declare my IRA payment on a Thai tax return, per DTA -- then if this is above $600, I'll need to fill out a Form 1116. Again, no Thai supporting paperwork required -- and a straightforward process, especially if using TurboTax. I know you Old World folks get tired of hearing this -- but if Thailand's new rules require me to declare my IRA payment, there will be no additional cost to me, as Thailand gets to keep my taxes to fix pot holes, and the US loses the equivalent in taxes, due to tax credits. Finally, fairness: I now pay to fix a pot hole in Doi Saket, and no longer pay to fix a pot hole in East Jesus, Iowa. Yawn.

Huh? The DTAs with Thailand already give Thailand the right to tax certain foreign income belonging to foreign tax residents of Thailand (like, as a Yank, my IRA payout or my pension from Boeing, etc). Only because of their "remittance" requirement -- a domestic law, with no relationship to any DTA language -- to include "exempt if brought in in a later calendar year" have foreigners (along with Thai fat cats) been allowed to avoid Thai income tax. Now, they're wising up, modifying their domestic remittance law to allow them to take full advantage of the DTA language giving them priority, or even exclusive taxation rights on certain foreign income belonging to tax resident foreign expats. Don't blame them for finally using the DTA agreement they signed to finally collect some tax on foreign income, that had been denied due to a stupid domestic law regarding "remittance." Yes, the stupid remittance law will still be in place, which will still allow some, or maybe all, income from an expat to avoid taxation (if he doesn't need to bring that income into Thailand, ever). And the reason it will still be in place is because Thai fat cats still need it to shelter foreign income, which now, instead of being remitted in the following year, will stay abroad in Swiss ski chalet property, or used to buy yachts and private jets, to finally end up in Thailand for resale. Hey, Thailand, if you really want to fatten your coffer, do away with the remittance requirement and just tax foreign income -- like the rest of the civilized world does. Much harder for the fat cats to duck this. Anyway, to somehow think the new proposed rule violates any language in any DTA is ridiculous. To the contrary -- just shows Thailand can finally make money by using the language of all those DTAs to its advantage.

No, not if you peruse the Technical Explanation for US Model tax treaties -- and the US-Thai treaty used the US Model (albeit the 1996 version): Roth IRAs are only used as an example -- read the whole link to see how, even non-deductible contributions to a normal IRA, would be tax exempt in the resident country. Granted, other non-US related tax treaties probably use one of the other two Models: OECD and UN. But, all Models are almost 95% identical, using common sense -- and differing primarily in emphasis. Anyway, common sense, to me at least, that tax exempt pensions brought into Thailand would be treated as tax exempt by the Thais -- if for no other reason than under the Non-Discrimination clause of most tax treaties. Getting real repetitive around here with facts and nonsense, but since I mentioned common sense, here's what it looks like to me in the future: 1. No way can they label all monies remitted to Thailand as income. That doesn't even need any more elaboration. AND, the idea of a remittance tax is even more ludicrous -- and an end to FDI. 2. Since they can't parse what part of a remittance is income, they'll have to rely on self-declaration. Hey, the banks can't tell what part of a remittance is income, and even with FATCA and CRS income reporting info, if their info on your income doesn't match your remittances, which it won't, now what?. Anyway, forget some goat f..... of 10,000 RD clerks massaging non conclusive data. But, expect a higher incident of random audits, to test how self compliance is doing -- I could live with that. 3. Self compliance with me would have me only remitting monies to Thailand from a separate bank account containing my Air Force pension and Social Security funds -- both exclusively tax exempt in Thailand. Thus, no assessable income for Thai taxes, thus no need to file a Thai tax return. Yes, should I need to remit a large chunk for some reason, I could go to the account containing the inheritance from my mom (non income, of course). Again, this would all be self compliance, and would dictate I had no need to file a Thai tax return, and if audited, completely supportable. Anyway, stay tuned. But I can't imagine -- if logic dictates -- that things would be much different from what I surmise. Of course, they might -- including my ace-in-the-hole LTR visa. We live in exciting times. Yawn.

Yes.

Sounds like it. And it seems Canada has exclusive taxation rights on both govt and private pensions -- unlike your southern cousins, where only govt pensions are exclusively the privilege of the IRS, not Thailand.

Not exactly. The following quote is from the Technical Explanation for the Thai-US DTA. The second sentence is from another source, but gives further clarity: Makes sense. If both contracting countries have taxing rights on the same income, one country has to have "first dibs," i.e., have primary taxing authority. You can't flip a coin to see which country gets to keep all its taxation, while the other country only gets to keep the taxation in excess of the subtracted-out credits -- if there is any left. Thus, if you have rental property in the UK (or US, wherever), the UK gets "first dibs" on taxation -- and on keeping all that taxation. Thailand can, if it wants, also tax this rental income (if remitted to Thailand, currently in same year). But it has to back out a credit for the UK taxes paid -- which probably means there's nothing left. Now, if a country has exclusive taxation rights -- that's exactly what it says: The second country has no taxation rights, even if the country with exclusive taxation rights chooses not to exercise those rights.... ... unless you're America, which has the "saving clause" in all its DTAs. This clause trumps the DTA's exclusivity clauses (with a few exceptions), allowing the US to tax all worldwide income, regardless of what the DTA says. Thus, if Thailand doesn't want to tax my IRA (or can't, because of their domestic law about remitting in the next calendar year), then Uncle Sam says, ok, we'll make sure this bugger pays taxes somewhere -- thanx, Thailand. (If Thailand does tax my IRA -- and maybe they'll start next year -- double taxation is avoided, with the US giving a tax credit for those taxes paid to Thailand. This would be a situation of Thailand having "first dibs.") How do you think the US pays for all those wars..........

Could you show us what the label looks like? Thanx.

You can treat the 15% as 'withhold at source/final payment.' Thus, not reportable on your Thai tax return. Obviously, if you're in a higher tax bracket than 15%, this would be to your advantage.

Labelled by whom? If you send a Wise transfer, you're saying it's labelled as income? Makes no sense -- how would anybody in Thailand know it's income, if sent from one of your financial institution's accounts? Only if it's a direct deposit from, say, a pension payment -- would it have the flavor of income. But even here, it may not be income for Thai tax purposes (think: exempt due to DTA). So, labeling it "income" serves no purpose as far as the RD is concerned. And, labeling all incoming remittances as "income" would push all FDI to other countries. So, no, they're not going to label all remittances as income (which, if the obvious escaped you, would include FDI's) So logic and logistical common sense would dictate they're restricted to: PIT collection depends on taxpayers' faithful and full declaration of income in their PIT returns. Yes, sample audits for compliance may occur in larger numbers. And, FATCA and CRS reporting may increase the spotlight on compliance. But for Americans, nothing changes, since we're already taxed on our worldwide income. Possibly Thai RD may fine tune the DTA, and figure out that Thailand (per DTA) had "primary tax authority" on my IRA payout. Ok, then this is where "faithful and full declaration" comes in, and I need to file a Thai tax return, declaring my IRA payout as assessable income for Thai tax purposes. Then, I take this tax payment as a credit against my US taxes -- and break even in my overall tax payment situation (note: for high five figure income, Thai tax MAY BE higher than US, and the difference has to be eaten -- not a huge number, however). So, fellow Yanks. Go watch the NFL, and let the others worry about, hey, there may be taxes in their future.

This from a few pages back; it's from a technical explanation of a US DTA, but most DTAs are similar, being based on the OECD Model:

Not if it's not taxable.....Jeez.

....'cause you didn't include it on your tax return...... Give this circle jerk a rest -- RD is NOT interested in non-assessable income. Period.

I would suggest the RD doesn't care about income that is not taxable.

...but it can be invoked to not declare certain income.

And if your assessable income is above 60000 baht, and you're single -- you're supposed to file? Minimum wage is 300 baht per day, meaning if you work 6 days a week, 52 weeks a year -- 93600 baht is your annual income. Wow, a lot of minimum wagers, and sub minimum wagers, are subject to a 2000 baht fine. Can you define "ludicrous"?

Where did you come up with that? I would argue that assessable (taxable) income that is excluded from Thai taxation, due to the DTA, is NOT to be included on your tax return. If it were, on what line would you back it out with a negative number? Or, would you attach a note saying, "Forget X amount of income on page one, since it's really not taxable income, due to a DTA with the US." Or, do you just not include it at all on your return? One, two, or three -- give my your best choice.

You owe no Thai taxes on this -- in fact, it's excluded from Thai taxes per DTA. So, why would you file a tax return, that pays no taxes -- you really think that Thai RD resources, even if beefed up hugely, are going to sniff out all remittances into Thailand for income potential? Suggest you wait 'til they knock on your door -- before you knock on theirs.

And, based on this from the US technical explanation of US DTAs, if you remit cash flow to Thailand that is exempt from taxation in your source country -- well, then, it remains tax exempt in Thailand: US DTAs are based on the OECD Model, as are most of the world's DTAs. Yes, there are minor differences -- but doubtful Australia's tax exempt payments are NOT included in the OECD boilerplate language that dictates tax exempt income maintains its flavor in both contracting states. For a Yank, where govt pensions and social security are "exclusively" taxable only by the US -- I guess if these two sources weren't enough for my annual cash flow to Thailand, I'd establish a separate bank account with these two sources, plus my Roth distribution. Then, there could be no doubt of the non taxable source of my money wired to Thailand. And, since this wired money is non taxable by Thailand, then, I have no assessable income subject to Thai taxation, per the DTA -- and thus no need to file a Thai tax return (current rules, for single filers, is the requirement to file -- IF your assessable income exceeds 60000 baht ). Anyway, no tax avoidance/evasion here; thus, any knock on the door by khaki dressed revenuers would only result in possibly more paperwork, but no fines. But, unless RD hires 10000 more clerks, this ain't gonna happen.

Anybody used this part of Bangkok Hospital -- and if so, what's your assessment? Thanx.

.... unless you have one of three categories of an LTR visa. Then, per royal decree, or some such proclamation, nothing changes re tax exemption per remitting in a later year. Yeah, best decision I ever made -- no visits to Immigration for five more years, and no more 90 day reports (although, with online reporting, that wasn't really such a hardship). So, if you qualify, give it a good look....

Yes. And in this example, this is where you're required to file a Form 8833 to take the tax credit -- because the Thai taxation is on USA income -- and the Internal Revenue Code says foreign tax credits can only be taken on foreign income. Ah, but the DTA allows credits on Thai taxes on US income, to avoid double taxation. So, the Form 8833 needs to be filed, showing how the DTA trumps the Internal Revenue Code (no Form 8833 needed to take advantage of the DTA's exclusivity on Social Security and Govt pensions, since no Thai tax return filed, nor allowed, on this "exclusivity" of taxation by the US).

Absolutely. First, Yanks pay income tax on all their worldwide income, which, of course, would include any and all income subject to Thai income tax. So, assuming this initial guidance is true, which said, "If your home country has a DTA with Thailand, and you pay income tax in your home country, then you're not affected by this new ruling" -- well, Yanks are home free. Even the nebulous "if you pay income tax" in your home country, which possibly would, in some countries, not cover taxation of income subject to Thai income tax -- again, as a Yank, you DO pay tax on any and all income subject to Thai tax. Now, the DTA makes US Govt pensions, and Social Security, the "exclusive" taxing right of the US. So, if I wanted to isolate these payments as direct deposits to a separate US bank account -- then a Wise wire of these funds to Thailand would stand out as completely exempt from Thai taxes. [But, currently I Wise-wire these funds from a savings account over ten years old, and complete with former years' direct deposits and other fungible amounts of deposits. But, I would feel confident arguing what funds were actually wired -- not that FIFO or LIFO accounting would resonate with Thai authorities.] Anyway, the only thing that could possibly be changed with the new ruling is: I wire some of my cashed in IRA funds to Thailand -- and under current rules, I wire these in a later year, thus avoiding taxation. But the DTA says, Thailand has 'first taxation rights' on these IRA funds -- ok, but they don't, under their own (current) rules, that say it's not taxable if brought in in a a later year. But, yeah, under the new proposal, if I wire these IRA funds to Thailand in current year, or in a later year -- they're taxable by Thailand under the DTA. So, I have to declare these on a Thai tax return. But as my IRA funds aren't too large, the Thai tax would be considerably less than what the taxes would be on these same funds on my US return -- so the tax credit means the total taxation between the two countries is a wash. [The DTA saving clause says these IRA funds are NOT exclusively taxable by Thailand -- but have to be included in your US tax return.] Anyway, long explanation. Bottom line: Yanks won't be affected in their total tax bill, between US and Thailand, with these new rules. DTA keeps numbers the same -- maybe only a Thai tax return in your future, but at no cost but time.