JimGant

I don't think any taxman in the world would accept your reasoning. "Show me all you've got!" And then it's THEIR decision what is taxable and what not. Well, maybe in your country. In the US, income tax is confined to cash flows that are defined as "taxable income." Just like Thailand's "assessable income." Thus, a gift from my aunt Martha, a loan from aunt Agnes, and an inheritance from dear old Mom -- would not have to be declared on my US income tax return. And, also, Thai social security is only taxable by Thailand, per DTA -- thus, again a cash flow omitted from my US tax return. Common sense, actually.

Invoked where? If my US govt pension is "exclusively" taxed by the US, who cares what year I bring it over to Thailand..... per treaty, it never plays any part in the Thai tax scheme, meaning: no reference to it is required in the filing of Thai taxes.

My read of this is: Private pensions are taxable "only" in Thailand. And per Article 19, Australian govt pensions are only taxable by Australia. Pretty much like the US. So, looks like Aussies will need to file a Thai tax return, since they, like the rest of us, won't have that "bring that private pension into Thailand next year" to escape taxation in Thailand.

Oh BS. My US DTA with Thailand exempts my Air Force and Social Security income from Thai taxation. And, as the US has "exclusive" taxation rights on this income, it is therefore not assesseable (taxable) income by Thailand -- and as such, doesn't have to appear in any Thai tax return (why would it have to, if it plays no part in the Thai taxation scheme?). What could be easier than, "just don't mention it in the Thai tax return, as it's not a player." Of course, on the US side of tax returns, it's included in my US return, and taxed accordingly -- with no needed reference to a related Thai tax return, as no credits here, as being exempted from Thai taxes, there could be no credits. Anyway, guess I'll have to have my Air Force and Social Security payments direct deposited to their own, separate bank account. Thus, my Wise transfers to Thailand, from this account, can be clearly shown as from "exempted" income. However, doubt we'll ever get there, as Thailand doesn't have the resources, or know how, to parse funds wired into Thailand.

'Cause assessable equals taxable -- and income excluded under a DTA is no longer assessable, for taxation purposes -- nor taxable, for assessable purposes. Thus, no tax return needed. Phew.

You would think so...... But here's a quaint quote re do you have to file, or not:

You will still (IF this goes ahead) be required to lodge an income tax return, declaring exactly what you have said above. If the Thai RD agrees with you, they will issue you a tax certificate/clerance. Or they might disagree and send you a bill ???? Negative. You're not required to file a Thai tax return if you don't have income that's taxable. So, my Air Force pension and Social Security payment are "exclusively" taxable by the US. Thus, it's not taxable by Thailand, and so no income tax return required. But, my IRA required minimum distribution *IS* taxable by Thailand, as per the DTA, they're the primary taxing authority for IRA distributions. Yes, I also have to declare this IRA payment on my US tax return, per the savings clause. And, per the treaty, I'll get a tax credit for the Thai taxes, thus having a no net tax increase/decrease between the two taxing authorities (yes, there can be some net differences, depending on tax ratios -- but this thread has already become too unbearable to elaborate).

Geez, it's so obvious that Thailand is now caught up by its short and curlies, with a procedure that will never work -- because of the REMITTANCE aspect of their approach to taxation. And the remittance aspect of taxation was established years ago to allow Thai fat cats an avenue for tax avoidance. So, if Thailand wants to realize more tax revenue -- and why wouldn't they -- then drop the remittance aspect, and just concentrate on "foreign assessable income." Anyway, as one example of just going to taxing foreign income, irrespective of remitted, or not -- and why it's doable, practical, and a money earner: As a US citizen, living full time in Thailand, the DTA says that my IRA proceeds are first priority taxable by the country of my residence, i.e., Thailand. But since their existing rule said, no it wasn't taxable, because it was remitted in a later year than derived -- well then, the US, using its "saving clause" in the tax treaty, says: Thank you, Thailand, we'll collect the taxes on this IRA, with no tax credit payable, since you stupidly didn't tax it. Thus, a smart Thailand would assess the current world of data exchange, particularly CRS and FATCA - where you now can see foreign income of your tax residents -- and come to the conclusion that: It's smarter, more practical, and more efficient to tax foreign derived income -- full stop -- without a remittance requirement to it. Yes, I'd then probably have to file my IRA proceeds as income on a Thai tax return (using the honor system, but backed up with FATCA data) -- but I'd get this all back, as a credit, when I file my US tax return. And Thailand would get the taxes they're entitled to via the treaty, which is fair. I could handle that. As for the Thai fat cats? Well, they'll no longer have an "out" to deny foreign income via the remittance ruse. And that's why, I'm afraid, the remittance aspect of any new Thai approach to taxation -- won't be dropped. Sigh.

What countries might those be? Remittance taxation vs income taxation seems so weird. Are these OECD countries? Thanx.

Well, there could be a case, where a very large amount of a US private pension is paid, and remitted to Thailand, in a tax year. The Thai tax on that amount could exceed the US tax on that same amount. So, under the rules, you'd only get a tax credit up to what the US tax would be on that same amount. So, yeah, those extra Thai taxes over the amount allowed as a credit against your US taxes -- would now be a gotcha in the new era of remittance taxation on income.

Only Americans will be paying no more taxes on their worldwide income under this new Thai tax proposal. Thus, all the complaints we're hearing on this thread must be from all those who have been getting a tax holiday by leaving their home country for Thailand -- and now that door is closing.

Adios, and good luck.

Americans have no dog in this fight, since all our worldwide income is already taxed. The only new wrinkle might be, according to the DTA, Thailand has "first taxation rights" on certain income, like private pensions and IRA payouts. But my other US income -- Air Force retirement and Social Security -- is exempt from Thai taxation, per tax treaty. So, maybe I'll have to file a Thai tax return, declaring my IRA income, and paying Thai taxes on this. But, per DTA, I'll just take this as a tax credit on my US tax return, and come out zero sum tax obligation. Anyway, Thailand gets the tax revenue they deserve, per treaty -- and the US pays for it via credit. Actually, I won't mind paying Thailand the taxes that the treaty says are theirs. Surprised they haven't reached this point earlier. Sharper minds in the Thai tax department these days....? Maybe -- but obviously several sharp edges still needing to be filed down. For those non-Yanks screaming about no more free ride from somebody's taxes? Welcome aboard.

Foreign remittance tax?! What happened to tax on assessable income that gets remitted? I fear things have gotten way over analyzed, as Thailand is certainly not going to tax all monies coming into the country, to include Foreign Direct Investments, which are largely capital (not income) raised in foreign financial institutions. So, credit card purchases aren't income, but a loan from your bank to pay BigC. And remitted loans ain't income; so assuming we're still addressing assessable income remitted to Thailand, forget credit card payments somehow being scrutinized. A debit card transaction, which is a direct payment made by you, and not a loan, maybe could be scrutinized, as in my case, it would come out of the same pile of money in my bank account that I use to send a wire transfer. Then, discerning which of these monies is deposited income, and which are after tax savings -- is the largely unsolvable problem that makes focusing strictly on remittances ludicrous. And if Thailand wants to use FATCA and CRS reporting data, especially when it further matures in a few years, they'll only be able to identify income, not remittances. So, it they stick with this remittance BS, they're chasing their tail, and costing themselves gettable taxable income. [I went through the 66 page US-Thailand FATCA agreement -- and nothing there involving remittance reporting.]

Then, they'd be pretty stupid, to torpedo an incentive to bring in (or maintain) wealthy pensioners and global citizens. Actually, this new gov't has shown several positive inclinations -- and not much stupidity. We'll see.... In any event, as a Yank, these new rules won't affect my total tax bill, as I pay Uncle Sam on all my worldwide income -- but maybe in future years Thailand will get to keep the tax on my IRA required minimum distribution -- and that amount will be subtracted out of my US tax return as a credit. Ho hum.

Actually, the article you mention addresses the impact on FDI, which includes condos, and buyers who have lived here a long time, but who bring purchase money in from abroad. BoI, a major player in Thai economic guidance, is the personal protector of FDI, a major player in economic growth -- so I doubt they'll allow things to go forward as now presented. If they just got rid of the "remittance" aspect of all of this, and just concentrated on income earned abroad, regardless of remittance, then things could be workable. CRS and FATCA reporting aren't going to show remittance; heck, all my taxable income is direct deposited into my US savings account, from which Wise sucks it out for transfer to Bangkok Bank, mixed with five years of previous income and non income (inheritance), to become a mass of fungible dollars -- how is FATCA (or CRS) going to trace that as identifiable income? They can't (at least for now -- AI may be down the road. Barf). Anyway, there are too many loose elements with this new proposal for it to go forward -- not the least of which is torpedoing FDI, to include condos.

Oh, the new proposed regulation says it will only apply to Thai citizens, but not expat tax residents? I must of missed that....

What a misleading article. If a Tax Resident (180 days or more cumulative), then worldwide income is taxable in Thailand, if brought into the country in the year paid. That may change, of course, and is the subject of this thread. And, per DTA, not all worldwide income is subject to Thai tax -- things like gov't pensions and social security are exempt per treaty. But to flat out say, Thai tax only applies to money earned within the country -- is just bad info, and I'm surprised Thaiger published it. Yes, if you're here for less than 180 days, your worldwide income is exempt. But this article is aimed at folks planning their retirement -- and I doubt they plan to only retire for 179 days, or less.....

Finally some common sense, at least as far as remittance goes -- as remittance has nothing to do with income, just cash flow. This remittance Thai tax rule was apparently incorporated to allow Thai fat cats a very convenient tax avoidance avenue, by just enabling that there is no income liability on income brought into Thailand in a later calendar year. Certainly, this has cost the Thai treasury a bunch. Per DTA treaties -- and using the US-Thai treaty, as an example: Remittance doesn't determine income -- in fact, it's not even mentioned. The US tax treaty just says that my Air Force pension and Social Security income are taxable only by the US. Thus, not declarable as income on a Thai tax return. But per tax treaty, my Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) on my IRA *IS* taxable (when earned, not remitted) by Thailand, as the primary tax authority per the treaty. But, their own tax rules have prevented them from taxing it, since I remit it in in a later year. Thus, two incomes under the tax treaty, and one income under a Thai tax rule -- says I don't have to file a Thai tax return, as I have no taxable income. So, it's ludicrous to say, "you will be required to declare all of your foreign income," since some, like my Air Force and Social Security are exempt by treaty. And my historical IRA payments, which were remitted in a later year, were exempt by Thai law then in effect. Anyway, if Thailand is getting away from remittances, and just adhering to the tax treaty -- I guess I'll need to declare my IRA RMD on a Thai tax return. As this will be the only income declared on the Thai tax return, it will be only slightly above the deduction and allowances, and thus a single digit effective tax rate. Now, I'll also have to declare this RMD on my US tax return -- due to the saving clause, which says all worldwide income is taxable, regardless of treaty language. But, as this will be in the 22% effective tax bracket, the tax credit allowed will mean my total tax bill, between both countries, will be the same as if I only paid taxes to the US. So, just a little more paperwork -- but no additional tax. So, it makes a lot more sense if the new Thai tax rulings get away from remittances. Much cleaner, plus data from FATCA and CRS can show income -- but not necessarily remittances. Thus, an easier hammer to yield when demanding, "why didn't you declare your foreign income on your Thai tax return?" Certainly the reason we're seeing remittances in the new tax structuring is because it will still give the fat cats an "out." How? Because, if the new rules say income is not taxable until remitted -- then CRS and FATCA data on income earned abroad will not trigger tax avoidance alarms, since this data is not accompanied with remittance data. And the fat cats? I'm sure they'll have many avenues to get their foreign earnings back to Thailand. Not sure how eliminating the remittance requirement helps, or hurts, some expats over here..... For Yanks, as shown above, it may mean that, finally, Thailand will at last be coming after income that, per treaty, it has "first dibs" taxation rights on. But, again, so what -- Thailand either gets our tax dollars, or Uncle Sam does -- zero sum game with tax credits (with a few exceptions). Anyway, just more fodder for discussion.

Oh, yawn. As an American, nothing changes in my total tax bill, in sum between the two countries. All my income is already taxed by Uncle Sam, who has first dibs on most of it (Air Force pension, Social Security) under the US-Thai tax treaty. Only my Required Minimum Distribution on my IRA is first dibs by Thailand; but under current rules, this remitted RMD to Thailand is several years old, under FIFO rules when sent by Wise from my savings account. So, not remitted in year received. All of this, of course, supported by 1099's, showing amounts paid and and amounts of tax withheld -- should Thai tax folks ever care. But, under the new rules, they may finally come after my IRA RMD remittance. Fine and good, as this is what they're entitled to under the tax treaty. So, I'll just take a tax credit against my US taxes on this RMD, which is in the 22% tax bracket -- well above the Thai tax bracket. Thus, Thailand gets full benefit from taxation of this RMD, with the remainder tax bill paid to Uncle Sam. Total amount of taxes paid by me between both countries is same as if I just paid the US; but now, Thailand gets some tax dollars they're entitled to under the treaty; and I provide some support to the tax base of the country I now live in. Seems fair. And I got a LTR WP visa. But it wasn't because of any tax advantage -- my US tax bill hadn't changed, and the LTR visa didn't give me any relief against Thai taxes, which I didn't have to pay due to the "remitted in later year" policy. Now, per the above paragraph, I may end up paying Thai taxes on my IRA RMD. But, again, my total tax bill won't change.... And I'll feel good about some of my taxes finally supporting my adopted country. So, as a Yankee, nothing much going on here to affect me. But I can feel the pain (NOT!) for those Europeans that now may finally have to pay somebody some taxes. Just sorry you haven't been paying your mother country all these years -- so maybe they could have paid their NATO bill.....

Oh, come on. You think all cash flow into Thailand will be looked at as taxable income? First and foremost, this would kill foreign direct investment by individuals -- and FDI is a major item in a strong economy. And guess who rides herd on FDI? Why, no other than BoI. So, their new golden boy on the street -- the LTR visa -- isn't going to be torpedoed, as long as BoI maintains its substantial horsepower. But forget just LTR visas. Remember, one of the "get out of jail free" cards was having a DTA between your home country and Thailand -- and there are 61 of those. But the kicker is that you have to pay taxes (they don't say what kind) to your home country. I would presume such taxes would be income taxes against income taxable by both Thailand and your home country. For Yanks, you're home free with this, as you're already paying Uncle Sam taxes on your worldwide income. For Europeans not paying tax to anyone -- well, you may now become part of what the OECD wants, namely, everyone paying taxes to someone. But back to FDI: Thailand is NOT going impede cash flow into Thailand for investment, by branding all wire transfers, and similar, as "taxable income." That would be ludicrous. And for Yanks, they'll probably just leave us alone. For Europeans, well, maybe a peak at their tax returns -- or maybe not. But don't expect too much until CRS and FATCA reporting are more mature -- and Thailand can finally have a clear look at income that should be, but has not, been reported. And somewhere down the road, the stupid "remitted" requirement for delineating income will be cancelled -- and Thailand can join the rest of the world on how to tax foreign income. Anyway, if you're about to transfer 250k USD to buy some real estate, and this is easily identifiable as from after-tax entities in your transfer account (or probably even not ---), have at it, as Thailand is not going to shoot themselves in both feet by screwing around with your transfer, as regards FDI.

Indeed -- and certainly BoI would've had knowledge of potential tax changes being discussed. Thus, the Royal Decree effectively grandfathers LTR visa holders under the current rules. Just change the phrase "the previous tax year" to "a previous tax year" -- and you eliminate considerable confusion, thus suggesting there was a translation error from Thai into English.

Thanx, Yumthai.

Using the 60k deduction, and two 30k allowances (me and wife), here's what I came up with: -- Effective tax rate of 4.9% for $15,000 -- Effective tax rate of 8.7% for $30,000 -- Effective tax rate of 18.3% for $60,000 -- Effective tax rate of 21.2% for $80,000 Now, for Americans, you already pay Uncle Sam taxes on this income, even if the Thai-US tax treaty says Thailand has primary taxing authority. This is because of the so called "saving clause," which says the US can tax everything regardless of what's in the treaty -- but will give you a tax credit to avoid double taxation, assuming Thailand uses their option to tax (which, historically, they haven't -- but maybe under this new scheme, they'll finally start collecting taxes that the treaty says they're entitled to). So, for Americans, if you're sending your IRA or private pension payouts to Thailand, you might see a Thai tax hit in your future. However, you'll get a tax credit -- within your tax bracket -- against your US taxes to avoid double taxation. [A YouTube video in earlier pages on this thread indicated the treaty gave Thailand an exception to the saving clause, meaning your IRA wasn't taxable on your US tax return. This is bunk, as it would mean Thailand is the only country in the world where you, as an expat, could live and NOT have to pay US taxes on your IRA distribution. Sound unreal? Yep. Anyway, he's been successful so far, as no one in the know at IRS has taken the time to analyze this. So, if you want to save on US taxes, look up Thomas Carden.] But, yeah, for non-Americans -- if you've had a nice tax free ride living here in Thailand, maybe that's going to end. But if you're at, or approaching the $80,000 category (i.e, Thai taxes at the 21.2% rate) -- go get the LTR Wealthy Pensioner visa. This will protect your foreign income from Thai taxes, confirmed by the latest reports.

Do a Google on "thai inheritance tax." It doesn't kick in until 100million baht ($3M US dollars). Plus, no tax if inheritance is between spouses. It would be ludicrous if the Thais treated all cash flow into Thailand as "income." Now, as others have discussed, they may put the burden of proof on you, to parse out what is and what isn't "income" (and if income, what part, or maybe all, was taxed by your tax treaty home country). I would think a cash flow of estate proceeds, coming to Thailand as inheritance, could be parsed out as such.