JimGant

Yes, if you only reside in a rental during your visits to Thailand, to include living in your Thai wife's home. And this would even be if you spent 265 days in Thailand, but only 100 days in the US. And this is peculiar only to Yanks, as we're tax residents of the US REGARDLESS of where we live, and for how long. Thus, we are tax residents of both Thailand (if here over 180 days) AND of the US. Contrast this to the majority of the world's countries, who don't define you as a tax resident if you live outside the country for over half a year. Thus, live in Thailand for over 180 days, no tie breaker for tax purposes needed -- you're a tax resident of Thailand, period, as far as the applicable DTA is concerned. [Most DTAs read like the US-Thai DTA, as they're cookie cutter images on the OECD and UN Model tax treaties.] But, yeah, as a Yank concerned about remitting cap gains to Thailand, or Roth IRA receipts -- there is some wiggle room here in defining country of primary taxation residence. Can't use the permanent home residence card, since you own a home in the US, but also a condo in Thailand? Well, what about vital interests? Are your mom and dad, and kids from first marriage, in the US -- sounds like your vital interests lie in the US. But, have a Thai wife? This could get complicated. But, there appears to be enough slop room to be able to favorably self-assess as to your tax residence -- and thus not file a Thai tax return; always opt for the situation that favors you, in any gray area situation, as long as you've got a reasonable argument in its favor. Thus, not flling a Thai tax return keeps you off their radar -- so no chance of an audit, unless you remit a huge amount of money that triggers the "check this guy out" alarm. And that amount is probably well above what any of us reading this is. Anyway, Miloki, thanx for bringing this subject up. I'm sure some Yanks will now do some re-evaluation.

Any chance you suppressed the giggles when you produced that? You made my day. Any humor in the signature -- I can't quite read it?

French?

Serves him right for going to TRD with no purpose.

As I recall, I just went online to my Schwab account and changed both my legal and my mailing address to my Thai address. My account is an IRA account, not brokerage. It holds stock mutual funds, and the only activity is a once per year sale to meet RMD requirements. This is all done online. Don't know if I could 'trade', i.e., sell a mutual fund and buy a new one with the proceeds.... But, I have no plans to do so. Unlike an international brokerage account, my US IRA account allows for beneficiaries. Which is an absolute requirement, since I have no US Will, as I don't need one -- all my US assets are financial, thus pass on via beneficiary or POD designations. If you're an active trader, I'm sure you'd have to switch to a Schwab international account, if you decided to tell them where you really live.

...... or do nothing. One missing tooth shouldn't screw up your dining routine. Vanity, of course, may be a main concern. In which case, a permanent replacement would seem the way to go -- and his prices don't seem bad -- certainly when compared to prices in farang land.

Well, looks like you're subject to the tie-breaker rules, being subject to Thai taxation by virtue of being in Thailand for 180 days, or more, in a calendar year. Plus, subject to US taxation, by virtue of being a US citizen. And, you maintain a "permanent residence" in the US. So, let's assume you also have a permanent residence in Thailand -- your condo, a long term rental, or living at wife's home. We'll assume your stays in Thailand are NOT from hotel room to hotel room.... So, we can disregard the permanent residence tie breaker, as you have such residence in both countries. So, I guess, it now comes down to how much time do you spend in each country. If only 180 days in Thailand, but 183 days in the US -- I guess your vital interests reside more in the US, as does your habitual abode. Thus, the last two tie breaker items give the nod to the US as your tax residence for DTA purposes. But, if the majority of your time is in Thailand -- I think the vital interests and habitual abode criteria breaks the tie in Thailand's direction. Interesting situation. And one, where if Thailand wins, a US citizen's cap gains could be adversely affected.

No idea what you are talking about. I was just wondering whether or not you could, on the back of an envelope, figure out what of your remitted income was assessable, or not assessable - based on your knowledge of the DTA and Por 162. Then, armed with this information, decide whether or not you needed to file a tax return. I'm just a little confused as to why you needed TRD to tell you -- 4 times -- that you didn't need to file.......(?).

Fair point. Override up front. But, same result as override after the fact. What we're discussing here is, Por 162, as an override, passes the test, since it in no way alters the spirit of the DTA, namely, avoiding double taxation.

Why did you even file?

See previous post -- to not be blinded by all these webinars of tax authorities -- who, with a little research, come across as clueless.

Wrong. Domestic law changes to a DTA are called "overrides." The most famous is the US saving clause found in every DTA with the US, that says: We, the US, don't care what this treaty says about our treaty partner having exclusive taxation rights. We, the US, reserve the right (with a few named exclusions) to also tax this income. But, yes, treaty partner will have primary taxation rights, per DTA, and thus get to keep all taxes collected, without having to absorb a tax credit for the taxes paid to the US. Overrides (as the following link explains) are frowned upon -- but if they don't violate the DTA spirit, namely, the avoidance of double taxation -- then they're acceptable. https://repository.law.umich.edu/book_chapters/330/ And, in the case of the US saving clause, what's going on here is the avoidance of "no no taxation." Example: treaty country has exclusive taxation rights, but doesn't avail itself of those rights (eg, Thailand -- old policy of bring it in next year thus no taxation). Thus, we the US, will step up and make sure someone collects taxes. And this is the name of the future in DTAs. Check out this link: Sounds like the move to eliminate the "bring it in next year and it will be exempt" was a result of this referenced MLI agreement by Thailand. Hmmm.

You went 4 times to your tax office -- just to have it confirmed that you owe no taxes? Hopefully your trips were to get a refund on tax withholdings on your bank interest........

No, the reason for the disparities among provincial TRD offices -- is because there is no STANDARDIZATION.

You can get cold air over your phone? 🙂

As far as I know, only Thaitax has come out to say bank savings are the only allowed monies for Por 162; no others, that I recall, have said that. Probably because TRD hasn't clarified the situation, at least officially. And these more professional tax advisories would rather say nothing than make a statement as stupid as "bank savings only." Say my bank savings account had a $100k balance on 25 Dec 2023. But, as interest rates for CDs finally had climbed to where they looked attractive -- I bought $90k worth of CDs on 26 Dec 2023. What's my Por 162 'value' on 31 Dec2023 -- $10k or $100k? If you say $10k, you're implying that Por 162 exempt income -- must be in the form of liquid assets, not near liquid assets. Do you (and Thaitax) really believe that's what TRD meant when they said "INCOME existing before 2024?" Give it your best shot.

Right -- but the value of that property or stocks on 12/31/2023 would be non assessable, per Por 162. However, some (or maybe it's just one) tax advisory outfits are saying, "Por 162 is limited to pre 2024 savings in a bank account." And a shill on this forum keeps echoing that. I think you'd be well within your reasoning powers to interpret Por 162 as NOT being restricted to bank savings accounts.

Hey, sounds like a great replacement for Guantanamo as a place to dump your trash.

Actually, Trump has used this law to deport over 200 Venezuelan gang members -- which is a good thing, if you're an American. Not exactly xenophobia or racism.... just house-cleaning realpolitik. Yeah, he's a bull in a china shop -- but much of that china needed breaking. Just too bad that, overall -- he's an arrogant buffoon.

This is starting to get monotonous. You keep genuflecting to tax advisory firms -- particularly Expattaxthai -- who have often stumbled on reading the TRD tea leaves. Expattaxthai, in their FAQ section, advised that LTR visa holders must still file a tax return, completely filling it in with zeros. Completely bonkers. Fortunately, I can sniff out folks who don't have a full grasp of the situation, or who don't admit there's nothing solid enough yet coming from TRD to allow a full grasp. And act accordingly. So, from this statement re Por 162, how does your INDEPENDENT reasoning conclude only pre 2024 monies from "savings accounts" (your quote) apply under Por 162? Come on, Jingthing. Think for yourself for a change. Your certainty on uncertain matters is losing you any credibility you might of had.

Well, it was (maybe still is) a scam ginned up by a tax advisory firm in Bangkok. If you're really curious, and have some time and a sixpack, the following threads will fill you in: https://aseannow.com/topic/1008555-tax-specialist-in-chiang-mai/page/3/ https://aseannow.com/topic/1250834-how-is-the-us-tax-treaty-deduction-going/page/2/#comment-17239943

Using a 34bt FX rate, John's Thai tax bill -- assuming a 560k TEDA/150k freebie -- would be about $1300 (assuming the IRA is his only assessable income remitted). And since the saving clause mandates that John must also declare that $30k IRA on his US tax return -- this would amount to $6600 in US taxes, if in the 22% tax bracket. But, yes he can file a Form 1116 (and also Form 8833) and take a tax credit against that US tax -- so after that credit, his US tax bill on the IRA would be $5300. But your composite tax bill equates to the country having the higher tax bill -- in this case the US, with $6600. Two conflicting scenarios here. One, if you believe your IRA's value on 12/31/2023 qualifies under Por 162 as "pre 2024 income." Or two, you believe some reports that only cash savings in a bank account qualify under Por 162. In the above example, it matters not which scenario you choose: Believe your IRA qualifies under Por 162, so don't even file a Thai tax return, with its $1300 tax charge. But do pay full fare of $6600 to the US, since there's no credit to be had -- total tax bill the same under either scenario. So, the argument over Por 162 and IRAs would be moot, at least in the above scenario. In this scenario, Thailand doesn't exist as far as your US tax return filing. No Thai tax, no tax credit against your US taxes. Now, the opposite side of the coin would be -- a Thai tax on your remitted Roth IRA -- but no US tax on same, on which to apply the credit. This is where you want to believe that Por 162 covers Roth IRAs -- so that remitted Roth IRAs would thus be non assessable for Thai tax purposes.

Did you read my link, and particularly the Swiss ruling on how the saving clause definitely applies to IRA distributions to US expats who now are tax residents abroad, whose new country has 'exclusive' taxation rights on that distribution.....? That, hopefully, will show you how the saving clause "has anything to do with IRAs." And how Carden's assertion that Thailand is unique in being exempt from the saving clause when it comes to IRAs -- is totally ludicrous.

What I was saying is, only you and Thomas Carden have gone on record as saying you aren't required to file on your US tax return your Traditional IRA distro, because the saving clause uniquely doesn't apply with the US tax treaty with Thailand. This scam is equally applicable today, if Thai taxes are less than US taxes on same distro -- or you just don't remit your IRA distro to Thailand. But my main point is: You're dead wrong about your Traditional IRA not being taxable by the US because the DTA says Thailand has 'exclusive' taxation rights on your remitted Traditional IRA distro.

Neither type is taxable in the US for Thai tax residents. A little education here, Jingthing. Thus, with but a few exceptions (like alimony and child support payments), there are no "exclusive" tax rights in the Thai-US tax treaty, like the "exclusive" tax right mentioned in the DTA that Thailand has on US private pensions and Traditional IRAs. Instead, the US -- per the saving clause -- always maintains a "secondary" taxation right in the DTA situations giving Thailand "exclusive" rights. In effect, Thailand still gets "primary" taxation rights, meaning, they get to keep all tax collections, and don't have to absorb a tax credit; but the US gets secondary rights -- but DOES have to absorb a credit for the taxes paid Thailand. Nothing violating the spirit of "no double taxation" with this situation, since credits come into play. But what it does do -- is ensure that there is not a "no no tax situation." A situation the OECD is trying eliminate with its new Model Tax Treaties. And a loophole the US plugged many years ago, with its saving clause insertion in all DTAs. Jingling, click on this link and prepare for an educational read: https://aseannow.com/topic/1008555-tax-specialist-in-chiang-mai/page/3/ It's about a scam -- dreamed up by a US tax advisor in Bangkok -- who went around to various Thai cities with his sales pitch that he had found a glitch in the treaty language between Thailand and the US, that would exempt US IRAs from the saving clause. Thus, just come to Thailand for 181 days and become a Thai tax resident -- and you're exempt from US taxation on your IRA withdrawals. And -- even better -- remit that IRA withdrawal to Thailand the following year (remember, the old rules), and don't even pay tax to Thailand! Thus, Thailand -- per this scam artist -- would become the only country to which a US expat could move to -- and never have to pay US tax -- nor Thai tax! Too good to be true? Duh. Anyway, read the link and pay attention to the IRS ruling vis-a-vis Switzerland, from the IRS top legal person, on how a US person, who becomes a tax resident abroad, but who has annual Traditional IRA withdrawals -- still is subject to US taxes on these withdrawals, per the saving clause. And note how the Swiss DTA is similar to the Thai DTA with the US, including treaty language. No surprise here, as both follow the OECD and UN Model Tax Treaties. So how this charlatan tax advisor in Bangkok has gotten away with this (as he apparently has, as we've seen nobody questioned by the IRS) is curious -- and sad. He apparently charges an arm and a leg -- but, heck, I guess, if the deal wasn't such an obvious scam, my $300k Traditional IRA becoming tax exempt would be worth the price. And many, apparently, have gone this route. And even with Por 161, if Thai taxes were much less than US taxes on the same IRA withdrawal -- it would still be a money maker for Thomas Carden, er, Elmer Gantry. But, hey -- if my theory on Por 162 is correct (i.e., don't even declare it to Thailand, as it's pre 2024 income) -- Carden's scam is still completely in play. Anyway, Jingthing -- be careful on how much credence you give to tax advisors. As Ben Hartman has raved on and on about -- they're all illegal crooks. And, yes, Ben is referring to not having legal credentials to practice in Thailand. My example is about a crook who lacks integrity. But, of course, none of this helps in determining if correct interpretation of TRD dicates are correct -- from any of these questionable so-called tax advisors....