JimGant

Hey, you got me on that one, you sly mother.

Certainly not covered in the Thai Civil and Commercial Code -- and most certainly not in the Criminal Code. No one is responsible for notifying a bank of an account holder's death -- not the police; not the tessaban, where the death certificate is issued; and not the embassy of the foreigner -- as if they would even have the foggiest of where the deceased banked. Now it is conceivable that a hospital, where the deceased wracked up substantial bills, would have an interest in identifying the deceased's bank, then notifying the bank of the death, in hopes that the bank had a policy on freezing all accounts, including joint, upon death..... But no one is required to notify the bank of the death of an account holder, including a joint account holder. There's apparently some confusion amongst the banks and bank managers about what to do when a joint owner dies, if they're so notified. The "right of survivorship" is quite possibly an individual bank's policy, as it's not apparent in the law anywhere I can find. Thus, when certain banks become aware of the death of a joint owner, they'll freeze that account and await probation, same as if it were a single account. But this would seem to be the exception, as a simple search most often finds this answer about Thai joint accounts: But as this thread's OP has shown, and what various Will articles over the years on this forum have shown -- best to clean out the joint account upon the death of a joint owner, lest word of the death reaches the ears of a confused bank manager. Certainly nothing illegal about this, as you, the joint owner, have no legal obligation to notify the bank of the joint account holder's death.

She was forced to provide it in order to get a new joint account passbook, or to cancel the joint account. But she, as a joint "either/or" account holder, could continue to drain the joint account legally (with no need of a passbook, as it's filled, to do so -- just provide the withdrawal slip at the counter) Also, there is no Thai law that freezes joint accounts upon death of one owner, contrary to what we sometimes see on this forum on the many vast Will discussions. Instead, Thailand adheres to the "joint tenant with right of survivorship (JTWROS) concept, common in the West, and accepted here, where the remaining joint owner of a bank account gets 100%, with no probate needed. Thus certainly no off-base bank administrator dictating the freezing of such a joint account should be adhered to. But, hey, what can you do in such circumstances....

Wrong. Depositors (including all foreign depositors) in the affected failed US banks are being made whole, regardless if their deposits exceed the $250K FDIC cap. This was quick-action Biden, but a no-brainer, since "bank run mentality" had to be avoided by those with deposits over $250K, which, incidentally, are a small minority. Seems to have worked, as no signs of "bank run mentality" as Monday dawned. So, for depositors in Thai banks with deposits well over 1M baht -- don't worry. The Thai banking system and the gov't agencies that monitor this system -- are solid. As the DPA will cover over 90% of depositors (i.e., the average guy), those depositors above the 1M baht ceiling (me) should sleep soundly, knowing any bank hiccups would have depositors fully covered by any gov't with a modicum of sense.

Yeah, two days wasted on a trip to Bangkok, plus khaki trousers and a collared shirt. Nice of them not to require a neck tie.

Ryan, these "folks" are those who don't qualify. For those who travel a lot, like you, the eternal reentry permit is golden. But even for those, like me, who don't travel at all, the LTR is advantageous. My only problem is that I've been informed that I can't show up in shorts for the final processing. Thus, off to the tailor for some khaki pants with the added circumference for my new gut. Sigh.

Hmmm. I'm retired US Air Force. My 20 year pension, plus Social Security, got me to $3000 short of $80k, which was then made up with IRA sales, already dictated by the US law for Required Minimum Distribution. This was last year. This year, due to the 8.7% cost of living raise to my Air Force pension and Social Security -- I wouldn't even need my IRA to meet requirements. And since LTR now allows me to use my Air Force Tricare health care policy to satisfy the LTR health care requirement -- this will save me big time, since I can cancel the Thai Insurance requirement to extend my OA visa. So, off to Bangkok and BoI -- a jog I didn't want to make, since I hate to travel to Bangkok. But, now it's worth it. But, yeah, the target market for the LTR Wealthy Pensioner visa wasn't exactly well thought out. Most wealthy pensioners who want to live in Thailand -- already live here! Hey, it's not hard to get a retirement visa, so those wealthy pensioners who desired Thailand - are already here. And many don't mind spending 10 minutes online every 90 days to do a report. Maybe once per year to Imm for an extension is more onerous, especially if you live in the sticks, but maybe for most, no. Thus, a drip and drab of already here "wealthy" pensioners (I would maintain "not too wealthy" is more definitive) are applying for the LTR. And now, with this Tricare allowance, plus so many Vietnam era retired US military here -- we may see a slight bump up of applications. But, hey, nothing to make this program shine. You could shine up the program by allowing property ownership by foreigners -- and I'm sure that would knock the door down. But, we've already seen how counter productive this was with other countries that allowed foreigners to own property -- and outbid the locals. No thanks. And I hope the decision makers in Thailand understand this, and that it would be better to allow LTR to fail, than to harvest foreign land speculators. Anyway, some of us here will benefit from the Wealthy Pensioner LTR. And others, who don't qualify, will continue to whine.

Actually, a lease also survives the death of the lessor, or transfer of title.

Perfectly valid for those of us in solid marriages. Since I can't own the wife's land upon her death, a usufruct will allow me to keep living on that land regardless of what Thai takes title. Reading the material on 30 year leases, they're a different animal under Thai law and, unlike a usufruct, appear to be divorce-proof. Would need someone versed in Thai law to confirm that, however.

So too with leases. I'm written into my wife's chanotes as the lessee, same as if we had a usufruct.

This really should be the point of this whole discussion, either lease or usufruct. After 44 years of marriage, not too worried about my leases being cancelled. But if the wife dies, the land with the leases go to me. And I then have a year to find Thai owners, which will be my niece and nephew. Regardless of whatever Thais take ownership, I'll have the right to live on the property for the duration of the leases, which well exceed my life expectancy. The new owners are thus stuck with a geezer on the property, meaning my nieces and nephews don't really have any attractive re-sale options, should we have a falling out.

Doubt she can cancel out of spite, as it is a legal contract between lessor and lessee. Certainly, if you the lessee dies, she can amend the chanote to cancel out the lease. Also, if you don't maintain the property by reasonable standards, probably also grounds for lease cancellation. But out of spite -- doubtful.

Not legally. You, the lessee, are written into the chanote, at least for 30 years.

With luck, a KGB press gang will arrive to show him a uniform and the way to the front line.

If they really needed a breakout of a joint return, TurboTax (and probably other tax software) thoroughly divides up the supporting documentation to reflect each joint filer's numbers.

Update. I earlier reported that when I did my RMD last year, selling mutual funds in my IRA, I was flagged when trying to do it online that I had to do it by telephone -- and their flag provided the phone number. (Because my address of record was in Thailand.) This year doing my RMD, when I went online, thinking I'd get the same flag and phone number -- nothing popped up when I indicated I wanted to sell some mutual funds in my IRA. Instead, I was allowed to proceed, which I did, and voila -- RMD done online, with no $25 dollar fee like with last year's phone transaction. Who knows. Nothing has changed -- still have a Thai address. And I haven't seen any policy changes sent out. Curious.

USA probably included for benchmark purposes.

This thread seems to be about UK transfer items. Are any Yanks here experiencing slowdowns or other items? I just put in a transfer request of $25,000; direct debit (ACH) from my bank account (long established, and used many times before). This was today (Feb 15) at 7:00AM Thai time. Was told the transfer would arrive 8 days later, on Feb 23. Wow. That's the longest it's ever been, as normally only 2 to 3 days -- but never ever instantly. When I put in a less amount ($20,000), it said it would arrive on Feb 22. Now, for amounts between $3,000 and $19,000, it said it would arrive in 6 hours. For $2,000, would arrive in seconds. None of this was affected by purpose of transfer, as that check block was filled in after I got the transfer times. Curious. Maybe as it's an ACH "pull" from my bank, there are different time frames for different amounts....... Unlikely, but dunno. No big deal, as I'm never in need of immediate funds. But 8 days seems excessive. Any folks out there with similar (or not) US to Thai transfer experience? I do know by reading these Wise threads that UK Wise transfers are on a different planet than US Wise transfers.

Ah, you are a youngster. 78 was the standard in my youth.

Ah, maybe that's it, as I stop by the bank in the morning of my Imm visit, to pick up bank reports and then have clerk update passbook, as she can then photocopy that update, as required by Imm (and precluding me from having to stand in line at the photocopy machine at Imm). Obviously, then, Imm shouldn't need any activity, if today's recorded balance doesn't need such activity. (Not to say that some IO's don't confuse their training with reality.)

Yeah, but a lot more efficient to dust off last year's FBAR PDF, unsign it, then fill in only that information that's changed. Of course, if everything has changed since last year's filing, I guess filing online wouldn't be any more onerous -- unless the power goes off.....

Filling out the offline PDF won't work with Firefox -- you need Acrobat (the free Reader version works). When you check Thailand in the country drop down box, the state box greys out. Interestingly, older versions of Adobe Acrobat, like version 7, also fail to activate the drop down boxes.

Per TallGuy, if you bank with Krungsri, Imm will need to see activity to get a current balance. But if you bank with Bangkok Bank, no activity needed. For readers trying to complete their checklist, what other banks like Krungsri will need "activity" to record a current balance in their passbook....

Why activity? My Bangkok Bank passbook, when stuck into the machine, will move the latest balance down one line and add today's date. And CM Imm doesn't require any activity with an updated passbook. Is this peculiar to CW? Or just for some banks other than Bangkok Bank? Seems odd, since activity will now mean your passbook balance doesn't match that of your bank letter (not that the IO couldn't figure out why).

Ok. Sifting thru data on this thread, it looks like Imm knows LTR visas warrant five year permission of stay stamps, not ten. On page 20 of that long "LTR Visa is Now...." thread, ThailandRyan shows us the ink stamps he got from BoI when issued his LTR visa. Besides the 10 year visa stamp, there's a five year permission of stay stamp (with an "until" date expiring when the five year renewal process is due, i.e., five years from date of issue). And a re-entry stamp, also for five years and also expiring on the "until" date of five years. Thus, easy for Imm at the border to figure out what permission of stay to stamp, being highly familiar with re entry stamps, where the "until" date is used for the "until" date on the new permission of stay stamp. But what about a sticker visa obtained outside Thailand? Look here to see aublumberg's Hong Kong issued sticker: https://aseannow.com/topic/1265383-ltr-visa-is-now-available-for-long-term-residency/page/23/ Looks like lextsy's, right? His had an issue date of Oct 18, 2022 and an expiration date of 17 Oct 2032. Now, look what happened when aublumberg entered Thailand a week or so after visa issue: https://aseannow.com/topic/1265383-ltr-visa-is-now-available-for-long-term-residency/page/29/ He was stamped in for five years, beginning on the date he entered Thailand, not five years from date of issue of the visa. Had he a reentry permit like Ryan, whose LTR was issued in Bangkok, Imm at the airport would have had an experienced situation on when the five year permission stamp's "until" date should be. Anyway, lextsy, when you enter Thailand, don't be overly alarmed on what your five year permission of stay's stamp "until" date is -- whatever it is, no problems with either. As Ryan pointed out, 60 days before your five year anniversary comes due, you'll get a notice from BoI about the renewal requirement. Whatever your permission of stay says at the time, would be irrelevant. [Now, when there's less than five years left on your visa, and you're still getting stamped in for five years -- well, yeah, that would need to be fixed.]