JimGant

That is so absurd that I'm finally convinced you have a maniacal chuckle when you post, knowing you're pulling our chains and driving us nuts.

You've got my curiosity up... What was the difference between her figures and deduction/allowance categories -- and yours? Thanx.

Well, before Por 161, out year remittances weren't considered income for taxation purposes. The 10 year audit window was, then, to monitor income from within Thailand. I think I might feel fairly secure that once my income had been processed by my home country tax service -- in my case, the IRS -- I could consider it savings. And, I'd probably self-assess on that basis. But, I certainly wouldn't welcome the chance to explain this to an auditor.... Nevertheless, this is another gray area among many in this new world of Thai taxation -- and with any gray area, you take the fork in the road that is to your advantage.

Jingthing, we'll never agree on this -- so I guess you'll pay taxes on any remittances from your IRA, and I won't. And, should I ever be audited, I'll flash the Por 162 definition: All the money in my Traditional IRA was foreign sourced income. Most were the original income deposits several decades ago. Subsequently, as the IRA was in securities, every year unrealized capital gains were "realized," i.e., became income. However, as they were in an IRA, they were reinvested. Thus, as of Dec 31, 2023 -- my IRA consisted totally of foreign sourced income -- which is what Por 162 is about. I know Expatthai tax says, nope, that income must be in a bank account to qualify for Por 162 exemption. Don't know where they got that from -- maybe at a cocktail party with TRD agents. But their say-so ain't good enough for me. So, any other agencies out there, that you've heard of, saying the same thing about only bank accounts? I would think, if you plan to pay taxes to Thailand on your remitted IRA proceeds, that you would get some reassurance from Expatthai tax. Would love to hear their side of this story.

This is called co-signatory, and I have it with my wife on my Bangkok Bank savings account. And, yes, her name only visible under black light, so no 'joint account' aspect to queer Immigration. Also, we've online banking, and that would be her first avenue to draining my account upon death. Co-signatory is backup, where she could walz into the bank, with my passbook, and drain my account. Supposedly not above board if I'm dead -- but bank doesn't get reports of client deaths. And, since wife is sole heir in my Will, no aggrieved party to squawk. Fait accompli comes to mind. Probation reportedly starts at 50,000bt, and takes many months. Certainly not worth it for a bank account, so backdoor procedures seem the way to go. Even our bank manager gave us a wink, wink on this procedure -- having no love for the lawyer mafia presumably. Again, who's going to file a claim, if wife is sole heir and executor in my Will..... Co-signatory also a good policy, should you be flat on your back in a coma.

That's the best question asked on this forum in ages. Say your rental income from 2024 rests in your bank account until 2030, when you, as a Thai tax resident, finally remit it to Thailand. How will it be treated? Bounce that off of the following: This says, yeah, when remitted to Thailand in 2030, it has to be declared as income. That's bonkers! How about remitted in 2045? At some point income transitions into savings. And I would suggest that point is when subject income has gone through your home country tax process, either to be taxed, to not be taxed, or to be determined as tax exempt. After which, it is no longer income. Would TRD buy that? Dunno. Of course, the same logic could be applied to: 2024 rental income being declared when you file your home country taxes in 2025. Then, after it's gone through this home country tax process, it becomes savings. And, as such, if you then remit it to Thailand after doing your home country taxes, it is, as savings, no longer taxable by Thailand. This might be a stretch, as far as TRD is concerned. But what exactly is the difference in this scenario between after tax rental income in home country bank account, after home country tax return accomplished in 2025 -- and same scenario, but now in 2045? So, yeah -- big question -- when does income transform into savings? Hmmmm.

Are you serious? Nobody can tell you anything.

His last sentence is dead wrong, where he says: Taxability of a wire transfer depends on "the underlying purpose of the funds being transferred." Nonsense. Taxability depends on the nature of the funds transferred, whether income or not -- and if income, whether or not Thailand considers it assessable (taxable) income. Shame on you, Benjamin. You're beginning to sound like Thomas Carden.

Hey, don't confuse him. It's already apparent he's fixated on a non sequitor.

Please, file your Thai tax return, declare your UK govt pension -- taxable only by UK, per DTA -- and pay whatever Thai tax is arrived at. Since there are no lines for tax credits against non assesable income -- pay the tax as if it were assessable income. Then, I would feel justice has been done.

Are you really that stupid? How is a pension only taxable in home country, per DTA, also taxable in Thailand? I really think you have a screw loose. This conversation has become more than absurd.

But the terms can be used interchangeably. How many time have you fallen off your tricycle?

I'm curious. Why ask the TRD clerk anything? Can't you just hand in your paper tax return without any discussion? Which begs the question -- if I ever have to file, can I just mail in the paper tax return?

Try again, after reading @Guavaman excellent summary on the previous page NDN, let me help you out in language the Cyclist can understand: So, this confirms TRD is only interested in income that is NOT exempt for the purpose of income tax calculation, thus no need to declare all remittances to include income exempt for the purpose of income tax calculation. Duh.

Well, Thailand could override their DTAs, as long as the spirit of no double taxation isn't violated. A perfect example is the "saving clause" in all US DTAs, which gives the US secondary taxation rights on most income. For example, the US-Thai DTA gives "exclusive" taxation rights to Thailand on my private pension remittances. However, the "saving clause" override allows the US secondary taxation rights on this income. Not saying Thailand would claim secondary taxation rights on those incomes the DTA says are only taxable by the home country -- if the home country decides not to tax them. This statement can have various interpretations, IMO: Maybe they're saying, "We're not interested in foreign pensions taxed in the home country. But if they're not, we'll revert back to the language of the specific DTA." Which would exclude secondary taxation rights in some cases, like govt pensions. Anyway, who knows. Just sounds like a workaround to ease matters on taxing foreign pensions. Would be nice if they reiterated this position. Here's some language on treaty overrides:

You ARE smoking something....!

I think you've nailed it. Remember at the beginning of this goat rope, back in Sept 2023, where this was the prominent headline: What could be a better solution to simplifying DTA language? Just declare that home countries always have primary taxation authority on home country pensions -- and Thailand has secondary taxation authority, when the home country doesn't exercise its primary taxation authority. This doesn't in any way compromise the spirit of a DTA, since the principal of no double taxation is still adhered to. It would, of course, have to rely on self-assessment, as any enforcement would only come from random compliance audits (which may not even exist). But, now, if your home country doesn't tax your pension, Thailand has a hook for you. Easy to ignore, if integrity is not your thing. Anyway, it really does seem that this early guidance by TRD became mantra with all (or many) of the sub TRD offices. Would be nice if the head daddy rabbit at TRD could reiterate this policy to the rest of us....

My god, man -- what are you smoking? As you've been repeatedly reminded, under today's self assessment system, you only declare on your tax return assessable pensions (and other assessable income). They're not interested in non taxable pension monies. Possibly your first clue is that there is no place on the tax return to indicate non assessable pensions. Duh. That in the future they might want to see all your pension income -- is a possibility. But we ain't there yet.

Or, what about remitting funds into your condo developer, funds you obtained in a loan from a home country bank. Non income, of course. Other remitted funds, like to your gardener or joint account, may or not be assessable income -- that's for you to assess. Where it's remitted to -- is irrelevant. Thus, come tax time, have good records of the sources of your remitted income, figure out what's assessable, and should go on a Thai tax return, then figure if, after TEDA, whether or not this is taxable. If so, pay the taxes. Not too complicated.

Why? It's up to you to break out assessable remitted income from non assessable income. Then, only plug the assessable income into the tax return -- 'cause there aren't any lines for non assessable income. Subtract out TEDA a the 150k zero bracket -- and if you owe taxes, file. If not, consider ignoring those 60/120k thresholds -- and do this again next year.

Only if there's tax evasion involved -- and I think the consensus here is that, if you figure out on the back of an envelope that you owe taxes, best get a TIN, file a return, and pay tax due. But, if the only reason is that you might need to file, and get a TIN -- is because your assessable income exceeds an arbitrary threshold of 60 or 120k -- then realistic people might conclude it would be better to play a round of golf than rattle around a TRD office for the better part of a day: -- Particularly if your remittances are "average" (whatever one might conclude about that number) and would not bring attention to yourself. -- And, based on the above, that TRD doesn't have you in their files, 'cause you don't have a TIN, you never filed a return, you don't have a "large" remittance number of interest, and they don't know if you've been here over 180 days (unless a "large" remittance maybe had them research this). Anyway, why hyperventilate about not filing 'cause you exceeded an arbitrary threshold? They've never heard of you, so you won't be called in for a chat. And in the remote chance you are -- the fine is 2000bt -- a fine highly unlikely for being issued for not filing a blank tax return. Just make sure you've got solid data on what remitted income is assessable, and what income is not assessable. Then, punch in the numbers -- and if taxes are due -- get a TIN and file. Otherwise, kick back and relax. Really -- until they start enforcing filing null tax returns -- why get stressed......?

Does your country's DTA not protect against double taxation? Or are you confusing finally having to pay taxes to someone -- as double taxation? Many on this forum are whining, 'cause they're in the latter situation. Breaks my heart.

And, if US taxes on your IRA are higher than Thai taxes, creative theory becomes a non player.

The country with exclusive taxation authority (language often says, "may ONLY be taxed") never has to absorb a tax credit -- they get to keep the whole enchilada. Your example of Thailand absorbing a tax credit for taxes paid to the US on an IRA -- is not how it works.