JimGant

Well, up to you, of course. But I'm certain (unless TRD publishes something that supports Expatthai's position) my argument would have a great chance to prevail -- but at worst, would certainly show a no tax evasion scenario. Thus, pay the tax, plus interest. But, a 100% chance of paying Thai tax on your IRA, vs a 1% estimated chance of random compliance audit, and then paying tax on your IRA -- doesn't seem like a contest. Anyway, based on your previous postings of your annual income, you would probably owe no Thai taxes anyway, after TEDA subtractions. So, this whole drill is only about needing to file 'cause you break the 60/120/220 filing thresholds.

Not if you don't show them on your Thai tax return. And, yes, there are some folks, even on this thread, that would like for TRD to demand you show non assessable income on your tax return. We ain't there yet -- and, hopefully, never will be

Actually, if you decide your IRA remittance is not assessable income, then, if you file a Thai tax return -- there's nothing on your Thai tax return to indicate your IRA income. What, exactly, would come into TRD's focus to warrant an audit? No, my argument, I'm sure, would be appreciated in any audit -- and worst case -- you then pay the tax owed, plus interest. But, this revisits the argument -- why even declare it, and pay tax on it -- when the chance that it will be identified for an audit is almost zip?

Well, Expatthailand is, if nothing more, forthcoming: Having said that, let's look at Por 162, which says: Expatthailand says this can only apply to foreign sourced income residing in a bank acount. Where, pray tell, did they get this interpretation? I can only assume they didn;t invent it -- so maybe somebody from TRD gave them a briefing..... However, unless a definitive TRD interpretation -- and one I could hold in my hands -- I'd still maintain that my interpretation would be solid enough to withstand scrutiny. And my interpretation of why my IRA account would qualify under Por 162: Anyway, sorry if this is a repeat -- but it really is pertinent for US expats, with IRAs or 401ks. First, your IRA consists of contributed income, that becomes tax deferred income. That in no way subtracts from the Por 162 definer: pre 2024 income. Then, like in my case, where my IRA is a mutual stock fund, that twice a year, takes my accumulated unrealized capital gains, and converts to realized cap gains -- and income -- that now also qualifies as pre 2024 income -- and subject to Por 162. So, remittances to Thailand of my IRA are, in my opinion, certainly covered by Por 162 -- and I can invoke FIFO to eliminate the 2024 cap gain reinvestment as part of that remittance. So, absent anything in writing from TRD, you can safely ignore Expatthai -- and use your own brainpower to interpret things. As a gray area, why would you not give yourself the benefit of the doubt? As I've previously said, if you do pay Thailand on your IRA, you still have to file with the US, who will take a tax credit for those Thai taxes -- and you'll probably be in a no net tax situation. So, my argument is from principal, not cash flow. But, as smooth as Expatthai comes across -- they still appear not to be completely above board (but, hey, they're in the business of making money).

Bingo. Nothing has changed from TY 2023 to TY2024, requiring a unique new form. In fact, if you look at the form for 2023, you'll see it's just boilerplate - for Tax Year at the top of the page, there's just a blank line to be filled in (unlike a US 1040, with an embedded tax year). Thus, why would you expect a new form for TY2024, since you just fill in the blank lines with your new self-assessed numbers -----? And, yes, your self assessment, banged against Por 161 and 162 guidance, would be different on a boilerplate 2023 form vs a 2024 form. But, hey, we're talking about a form full of blank lines, but categories thqt haven't changed between tax years. So, if you're going to file in person, quit waiting for a new form -- the online filers have already shown there's no difference in format from 2023 to 2024. So, don't expect a new hard copy boilerplate form. I know this observation will disappoint those wanting a new form, with lines to include non assessable income. Lord knows why they want this...but, fortunately, TRD is only interested in numbers pertinent to generating income for Thailand.

All DTAs with Thailand adhere to OECD and UN Model language. There is no language in any of these DTAs that addresses "remittances." Income in the DTAs address income where it arises. And which country gets to tax the owner of that income. Period. Thus, Thailand's DTAs won't require any rewickering, when things go to worldwide taxation by Thailand -- and the remittance baloney goes away. That Thailand wants to put a domestic tweak on DTAs, namely, the remittance aspect -- no problem, as long as it doesn't affect the purpose of the DTA, namely, preventing double taxation. But -- this peculiar Thai remittance aspect is not even part and parcel of any DTA (like the US saving clause). It's just a local law that addresses how Thailand treats income addressed in DTAs. Thus, it's not even a tax treaty override, which are frowned upon, but are allowed: https://repository.law.umich.edu/book_chapters/330/

Which was bizarre, since the subject at hand is the requirement for remittance reporting to adhere to CRS reporting requirements. There's already enough thread creep here -- but if you really want some more, then I'll explore "resident alien" in the US and how it pertains to CRS reporting. Should be interesting.

I guess I do, since I'm not sure what this has to do with how remittance income reporting has any impact on CRS reporting.... since 99% of the OECD reporting world in the CRS system does not consider remittances. So, if Thailand joins the rest of the world, by ignoring the remittance aspect of income -- just what will change? If something will -- then I'll give a nod to your position that income remittances are currently a player. I won't hold my breath, however, that your reply will resonate with reality.

Geez, are you daft? Can't your grasp the gist of what I said? When Thailand exits the weird world of remitted income taxation, their CRS (and FATCA) reporting will in no way be affected -- 'cause the remittance aspect never affected these reporting standards.

.... and not from some bumpkin in a dusty roadside RD office.

When Thailand switches to worldwide income taxation, and the remittance nature of income goes bye bye -- what in the world will change in the way Thailand reports CRS and FATCA related data? Nothing, 'cause what they're reporting are existing financial accounts and their related annual income. That these accounts were established and nourished with remitted funds (income or otherwise), makes no never mind -- they may have been established from sale money from a house, gambling proceeds, whatever. The remittance aspect just never comes into view. I guess he just couldn't process it properly.

Yeah, for sure you've gotten weird, when you say a SWIFT or Wise transfer won't do -- only a direct deposit of non assessable incomes. What about a SWIFT transfer from an account holding only govt pensions.......... Nevermind.

You're starting to get weird. You're saying, short of a direct deposit of a DTA exempt income amount, that self assessment of a Wise deposit won't work, and that you have to go for a face-to-face at your local TRD office for verification? Maybe in the remote chance of an audit -- but not up front with an ordinary tax filing with, of course, self assessment. You've said this before in many posts, that you need to have your local TRD agent verify all your assumptions about assessable vs non assessable income. This is just nonsense. Then, when I mention electronic filing, pointing out that TRD will be out of the loop for any verification -- I get this: Don't your really understand that even Thai TRD is trying to become more efficient, and that agents will only become involved in an audit situation? I guess it will be kinda sad that you will no longer to be able to drop in to your local TRD to get reassurance on your tax filings.

How do you do that when you electronically file?

How's that going to identify tax evasion? The money I remit to Thailand has already gone through the tax assessment process in my home country -- no evasion here. Then, if such money is remitted to Thailand, some, maybe none, is subject to Thai taxation, per DTA and/or Por 162. This, per self assessment, will be included on a tax return, if required. But certainly not all remitted income need reporting, since most (all?) will be non taxable per DTA/Por 162. Anyway, we get back to the key observation: FATCA and CRS are not in the business of identifying cash flows, but in identifying people with foreign accounts and what those accounts contain, and the income those accounts generate. Then, when this information is reported to home country, has subject income been subjected to required taxation?

Sorry. Sometimes its hard to attribute a quote to the right source when I cut and paste.

These "tax exemptions" are deductions against assessable income. To add non-assessable income in section B, you'd have to add non-assessable income to line A1 -- salary. Which would be bonkers.

Hey, FATCA isn't interested in any remittances I make to Thailand -- they're either from my savings account (already taxed money) or from my current account (already labelled for US taxation). Why would they care if it remained in account, or if I Wised it to Thailand -- since US taxes are already a done deal? But, they are interested in my existing financial accounts in Thailand -- and they, along with their income, will be reported if exceeding the $50/75k thresholds I previously discussed. Remittances -- and any Thai taxation -- are of no consideration.

Cm, you surprise me. Full disclosure of all remittances? If source of remittances is not instantly verifiable? Last year I remitted 215000 baht -- all from a savings account fully funded with pre 2024 income. TRD doesn't have the resources to verify this -- they'll just, realistically, have to rely on my self-assessment. Red flags, maybe -- but with no realistic way for TRD to audit each and every one of such remittances. What, pray tell, do you propose that TRD does? Certainly, putting a line item on your tax return with non assessable income won't change matters. (But it could give TRD a better picture of who to audit.)

That's the biggest piece of horse sh** I've ever heard. Declarable, how? The tax returns are only interested in assessable income, not income exempt per DTA or Por 162. (Sorry, guess I'm beating a dead horse.)

Oh, geez -- you think TRD is going to wander thru all of your reported assessable income, then thru non assessable income now required to be reported? There's a reason the term "self-assessment" was invented.

FATCA, and its son, CRS, aren't interested in the movement of money. It's a "balance sheet" approach, vs a "cash flow" approach, meaning: For FATCA, if the aggregate of my Thai bank accounts exceed $50,000 at end of year (or $75,000 anytime during the year) my bank reports it, along with income earned on that money, to a Thai govt agency (TRD probably). They, then, are responsible for forwarding this info to the US. That I remitted one zillion baht during the year -- but it left my account the next day for a condo, and thus didn't earn any money -- would be reportable only because I exceeded $75,000 at one time during the year. But, no income associated. And certainly nothing that could be reportable on a Thai tax return, assuming a non assessable nature. I can only assume CRS reporting is similar, i.e., interest only in financial account balances and related income. Neither FATCA nor CRS reporting could have any interest in an odd duck like remittance income, applicable only to Thailand and Malta (and UK non residents who are tax residents, or some such thing, which I won't try and understand). So, for FATCA, to say banks need to report all remittances is rubbish. Reporting is only for those accounts that exceed those $50k/75k markers, whether by remittances or reinvested income.

And ignore how the PND91 form defines "exempt income?" Certainly the designers of that form have a better grasp on matters than the befuddled TRD clerk you've been dealing with....whose definitions are at odds with the central office. But, hey, knock yourself out. You seem to like the quest you're onto. By the way, the CRS gurus could care less about remittances, just as the FATCA gurus could care less. What your worldwide financial positions are, and their related annual incomes -- is what's of concern. How monies were remitted to those financial accounts has no relevance.

Box 2 is NOT for non assessable remitted income. Here is what it is for:

Well, one exception: You're self employed and have net income over $600. But, of course, the most obvious one for no taxes owed: Your standard deduction/itemized deductions exceeds your Adjusted Gross Income. Thus, no "taxable income." (Kinda like TEDA exceeds assessable income -- except "no filing required" must be a first world concept, i.e., one with no arbitrary filing thresholds.) Another is if you over withhold, or file excessive estimated taxes. Thus, Uncle Sam owes you a refund -- if you file to get it. Otherwise, don't file, let Uncle Sam keep the amount, and establish it to be about what you'd pay a tax return service. Result: A wash. This is what I've set up for the wife, for when I croak -- with an overwithholding amount approximating the cost of a tax accountant in Thailand.