JimGant

Yeah, Canada, you've been able to do this, like most non-US members of NATO -- with their grandiose social programs --on the back of the US, who funds 2/3rds of NATO with nearly 1 trillion dollars annually! You, Canada, are one of the pikers:

Joe Blow retires in home country in 2025. He has a private pension, which he salts away in a savings account established in 2025. He does the same for his private pensions earned in 2026 thru 2032 -- living off of only his social security. In 2033 Joe Blow moves to Thailand, and is here most of the year and is thus a tax resident. Joe Blow wires all his 2025-2032 savings to Thailand in 2033. Sanity and common sense would dictate that Thailand has no tax claim against those salted away private pensions, even tho' the DTA says Thailand has primary taxation rights on private pensions. And, of course, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, if Thailand just taxed income, and not remitted income. Of course, the TRD MFWIC might be insane, with no common sense..... The other side of the coin..... Fat cat Thai billionaire, a tax resident of Thailand, earns zillions of dollars abroad, but never remits it to Thailand. Now, this year, 2025, he leaves Thailand for 7 months -- and remits those zillions in foreign income. Would they be taxable when bounced against this: A non-resident is, however, subject to tax only on income from sources in Thailand. Hmmm. If so, certainly give incentive to hop on your yacht and take an extended vacation.

How about the transgender who's just been told by the new administration that he/she/it can't play on the womens' soccer team?

What are you talking about? Certainly not the Earned Income Tax Credit, which has been around 50 years? And, I got a 'no joy' when I tried to log into your 'taxpayer advocate' link.... Nope. The 'saving clause' found in all US DTAs allows the US to tax all income regardless of what the DTA says (with a few exceptions, like alimony). Yes, in these situations the US is secondary tax authority -- and has to reduce its tax bill with a credit for Thai taxes paid. But there is no option to "opt out" for filing and paying US taxes (if not overwhelmed by the tax credit). I hope you're not referring to the Thomas Carden scheme, where he maintains (incorrectly) that there's an exclusion in the Thai-US DTA, allowing a US citizen, who's a Thai tax resident, to not pay US taxes on his IRA cashout, remitted to Thailand?

Hey, now the US can participate in greasing palms, as Trump has ended enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. I guess he understands there are many aspects to the "art of the deal."

Me neither. But having to drink my wine out of a coffee cup sucked.

You must be in the wrong thread. The tax advantage of an LTR visa means never having to prove you weren't here less than 180 days.

True, as long as that deduction is against taxes paid on the same income. Thus, if Thailand charges taxes against your remitted Roth IRA, you couldn't take a tax a deduction against your US taxes -- since there are no US taxes on your Roth. However, if I had remitted Roth income to Thailand in 2024 (or later), Thailand wouldn't tax my Roth, 'cause I wouldn't have even declared it on a tax return, using Por 162 to show my Roth was pre 2024 income -- and thus non assessable.

I would think pre 2024 income used to buy a CD would qualify under Por 162. That some folks, like Expattax Thai, say only savings in a bank account qualifies -- flies in the face of logic: why would Por 162 not cover a near liquid cash account like a CD? Anyway, this will all sort out eventually, I hope.

Are all your US holdings financial, i.e., no property holdings? If so, PoD (Totten Trust) and designated beneficiary will replace need for a Will.

Sorry, I must be dense. How can I avoid tax on a conversion to a Roth by being on a long vacation? -- not being in the US for 180 days doesn't quite play out for a citizen. And no significant income? Kinda hard to do if you've got a significant annual pension.

Wow. That's 180 degrees out from what Expatthaitax has been saying (and which many of us, and TRD hotline, have taken issue with). And you're saying your Roth is also pre-2024 savings -- which I certainly agree with. But which Expatthaitax says, nope, has to be cash in a bank account. Bonkers -- although they didn't just dream this up, so must be a high level tip from a TRD type -- whose identity would be interesting to know.

I'm just curious about his famous tax evasive scheme on Traditional IRAs. Maybe you've already converted yours to a Roth.....which, of course, means you had to pay Uncle Sam taxes on those conversions -- when you could have hired Carden and sold all your Traditional IRAs tax free! 🙂

Gosh they're stupid. By saying that, they're chasing away customers, who might have paid 7500 +15000, but didn't owe any taxes -- but had read on this forum about the horrors of not filing if you exceeded the 60/120/220k assessable income thresholds.

John, if that were true, it would be headline news in the expat community.... I can't believe you went to Carden. First, I know you're smart enough to do your own taxes. Second, you were in on that thread several years back regarding Carden's illegal scheme -- which he successfully sold to many Americans -- whereby you never have to pay any taxes, to either Thailand or the US, on your Traditional IRA cashout -- as long as you're a Thai tax resident. Imagine. Move to Thailand -- the only country in the world where Americans, according to Carden, uniquely have an exemption in the tax treaty language to avoid IRA taxation. Wow! Too good to be true!? Duh. And I just re-read some of your comments on this old thread, namely, that Carden's advertised educational bonafides are really weak. Plus, he's only an Enrolled Agent, whose only educational requirement is a "high school diploma." Yes, there are a lot of good, sharp EAs out there. Carden isn't one of them. He's a charlatan, and I believe Ben Hart has already honed in on this. Oh, did you ask him about tax exempt IRAs? I believe Por 161 may have put a knot in his tail. Which is good, since apparently his scheme was under the radar as far as the IRS was concerned.

Or, how about we say some or our remittances are non assessable, while others are assessable. Let's call this novel notion: self-assessment. We fill out the tax return ourselves, using the grey matter between our ears -- and file online, or by mail, or drop box. No hand holding by TRD. And TRD's limited resources could then be restricted to compliance audits. And maybe -- this is why they're collecting bank statements but not analyzing them -- they're looking at the bottom number -- and a large remittance number but not a comparable tax return -- brings you to the front of the line for compliance audit.....

Nope. Just in Germany. Their DTA pretty much looks like all the others, since they all follow pretty religiously the OECD and UN Model Tax Treaties. Actually, the only country's DTA I came across, where Thailand has primary taxation rights on civil service/military pensions is Norway. [And here, Norway will tax it all, if you can't show you paid tax to Thailand on it.]

How did you carve that up, using the DTA and Por 162? (Obviously, only you could provide the info) 1. 30% from govt pension, so non assessable per DTA 2. 10% from military pension, so non assessable per DTA 3. 30% from rental of home; secondarily assessable, but have to grant credit for tax paid to home country- DTA 4. 10% from private pension, so assessable income per DTA 5. 20% from pre 2024 savings, thus non assessable per Por 162 Re-reading your post, I see where they didn't ask you for any details. So just why did they ask for this information, as it doesn't drive assessable vs non assessable income to be filled in on your tax return? Lunacy.

I don't know what that quote was intended to convey, or from whom, or at what level. It came about early in the Por 161 goat rope -- and maybe we'll hear no more about it. Actually, the US always (because of the saving clause) has the right, albeit secondarily, to tax income the DTA says is "exclusively" taxable by Thailand. Thus, if this phrase resurfaces with some authority, certainly Yanks should have no reason to file a Thai tax return. Germans, for example, will -- if they remit private pensions to Thailand.

DTA gives exclusive taxation rights to US on "pensions paid for service to the government." This is NOT exclusive to the Federal govt, but also includes state and local govts. Which would include pensions paid to policemen and firemen. Is the key here: Paid taxes on it already? Thus, would private pensions, which ARE assessable by Thailand per DTA, also be treated as non assessable, like govt pensions, 'cause you've paid US tax on them? Back in Sept 2023, when Por 161 came out, remember this phrase from somewhere in the Thai govt: Would be nice if they reiterated this formally. For Yanks, because we do have to pay tax on all our worldwide income, this would certainly put to rest the requirement to pay taxes on foreign income to Thailand. But for those who, because they're no longer residents, don't have to pay home country taxes on their income -- well, Thailand has their hand out to you. Welcome to the world of having to pay someone taxes. So sad.

Read the LTR thread. I think you'll find that BOI -- the LTR visa folks -- have snuffed the notion that only prior year income is exempt from taxation. Their say on LTR visas, and the tax exemptions derived from, certainly should hold more sway than Siam Legal. Again, all these firms reaching out to hold your hand, and pocket book, re new tax regulations -- should be discounted accordingly.

Yeah, a real Elmer Gantry.

Carden's a friggin' snake oil salesman. He's the one, as you remember, advertised to US tax payers that, if you're here for over 180 days (i.e., a tax resident), you can cash-in your Traditional IRA tax free -- no US, no Thai taxes, because of how he interprets the wording of the DTA. Bonkers, really -- move to Thailand and cash in your tax deferred Traditional IRA tax free ....? Seemingly, however, he's gotten away with this scheme, as the IRS has bigger fish to fry. Not sure how he manages this now, with Por 161 in effect... Anyway, keep Carden at arms length, and more.

FATCA reports income, not remittances. You think FATCA was reworded to accomodate weirdo countries like Thailand and Malta, the only two countries that tax remittances, not income per se. Nope. FATCA only looks at income -- to include Thailand and Malta.

Bingo. A video by Integrity Legal points this out -- the requirement to get a TIN, if assessable income exceeds some number, is NOT codified. Also, not codified is the 60/120/220k filing thresholds. Relax,folks. Yes, if your assessable income exceeds TEDA/zero bracket amount -- and then you now have taxable income -- by all means get a TIN and file a tax return. Otherwise, chill out.