JimGant

1 hour ago, JohnnyBD said:

Jim, please look at what hwas wrote in his post about what BOI told him. He said we are not grandfathered in. All income prior to getting a LTR does not qualify as tax exempt.

Yes, but all income after you get your LTR visa, remitted in the next tax year, is exempt. Non LTR holders no longer get this perk -- so I would say that's grandfathering for LTR holders.

14 hours ago, JohnnyBD said:

What's the point in getting a LTR visa if that's the case. That doesn't give LTRs any special privileges over non-LTRs.

Sure it does -- it grandfathers you into the old rules, so that you can remit all your 2024 income into Thailand on Jan 1 2025, without incurring a tax situation. That option's gone for non LTR visa holders. But, need to await further info from BoI.

11 hours ago, Dogmatix said:

However, it could be argued that an occupational private pension is income from an employment but a private pension set up by the pensioner which is not directly paid by the former employer would be a stretch.

I saw somewhere that pensions are considered income by Thailand. No further elaboration, but I would think both defined benefit (employer paid) and defined contribution (paid from current income) would qualify.

31 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

I don't know with absolute certainty if the law says we must file or not but my interpretation is that we should. It's odd that nobody feels the same way

 My latest household worker is payed a starting wage of 400baht per day. Six days a week, for 52 weeks, equals: 124,800 baht. Wow! Under the law, even tho' he's miles away from owing any tax, he's required to file a tax return. I'm going to call him in right now for a lecture on why he needs to file a tax return. NOT!

"It's odd that nobody feels the same way."  No, it's common sense.

1 hour ago, Mike Lister said:

when I do walk in to the TRD office to file my tax return, nobody says to me, Mr Mike, according to the rules, you don't need to file, you can go home!

I guess they need to humor you.

2 hours ago, JohnnyBD said:

Is it your understanding that once you get a LTR visa for Wealthy Pensioners, all of the money you remit to Thailand is tax exempt (no TIN, and no tax return need be filed), even if you're here for more than 180 days?, And, that you are tax exempt each year going forward as long as you have the LTR, not just the first year you get it?

Yes, as the current exemption for LTR holders is written. And doubtful that would ever be rescinded, as BoI (LTR honchos) is high horsepower, working directly under the Prime Minister.

2 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

and now I have the paper audit trail and a track record. There are worse ways  for a retiree to spend an hour of their life.

...to show you had no assessable income, and then, of course, no taxable income.? To what end? In case they came knocking on your door to look at your financials, which are apparently in such order that they wouldn't draw any attention for an audit in the first place? Why waste your time in the 1% chance you'll be subject to an audit? But if you were -- THEN you can proudly display your paperwork? Geez. The RD folks, when they see you wander into their office every year, must shake their heads -- and titter.

2 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

our willingness to file taxes for several years means I am a known entity with a proven track record with TRD (even though I didn't need to file a return, cough cough

You didn't need to file a return? You mean you filed a tax return with assessable income below 120k? Or with blank lines, because you had no assessable income? You like rubbing elbows with bureaucrats, and wasting a day, or part thereof, in an unnecessary endeavor? Seriously, this aspect of your dealing with RD has come up before -- with no logical answer.

Cough, cough -- how about, barf, barf.

3 hours ago, Yumthai said:

I think all non-residents for tax purposes Brits as @topt mentioned can confirm that they do not pay tax on their foreign-sources income even remitted in UK

Understood. My point was that, if UK can designate a certain kind of person as a 'resident,' because he meets certain parameters -- and this 'resident,' who moves abroad, must pay UK taxes on foreign income remitted to UK -- then Thailand can designate a certain kind of person subject to taxes on foreign income remitted, even if living abroad. I say, let them designate Thai citizens and permanent residents as the equivalent of the Brit "resident." And, of course in the new Thai directive, treat expat foreigners here on visas the same as the UK tax man treats his non-residents. Sounds good to me -- so I guess it will never happen.

46 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

Official information I can find online seems to indicate UK non-residents do not pay UK tax on their foreign-sourced income.

 As I said, the terminology is somewhat convoluted. In particular when they say, "If you're a UK resident but not domiciled in the UK..." -- the term "resident" here seemingly applies more to citizenship than to physical presence, since to me "resident" suggests physical presence.

Quote

 If you’re UK resident but not domiciled in the UK there are special rules which might apply to your foreign income and gains. In these circumstances you’ve a choice of whether to use the arising basis of taxation or the remittance basis of taxation. If you choose to use the remittance basis for a tax year you will pay UK tax on:

    any of your income and gains which arise/accrue in the UK
    any of your foreign income and gains that you, or another relevant person, brings (or remits) to the UK, even if that remittance occurs in a later tax year

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/residence-domicile-and-remittance-basis-rules-uk-tax-liability/guidance-note-for-residence-domicile-and-the-remittance-basis-rdr1

In your reference link, you forgot to go to the next paragraph, which says:

"Residents normally pay UK tax on all their income, whether it’s from the UK or abroad. But there are special rules for UK residents whose permanent home (‘domicile’) is abroad."

And that's where they go on to explain taxes on remitted income.

Anyway, my point was that Thailand, having only one other country that taxes remittances to imitate, may very well dictate new guidance, following the Brits, on the taxation of remittances from Thai citizens/permanent residents who took a long holiday in the hopes of avoiding taxation on their remittances.

But, I admit, my knowledge of Brit taxation is not thoroughly researched -- ever since we threw the tea into Boston Harbor.

4 hours ago, Yumthai said:

Is there any country that taxes its non-residents on foreign-sourced remittances?

 Only the UK, that I can find. Their explanation is somewhat convoluted to my reading; but it seems to say that a Brit citizen or permanent resident who expatriates (takes up a foreign domicile) and has foreign income while living in that domicile -- and who remits that income to the UK -- now has to pay UK taxes on it. Fair enough. Unlike the US, who would tax this income, remitted or not, the UK exempts its expats from paying UK taxes on foreign income -- unless remitted.

Should the Thais emulate this example, her citizens/permanent residents, who take up a new domicile for over a half year, wouldn't be able to escape Thai taxes on remitted foreign income, by saying they weren't tax residents in the year the foreign income was remitted. Per the Brit example, if you're a citizen or permanent resident, who expatriated -- remitted foreign income to the home country is taxable. Period.

Now, if the new Thai tax laws really are aimed at Thai citizens, not expats -- then emulating this Brit example would be great news for the expat, who *could* remit money tax free in a year when he's not a Thai tax resident -- 'cause he's not a Thai citizen or permanent resident either.

Pure speculation, of course. But if there's anyone home in the creative section of Thai RD, looking at the Brits makes solid sense.

46 minutes ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

I think the RD has stated that an IRA is a self-directed pension and would be taxed the same as a traditional defined benefit plan. In other words, the entire distribution would be assessable income

Only if that entire distribution was sent to Thailand. But if you filter your IRA distribution through an account with other, co-mingled inputs, from which you do your Wise transfer -- then you need some pretty creative accounting, to parse which funds are the oldest, and thus, under FIFO, are pre-2024 funds. Obviously, RD needs to address this co-mingling problem. But, meanwhile, you can take advantage of the vacuum to give yourself full advantage. Unless they can present some order we're not aware of, that would override your FIFO, what jeopardy could you possibly be subject to.....?

1 hour ago, Yumthai said:

That statement implies you are tax resident while bringing foreign-sourced income in any tax year (while being tax resident) into Thailand. 

Yeah, they would need to add a rule about having to file a tax return, even tho' not a resident in the year foreign assessable income is remitted. Maybe something along the lines of the US 1040-NR (Non Resident) tax filing.

11 hours ago, MistyBlue said:

Happy to be challenged but now my reading of that section in its fullness with the underlined text is that tax is only required when remitting funds in the same year that one is tax resident, if not resident when the funds are remitted (even if they were previously earned and kept offshore when one was resident) then I'm now leaning towards that no tax is due.

Hmmm. My paraphrased reading of the pwc booklet is: A tax resident of Thailand in year X, who has assessable foreign income earned in year X, will have that income subject to Thai taxes, "in any tax year" brought into Thailand.

Otherwise, a Thai tax resident for many years, with years and years of non remitted foreign income -- could take a year off to Tahiti, and remit all their stored foreign income, into Thailand, tax free.

I doubt the writers of the new guidance, hoping to plug a loophole, would open up an even bigger one..... Of course, maybe there was a secret handshake with the "too rich."

9 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

If the funds were withdrawn from the IRA in 2024 and US Federal taxes were paid on the withdrawal and payment of tax could be proven by virtue of US Federal tax returns filed and 1099 forms, and the funds were remitted in 2025, then I think relief could be claimed under the DTA and any US taxes paid could be credited against Thai tax that might otherwise accrue for the 2025 tax year

Kind of tricky when tax years don't coincide due to the remittance angle (but you can always file an amended return to cover a late occurring event, even from another tax year). And presumably the IRA (which may be a rolled-over 401k) was funded many years ago, when you were working. This makes the scenario moot, since that IRA money was earned pre-2024, thus by decree, is not assessable income when remitted (yes, it's US taxed post 2023, but that makes no never mind, since the decree addresses when earned -- and being tax-deferred doesn't taint that.) Having said that, in all situations where both countries get to tax the IRA, Thailand keeps all their taxation -- and the US has to absorb a tax credit of same.

And since, presumably your IRA has had some earnings in 2024, we're back to the FIFO, LIFO conundrum. But once again, there's no reason to not give yourself full advantage, in the absence of any guidance. Thus, treat the remittance as pre-2024 assets. But even if you treated all your remittance from post-2023 earnings in your IRA -- unless you're really in a high Thai tax bracket, Thai taxes, if any, will probably be less than your US taxes, and with the tax credit, things will thus be a wash. [And, yes, the saving clause in the DTA says you still have to file a US tax return, even tho' Thailand is given exclusive taxation rights on IRAs.]

3 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

I am only interested in gathering and presenting information on the Thai tax system, a system that neither of us is trained in nor qualified to deliver advice on....which is why I don't!

3 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

The solution is to find out the answer, preferably from the TRD, not create a work around because we don't know the answer today.

Final question. So, if someone asked you for advice, er information, on how to treat a $15k remittance from an account that had $100k in it in 2023, and since Jan 2024 has had $20k added to it, of monies that the DTA say are the exclusive taxation right of Thailand, like a private pension: Your answer would be:

A. FIFO, i.e., monies from 2023, thus not assessable.

B. LIFO, i.e., monies from 2024, thus assessable

C. Go spend the day at RD, looking for someone who even knows what FIFO and LIFO are. When Somchai says he hasn't a clue, feel free to decide which avenue is best for you, namely, FIFO

D. Log onto AN and the Simple Tax Guide. Find out that Somchai's cousin wrote it. Feel free to barf, er use FIFO, in the absence of any advice.

1 hour ago, Mike Lister said:

Who knows, I don't and you don't, so why provide a work around, just because you don't know!

Without definitive guidance from RD, you're forced to choose a financial guide for how to treat remittances. You have to pick something -- agreed? So why not pick FIFO -- if there's no guidance to the contrary -- to give you the tax advantage. As I said in a previous post, the only other country (UK) that addresses remittance accounting uses LIFO, whereby income, not principal, is first in the taxable line up. Thailand may adopt that eventually. But so far, as best we can discern, they haven't figured out they have to come to some decision -- since 'til now, remitting in a later year, avoided having to make such a decision.

Quote

I don't recommend anything here, only provide information....but you knew that.

 Take a chance. Recommend FIFO. There are folks out there wishing for guidance, not just information.

2 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

You used what, FIFO, really.....farang heathen accounting devil, Thai no have FIFO".

They don't have LIFO either. So, how do you assess what's principal and what's income on a chunk of fungible remittance? Like back in the first world, your competent tax accountant will recommend -- in a gray area situation -- the option that is most favorable to the client. So, under current "non guidance from RD," the competent recommendation is FIFO.

Hey, we don't know how much money in a bank account(s) attracts RD interest. So, that shouldn't matter. What does matter is having sufficient paperwork to show that remitted monies came from pre 2024 accounts, or from accounts exclusively holding DTA exempt monies. Or (worst case), arguing that you used FIFO to show principal, not income, was remitted. As there's nothing to say, under current guidance, that you can't use that argument, you should prevail. But, going forward, I wouldn't be too sure, if the Thais adopt the UK system of LIFO.

33 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

From the quote you supplied from PWC!

Hmmm. Can't seem to find that.... Can you give me a page number please. Thanx.

Just now, Mike Lister said:

And you didn't file in the previous year....don't forget

 Where in the world did you get that "file in previous year" dictate?

1 hour ago, jayboy said:

On the basis of current evidence I believe it to be true. Yet in my opinion it would not be an unreasonable thing for the RD to request - so it needs to be monitored.

 If you have no remitted income, you have no foreign assessable income. And if your only Thai income is bank interest, that doesn't have to be declared as assessable income on a tax return, as you can opt to just treat it as 'withholding at source final tax.' So you're saying it wouldn't be unreasonable for RD to have you file a tax return where all income lines are blank? And where there are no lines to show non assessable income?

2 hours ago, TigerCat said:

How much is a "too large a bank account"?  

 

 It's up to you....😉

17 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

but I do care that they understand what the rules are so they can make informed decisions based on the law, rather than on your guidance that they shouldn't file because the law is silly and not enforceable.

 

Informed decisions "based on the law," rather than common sense -- and a clear understanding that they're not subject to penalty? Ludicrous, from another angle.

14 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

Well, I was kinda hoping somebody might have said, subject to exemption rules of the DTA, eg, government pensions or whatever else is treaty exempt. 

I assumed it was a State pension.