ballpoint

(A quick suggestion to fans of the short story. Feel free to move to the next post). To date, the rule has been that anything earned prior to the current year may be remitted tax free. This meant that, if you were able to show an overseas account with $X on January 1st, you were able to remit $X - as long as no money went into that account prior to the remittance taking place. No tax. No problem. However, questions still existed over what happened if money was deposited into that overseas account during the current year - how did they work out what portion of your remittance came from the part already in there, and how much from the new deposit(s)? As I have posted on other threads, I was audited by the Thai Revenue Department after retiring here around five years ago, and had their interpretation explained to me, which is probably easier to put forward by example: 1. I have $100,000 in an overseas account on Jan 1st. I remit $50,000 to Thailand in March. No tax. 2. I have $100,000 in an overseas account on Jan 1st. I remit $50,000 to Thailand in March, then deposit $50,000 into that overseas account in April. No tax. 3. I have $100,000 in an overseas account on Jan 1st. I remit $50,000 to Thailand in March, then deposit $50,000 into that overseas account in April, then remit another $50,000 in May. Unless I could show that the April deposit was from a source already taxed by a country having a tax treaty with Thailand, I am taxed on the full second remittance. 4. I have $100,000 in an overseas account on Jan 1st. I deposit $30,000 into that account in February and I remit $50,000 to Thailand in March. Unless I could show that the February deposit was from a source already taxed by a country having a tax treaty with Thailand, I am taxed on $30,000 of my remittance. 5. I have $100,000 in an overseas account on Jan 1st. I deposit $100,000 into that account in February and I remit $50,000 to Thailand in March. Unless I could show that the February deposit was from a source already taxed by a country having a tax treaty with Thailand, I am taxed on the full $50,000 of my remittance - but not on the remainder of the deposit that wasn't remitted (unlike many countries, including my own). Basically, the way they saw it was for every remittance there must be a corresponding drop in your bank balance between the remittance date and Jan 1st. In case 3, for example, even though I had more than enough funds on Jan 1st to cover my remittance, the fact is that my balance after the remittance is still $80,000 when it would have been $50,000 had the deposit not occurred. Therefore, the difference is classed as income from the current year, and I am taxed on it. Because the new directive started on Jan 1st 2024, this year will be treated exactly the same as in these examples. I passed my audit, and every year I now get yearly statements from my Thai bank accounts, and from the overseas account I use to remit money into Thailand. I use a highlighter pen to mark every deposit into my Thai accounts and every Thailand remittance made from my overseas account, linking each with a number. I do not transfer money into that overseas account until November or December each year, and they are not interested in anything that happens to that account after my final remittance for that year. I take these to my local revenue office - a little two woman (neither of who speak English) Amphur one and show the linked statements. Every year they tell me no need to file a return. I look forward (not) to next year's visit, given the new directive. (Again, this year will be business as usual). Now, when it comes to the new law / directive, like everyone else's comments on this, and the numerous other threads on this topic, this is my informed opinion only. I see them continuing with the same approach, however, instead of the cut-off date for funds in your overseas account(s) being Jan 1st of the current year, it will now be Jan 1st 2024 (I realise that is currently the current year, but the point is that date will always remain the same, no matter what year we are in going forward). The only way to be able to continue as I have been doing is to keep a dedicated account, with no money going into it after Jan 1st 2024, yet still having enough funds to allow you to remit money for as many years as required (a hard ask). For example, if you have $1,000,000 in that account and remit $50,000 every year - without making a single deposit into that account, you could carry on for 20 years. As soon as you make a deposit into that account though, you will need to show that the money has already been taxed by a tax treaty country, or you will be taxed on it here. (During my audit they were even looking at interest payments on my overseas bank account, which I was able to show already had taxes withheld on them, so were exempt). Personally, I will not be following the same line as I have done previously with remitting money according to date, as that will all change, and I imagine my visits to my local Revenue Department office will take a little more time - though I have kept enough money for next year in a "sterile" account in Singapore, so when I remit it in 2025 I'll be able to show it was there on Jan 1st this year, just to let the dust settle on this new directive before entering the fray in 2026. After that I'd be losing far more through loss of investment income than I would be paying in tax. Therefore, to answer your question, I'd imagine you'd be taxed on $5,000 of your remittance (effectively nothing at all), if it was made after Jan 1st this year, and prior to the remittance being made. Unless you could show it came from a taxed source. As I also noted in my previous posts on this, the only way I found out that they wanted to audit me was when my local immigration office informed me that my passport had been flagged by the Revenue Department, and I would be unable to leave the country until the flag was removed. No correspondence was sent to me at my previous employer's address, my current and previous home addresses, or by email. My provincial and district Revenue Department offices knew nothing about this. I visited the Bangkok Area Three (which covered my previous place of work) Revenue office at Chidlom, and they knew nothing about it, and then discovered there's another Area Three Revenue office near the National Stadium, and finally was able to get the audit done. However, once done, my passport still remained flagged. My local immigration could do nothing about this and suggested I visit the old Bangkok office at Suan Phlu - now the immigration detention centre, but also where the "black" lists are kept. After walking around that ghost of a building, I was directed to an office off to one side and got the flag removed. Therefore, to those who state that the Revenue Department have nothing to do with the Immigration Bureau, I laugh at you. They can, and will, stop you leaving the country, or even extending your permission to stay, should they so desire. And I too can remember the days of requiring a tax clearance certificate in order to leave the country when I made work visits in the 80's, prior to moving here full time. I still have an old passport with the requirement attached to every visa stamp: Again, make of this what you will. My opinion about how the new directive will handle remittances is just that, an opinion, but I have been through the system - with the Revenue Department, the Immigration Bureau and PwC -the multinational accountancy company who used to file my taxes when I was employed here, and, as the Christopher Hitchens quote I used to have as my signature said, before they were all removed, my opinion is good enough for me.

“Daddy what’s that flower called?” “That’s a Chrysanthemum, dear.” “How do you spell that?” “No wait, it’s a rose.”

My grandad followed a Jerry in WW1 trench warfare. Lost him when he turned off towards their cookhouse. Apparently, he took a turn for the wurst.

An aspiring young lawyer was sitting in his office late one night, when Satan appeared before him. The Devil told the lawyer "I have a proposition for you…" "You can win every case you try for the rest of your life. Your clients will adore you, your colleagues will stand in awe of you, and you will make embarrassing sums of money. All I want in exchange is your wife’s soul, your children’s souls, the souls of your parents, and grandparents, and the souls of all your friends and law partners." The lawyer ponders this for a moment, then finally asks: "So, what’s the catch?"

I had a leak in the roof over my dining room so I called a roofer to take a look at it. "When did you first notice the leak?" he asked. I told him, "Last night, when it took me four hours to finish my soup!"

My mate asked me: "Why do you keep an empty milk bottle in the fridge?" I said: "It's in case someone wants a black coffee".

I saw a load of German shepherds in uniform playing instruments at the shops this morning. It was the Alsatian Army.

Where can I buy that album? It looks like a goody.

Assuming the worst case scenario - If the entire 800,000 was remitted with no overseas taxes paid on it, and it was deemed to all be assessable income, then your allowances would play the biggest part. For myself, being under 65 and married (but on a retirement extension), and claiming the maximum THB 25,000 for my health insurance premium, my tax would be THB 50,750 in such a scenario. Not too great, but I would still be looking at ways of (legally) minimising it. (Spreadsheet from PWC, who used to file my taxes when employed here).

It's a sign of all that's wrong with the world when a chap goes out East without packing his Solar Topi and tropical jacket. Why, back in my day one wouldn't be allowed in the club for a stengah if not wearing them. Ought to be flogged, I say.