ballpoint

Yes. I will have to account for the money I top up the holding account with this year - if required, however I can do so, even though it will be a pain. I think it's better to face that pain in one chunk now than defer it until later, or worse, keep facing it every year. The "if required" I added was because I now deal with a tiny Amphur Revenue office, where I am well known, (probably detested as a trouble maker to their otherwise peaceful existence, though they always act happy to see me), and my annual tax visits now consist of me bringing in my statements and them saying "no need to file a return", without really looking at them.

There was no letter sent to me, or my former employer. In fact, I had a hell of a time even trying to find out just where the flag came from. The Revenue office where I now live knew nothing about it, neither did the Bangkok District 3 office nearest my old place of work. In the end I tried another District 3 office, and was passed around from person to person until I finally got the right one. And, yes, my change in status from employed to retired brought me to their attention, however, the auditing process is exactly the same for anyone. I was just pointing it out to the forum. When I first contacted my local immigration office and asked what the problem was, since I am now retired, they said they had a number of flagged passports, not all of who were previously employed here. As I said in my original post on the other thread, the majority of retirees will likely get away with doing what they.ve always done, but if you do come to their attention, that was my solution. Luckily, I had already adopted that process, under advice from my old employer's tax advisors when I retired. I should add that I had even got a new passport, with a different number, a year after I retired, so the flag is on the name of the holder, and not the passport number.

In part, yes. I was able to produce income tax receipts for the years I worked here (even though it's supposedly one big Revenue Department, even the different Bangkok divisions don't seem to know what the others are doing, let alone different provinces), and that helped the audit, by accounting for the original money in my offshore account. But the majority of what I earned has been invested in other means, and no longer exists in cash, so I doubt they would accept tax receipts from five or more years ago for much longer.

I think it would be tough for them to try to tax money brought into the country by non residents. That would open a whole can of worms regarding how much tourists bring into the country and spend here. Rather like Burma in the 90s. However, nothing would surprise me. I think things will be back to the current status in a year or two anyway, if they even get that far, so this will tide me over till then. If not, there will be another loophole to exploit. The glass is always half full...

That would work if you do one remittance early January. If you remit the money in a number of chunks over the year, or even just one chunk later that year (maybe because you think the exchange rate will improve later, or just to try and catch a high in the rate), that will not work. You would need to account for any money deposited into the other account over the previous year. I use the other overseas account for multiple purposes, and money is often transferred in and out of it that would be a hassle to account for. (Even though it's entirely legal). They are interested in every deposit made to your local account(s) over the full year, and every deposit made into your overseas account, between Jan 1st and the last remit date. I print a statement from each and highlight every deposit in Thailand, and link it with every withdrawal from my offshore holding account. I also do keep additional funds in that account from year to year, which is emergency money, as I can remit it to my KBank account here in minutes using the offshore bank's phone app.

I live off of totally legal overseas tax free investments, and transfer a fair amount here every year. I get around the current laws by transferring my money to an offshore holding account prior to the end of the year, then remitting it to Thailand at the start of the next year. I am thus able to show that the money was in the holding account on January 1st, and no further money was deposited into that account prior to my Thailand remittance. They don't care what happens to the holding account after the last transfer to Thailand that year, but every single cent deposited into that account between January 1st and the date of the remittance (or last remittance if multiple ones are done) that year must be accounted for. I previously posted this on another topic, but I was selected for audit a few years ago. (I only found out about this when a 90 day report was rejected because the Revenue Department had flagged my passport, and I had to go to the local immigration office where they informed me of this, and then had to call the local Revenue Department office to arrange the audit). The method I have described satisfied the auditors, but my understanding of the new directive is that it will no longer do so - as long as you are a tax resident here, every deposit made after January 1st 2024 to the overseas account you remit your money from will need to be accounted for, no matter what year it is made. When I worked here (I'm now retired), the company I worked for used a multinational tax accountancy firm to handle its expat taxes. I contacted them regarding this, as I would be liable for the maximum 35% rate if I carry on the same way as now, and their advice is: Top up the overseas holding account and transfer next year's money before the end of this year. IF this scheme goes ahead, (which they doubt it will), my tax filing for 2024 (in early 2025), will show no income at all that year - no tax. Only spend 179, or fewer, days in Thailand in 2025. Transfer enough money for the half of that year I'll be here, and for all of 2026, from any source. No need to file a tax return for 2025 (in early 2026), as I won't be a tax resident that year. My tax return for 2026, filed early 2027 will again show no income at all that year - no tax. Rinse and repeat. Learnings from this are: The Revenue Department can, and do, link your tax situation to your immigration status here - until I had the audit done I would not have been able to leave the country. They don't care if you have a TIN or not. I obviously do, as I worked here for some years, but those who spend over 180 days a year here (not necessarily consecutive) and say the new directive (again, I stress, IF it goes ahead), doesn't affect them because they don't have a TIN, might just as well argue that they don't have to follow the road laws because they don't have a driver's licence. The accountant pointed out that it is compulsory in most, if not all, Western countries to file a tax return if you are a tax resident - I even have to file one in Australia because I have a bank account and some non taxable Australian property there, even though I'm not a tax resident, and should this scheme go ahead they'd expect Thailand to issue the same demand, so be prepared to start doing one.

I haven't seen this reported in any other stories, but retiring Joint Chiefs Chairman, General Mark Milley would appear to agree with Biden, making a special reference to Trump in his retirement speech: "We don't take an oath to a wannabe dictator. We don't take an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the Constitution. And we take an oath to the idea that is America, and we're willing to die to protect it". This comes following Trump's (not so) veiled death threat, which Milley commented on in a 60 Minutes interview, also shown in the linked CNN piece: "As much as this comment is directed at me, it's also directed at the institution of the military. And there's 2.1 million of us in uniform. And the American people can take it to the bank that all of us, every single one of us, from private to general, will be loyal to that constitution, that we'll never turn our back on it, no matter what, no matter what the threats, no matter what the humiliation, no matter what". Trump is a traitor. A "wannabe dictator" who disrespects the US military and its constitution. Who steals secret documents. Who tries to overthrow democratic elections. He would be well advised to heed his own words; "(these are acts) so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!" (His capitalization). How any true American can support him is beyond me, but I guess they all have their own agendas, and won't let a little thing like treason get in the way of them.

I refer you to the thread title...

Maybe highest in the world's atmosphere, but not in the Solar System (in its planetary system, rather than solar powered house, meaning). That record goes to the Juno Jupiter probe, which travelled 869 million km from the Earth, arriving at Jupiter in 2016, five years after it was launched. All probes travelling further than that (Voyagers I and II, New Horizons (Pluto probe), etc) have been nuclear powered due to the lack of sunlight at that distance. Juno is equipped with three panels, each 9x29 feet, capable of generating 14 kW on Earth, but managing just 500 W as it orbits around Jupiter, still sending data and photos back using those solar panels for power. Including this one of Jupiter and Io, taken July 30th this year: NASA's Juno mission captures stunning view of Jupiter with its volcanic moon, Io (photo) | Space