jayboy

I have a foreign credit card and I have recently used it to purchase a return air ticket from Bangkok to Singapore.I shall probably use the same card for my hotel as well.The cost will be debited next month to my foreign bank account.That account is not funded by current earnings and is made up entirely of savings made prior to the end of last year.If I complete a Thai tax return for 2024 - and I might not - should I include payment of the costs of my trip as assessable income? I am not looking to use the card as a means of avoiding Thai tax, and generally speaking such expenditure is a very small element of my total expenditure in Thailand.

That may well be the case now but in the 1960's and before many expatriate Brits were of the patrician or upper middle class and had made a deliberate choice to live in Siam.There was certainly no question of them lacking confidence or not being thoroughly at home in British society.They were also at home in upper class and highly educated Thai circles.They had nothing in common with the current British Pattaya oriented expat community - whom they would have regarded as an alien life form.

Some facts 1.Thailand has always attracted slightly odd foreigners, many with outstanding talents but uncomfortable with their lives in the West 2.The numbers of foreigners have increased hugely over the last forty years or so. The profile has also changed essentially from upper middle class to lower middle class and working class.The numbers from what used to be called the criminal class has also increased.

I had experience of fraud when my Thai credit card was charged with about $4000 for electricity charges in a Caribbean country.The amount appeared - online - on my credit card account and I immediately disputed the charge.The charge was then put into suspense while an inquiry was launched.This is initiated by the Thai CC company but all the work is done by Visa (in my case) or MasterCard etc internationally.About three weeks later I was told by the credit card company that the suspended charge had been removed. I was never told the findings of the Visa investigation, not that it interested me much once the charge had been removed from my account.I am still however puzzled how my details were obtained given that the card had been only recently been issued and had mostly been in my safe.I recall I had used it just once with a very well known Thai supermarket chain. I was phoned subsequently by a representative of the Thai CC company suggesting I should be careful with my card - not showing it to anyone, not sharing it and being careful with websites asking for details etc etc.Given the circumstance - see above - I was tempted to tell him to stick his advice where the sun don't shine.But he was polite enough so I didn't. On reflection I think there is at least an outside chance that my details were stolen by someone in the Thai credit card company itself.I now rarely use it and through the app can lock it - which is pretty much its permanent state.If I do use it the companies have to be major ones with excellent reputations.

Er, so what.My original post makes the points I wanted to get across. Incidentally Leather, though he has sold millions of his potboilers, has a lousy reputation for sock puppeting.Google if interested. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/05/nick-cohen-cheating-authors-journalists

It's not a very good book - clumsily written and populated by horrible characters - and far less illuminating about the bar scene than the author believes and many reformed sexpats claim. It's dated and hard to get hold of but for my money Jack Reynolds" "Woman of Bangkok" has better drawn and more sympathetic characters and better conveys the car crash impact of infatuation with a Thai bargirl.

Thanks but do you - or anyone else - know of the specific hospitals/clinics where the new vaccine is available? I believe it is available at the Thai Travel Clinic at Baht 1800 approx.

Does anyone one know if COVID-19 vaccine (omicron XBB. 1.5) is available at any of the major Bangkok hospitals?

Ah well I tried. Good luck to you and thanks for the great contribution you've made on this subject and which I have always acknowledged.

Believe it or not, I'm trying to be helpful. I find it useful from time to time to reflect that I may not have reacted the right way or in too hotheaded a manner.Perhaps more importantly, I try to consider whether I have got things quite right and to learn from those who have more experience of a business environment.Above all because I have behaved in a certain way and think in a certain manner, I try (not always successfully) to understand why some people think differently.So far you have shown yourself to be technically sound but a bit inflexible. and sometimes poor in judgement.My advice is not to react too quickly to something on the forum you disagree with - wait a day perhaps.That way you can reach your full potential.

I am afraid you have been scaremongering which is a pity because your overall contribution on this subject has been great.

It's always a good idea to be careful on tax matters in any jurisdiction.It's now as we all know particularly important to keep records. You have now introduced a new factor - "someone might get caught with a post jan 1, 2024 indiscretion." Of course as from 2024 the new circumstances suggest careful adherence is needed to what is required by RD.I expect the practical details will become much clearer over the next year.But I don't think the RD will be going after retired expatriates with (almost always) relatively modest pensions.Your talk of 10 years investigations of elderly pensioners is - how to put it politely - somewhat exaggerated. Thanks to many members but particularly Mike LIster we now have a pretty good understanding of the subject, but as always the devil is in the detail - and it will be at least another year before full clarity is available including , critically, what RD actually expects of resident expatriate pensioners.Dare I say it but one or two people seem to have the proverbial bees in their bonnets and lean towards scaremongering on a very flimsy basis.

You overlooked my caveat, "where necessary." You say you made efforts to ensure remittances were not sent in the year they were earned; therefore I agree that in your case there was no element of fiction (except of course taking as fully legal a delayed remittance approach which isn't embodied in Thai law). By the way there's plenty of anecdotal evidence RD went along with this.Of course all has changed now. For the avoidance of any misunderstanding I am at all times referring to retired resident expatriates who have no Thai income. You seem to be suggesting that there is a credible chance of RD doing checks on expatriates who have not filed tax returns in past years.I think this is highly unlikely and your advice about treading carefully is misplaced (though of course any dealings with tax authorities should be carefully conducted). I agree that the risk is slightly higher for those who remitted earnings directly to their Thai bank accounts - but even here the audit risk is minuscule.

Of course I don't speak for everybody and of course individual circumstances are different. I am also surprised you refer to my crystal ball since I have frequently said that on practical implementation of the new tax policy we must wait and see.

Fair enough and I don't disagree.To be honest I never would have considered having my pension paid directly to my Thai bank account because of the Thai tax implications.

I believe most retired expatriates have their pensions paid into an offshore account (often in the Channel Islands if British) from which they remitted to Thailand.It was therefore possible to preserve the fiction - where necessary - that remittances to Thailand were derived from past savings.All offshore money is fungible and in any case the Thai authorities had no interest in pursuing.In your case the pension was remitted directly to your Thai bank account but even in this situation if you had not filed returns there would have been no comeback.We all know that has changed now and we await to see the practical implementation.

This is true, and there is plenty of evidence for it. This is not true, and there is no evidence for it.

That's not for me to say,

I had always thought that Immigration advised candidates who didn't meet PR criteria at an early stage there was little point proceeding (or to come back another year if circumstances changed). Consequently I have always assumed those applicants who met criteria almost always got through to Ministry of Interior and subsequent approval.I also understood in reality the national quota - i thought it was 100 - was never an issue for Westerners; of course times have changed and there might be many more PR applicants than in the past.Having said that the easier - and cheaper - path to citizenship might also be expected to have reduced PR applicants.So who knows?

Thankfully I was spared that.But I think Immigration was satisfied that my company was making a solid contribution so no need to delve further.In my earlier post about absolute essentials I should have mentioned university degree, the more famous the better.

This must be a candidate for the worse piece of advice on a health issue I have ever seen on this forum

Actually it does since it forms part of the points system for PR, I believe 10 points out of 100.Can't recall exact details but I think it's weighted towards those in middle age with fewer points for younger and older people.But overall you're right - it doesn't count for much. Actually I'm skeptical about the application of the points system.Basically one has to fulfill some minimum criteria and that's it.But one has to look and sound okay, ideally earn quite a bit more than the minimum salary quoted and have paid lots of tax.I think quite a few people waste time on getting letters of support and collating charitable activities.

No they didn't and no it wasn't.

Exactly.That's all I have ever said.Yes there was a bit of Nelson's touch about the loophole especially as money is fungible, but the Thai RD wasn't interested.Now things have changed.

But the RD did not expect retired expats to file a return and in the real world there is no penalty for not doing so.Almost nobody did except a few whose motives are obscure (reclaiming interest maybe) or simply didn't understand the system.Pleas for common sense on this subject get nowhere but it's all water under the bridge (unless some genius advises that RD gauleiters will be chasing down elderly expats for the returns not filed in the past). Of course going forward there's a different environment and many will need to file returns now.