jayboy

What a pointless comment.In my opinion the ambassador did an excellent job.I

I'm not sure there is a "right wing" position on this issue.In fact many "right wingers" have argued that it is wrong to deny this woman her rights and privileges as a British citizen.It doesn't mean they have any sympathy for this woman but they dislike the concept of a powerful state which ignores ancient constitutional principles.Actually the proponents of a powerful interfering nanny state are usually to be found on the "left."

You and many others on this forum have ignored the great point of principle at stake here.It is perfectly possible to hold this individual in contempt and yet insist she has a right to her nationality.Some will be surprised by the author of what follows. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/shamima-begum-shouldnt-have-lost-her-british-citizenship/

Jonathan Sumption, former Justice of the Supreme court and one of the smartest legal brains in the country, demolishes the argument that the UK can cast its obligations aside in this case. " By statute, the home secretary cannot deprive a person of British citizenship if it would render them stateless. The person must have citizenship of at least one other country. When the decision was made, in 2019, Ms Begum was 19. She was a citizen of Bangladesh, but only in the most technical sense. She had provisional citizenship until she was 21, when it would lapse unless she took it up. This was because her parents were born there. But she has never been to Bangladesh. She has no links with the country. And Bangladesh has disowned her. Her Bangladeshi citizenship always was a legal fiction."

Read his Wikipedia page.It's quite an eye opener.

Bangkok Hospital offers a higher dose flu vaccine for those who are 65+, apparently offering greater protection than the normal 4 strain flu vaccine.Price is Baht 2800 compared to Baht 700 - Baht 1000 or so for the usual flu jab. Not sure whether the higher dose is recommended for all 65+ or just those not in particularly robust health.My doctor has never mentioned the higher dose option when discussing vaccinations. Does anyone know about this?

I always enjoy being tutored by Dan about Thai culture in which he is so expert not to mention hearing about exciting business opportunities. I would single out the guided tours of shabby chic Pattaya condos and recommended all you can eat dining spots in that delightful metropolis.All this in his dulcet English tones so reminiscent of Benedict Cumberbatch.

High income types (lets use the LTR definition of $ 80,000 per year though I think that's on the low side) are very few in the expatriate retired category.Those that are usually aren't residents for more than half the year and in any case are sophisticated people who have decent tax advice. I doubt whether they are particularly concerned because unlike typical pensioners, can easily structure their remittance from pre-2024 wealth and hence non-taxable. Then they assume wrong.I was thinking primarily of the use of foreign credit cards for Thailand related goods and services - hotels, flights and the like.For the rather sad thought of some pensioners using ATMs to fund Thailand expenses, I doubt whether most of these will be filing tax returns at all.By definition they will be at the lower end of the income scale.It is anyway at this stage just nonsense to suggest using ATMs will carry any kind of risk.This is a tourist economy, remember?

Congratulations on making an astute decision.

The LTR visa is looking like a smart decision by those who qualify - particularly from a tax perspective. I would be interested to know how many people have been able to avail themselves (ie actually succeeded in obtaining) the "wealthy pensioner" category which requires assured income of at least US$ 80,000 p.a. From the BOI perspective all the other LTR categories make sound sense in terms of fulfilling the strategy of attracting expats who can add value.But the 'wealthy pensioner" category doesn't seem to me to make much sense or even belong in the programme at all given the comparatively low financial bar * to entry.I think those who have qualified in this category should congratulate themselves.My hunch is that prospective new entrants in the future might well find this route blocked. * Please don't respond by claiming $ 80,000 is already a very high sum.It's not for a "wealthy pensioner" but debate on this subject - at least on this forum - is pointless.

Once again common sense is needed.We are talking in the main about retired expatriates on average to low incomes.It is almost inconceivable that the Thai RD will be hitting this category with audits.So we start from that base.Even in the hypothetical case of an audit there would be no repercussions from the occasional use of a foreign credit card - not least because it would not necessarily show up in any audit trail. If all resident retirees were compelled to submit income tax returns, the matter might be worth reviewing again - but even then the risk in my view is negligible. On this forum there are a great many people who are understandably concerned.There's are a lot of information which should in most instances reassure them - and we will have to see how the next year pans out.

You may have finished with Covid.But has it finished with you?

I agree that the original post is hard to decipher but your interpretation of it seems correct. In my view there needs to be applied a degree of common sense to this subject, and it's simply inappropriate to describe the use of offshore cards for Thailand services as "tax evasion", not least because there's no certainty payment would be made out of taxable income.It all depends on the circumstances particularly the frequency and intent.As far as the Thai RD department is concerned I would be astonished if they had any problem with a retired expatriate occasionally using an offshore card - not that they would ever know, at least for the foreseeable future.

I was wondering whether it will be necessary to isolate the interest earned on pre-2024 savings.Most people with cash holdings tend to roll up the interest and capital on maturity of the deposit's term.Under the new dispensation pre 2024 savings are not taxable and indeed apparently do not even have to be declared on a Thai tax return if remitted.But the interest component is surely taxable and would be difficult to disentangle.

Copter sounds fun

Not sure the media in Thailand has done a decent job in explaining the issues.In contrast the top Bangkok based firms have been helpful.For example https://www.mazars.co.th/Home/Insights/Doing-Business-in-Thailand/Tax/Revenue-Department-s-guidance-on-foreign-income Interesting to note the Mazars view based on RD announcements that income earned before 2024 does NOT have to be declared on tax return.Don't think this has been dealt with specifically on this forum. I'm not sure how interest on cash deposits arranged before 2024 would be treated.I suppose it's just another reminder to ensure comprehensive records are kept in case RD has any questions. Still not sure whether tax resident who funds entirely from non taxable pre-2024 sources needs to file a return at all.

To be frank this often applies to the sex tourists who visit Pattaya

Are you suggesting that the inhabitants of Gaza do not support the Hamas terrorist leadership? If so surely they should be assisting the Israelis in destroying Hamas. If there is however a wide measure of support then the Israeli campaign seems justified.

From their <deleted>ty corporate websites, one can hazard a guess

Would you? I looked at the respective corporatewebsites of the speakers at this event - deeply unimpressive and , though I could be wrong, likely to be the usual bottom feeders on bewildered foreigners. I would suggest rely on the tried and tested Bangkok firms - Mazars, Price Waterhouse etc

Many years ago when British Airways was still a well regarded airline its Chairman,Sir John King, was on a business trip from London to New York flying First Class.He heard from the crew that there had been some overbooking and that unfortunately a First Class passenger had had to be consigned to the back of the plane.He immediately got up collected his bags and told the crew to switch him with the aggrieved passenger.His view that paying passengers should always get priority over BA staff however exalted they were.So Sir John went cattle class to New York that day. A year or so ago I told this story to a Thai friend who was very familiar with TG.His reaction was that not only would TG managers find the story hard to believe but they would completely fail to understand the mindset of Sir John and the priority he gave to paying passengers.Sir John was no shrinking violet.He was a self made hard as nails businessman and could be ruthless - but he understood the important things.

Slightly off topic bit I've been wondering about the 13 digit numbers on the TINs.Somewhere I've seen a useful breakdown of how these numbers are allocated for foreigners - but I can't track it down.Can any one help?

I have no idea what this word salad is meant to convey.It doesn't really address any of the specific issues raised.Anyway enough is enough - for me anyway - and the position on tax returns in the past is I think now clear enough.It would be ungracious not to acknowledge Mike's work on the tax issue in general for this forum.I do appreciate if one has for years submitted tax returns albeit unnecessarily and as part of tiny minority one looks for ways to justify it.Fair enough - it's not a big deal

Nobody has said otherwise Nobody has suggested this Simply not true.You simply don't have the evidence to support this. A decent lawyer unlike a "by the books" accountant understands the art of the possible. I'm intrigued, though only mildly because the issue isn't really active, why you keep digging yourself further into a hole.

The Revenue Code content is well known and has not changed for many years.Thailand was quite correct to address the anomaly particularly as current and past taxable income was obviously fungible. However we are talking about tax returns.For the group under discussion - defined in my posts - it is wrong to suggest they must submit a tax return for 2023 even if they remitted last year from current income.They will need to in the future almost certainly. The objective on this forum should be to give sound practical advice - often to people who don't have much experience in tax matters.The fact that some submitted returns in the past is not relevant.