32 minutes ago, JimGant said:

That's because is you used the word "will", it would read: "will tax its citizens, as if the convention had never come into effect." Then, there would be no place for exceptions to the savings clause, like child support. But, as we've seen, private pensions are NOT an exception to the savings clause, thus they become an affirmative part of the "may" be taxed (while child support are an excepted part). Clear as mud, no? ????

Agreed!  I overlooked that obvious reason for using "may" instead of "will".

 

My conversation with Mr. Carden just finished.  My first impression was of someone who is more accustomed to talking than listening.  I carefully kept my tone non-confrontational. 

 

Mr. Carden didn't seem to give much importance to Paragraph 2 of Article 1.

He referred to differences between the Swiss tax treaty and the Thai mainly to do with Article 4 (Residence).  He didn't want to give many specifics because he would like to get paid for those since he spent months researching and developing his strategy.  I asked how long he's been filing taxes using this strategy and his answer was for 2 1/2 years without any pushback from either the IRS (or the Thai government, but I'm unsure if I heard that last part correctly, he talks very fast).   According to him some of his clients benefited in the 6 figure range over several years of filings.

 

My conversation with him only re-enforced my skepticism of his methods.

gamb, thanx for your feedback.

 

That he's using the residence para to highlight a difference between the Swiss and Thai tax treaties makes no sense. In both situations, the US citizen is deemed a resident of Switzerland and Thailand, respectively, for IRA tax purposes. Ergo, both Switzerland and Thailand have exclusive tax authority on a US citizen's IRA proceeds. But, in both situations, the savings clause requires the US citizen to declare his IRA proceeds in his US tax return. That Switzerland actually executes its rights to taxation -- and thus the US citizen has to balance those taxes as a credit in his US filing -- changes nothing in the fact that Thailand doesn't tax the US citizen on his IRA proceeds, and thus there are no credits to reduce the US tax bite on the IRA.

 

Anyway, we're now going in circles on this. As Bill97, who's now understandably getting tired of this goat roap, asked: Do you really think that by moving to Thailand for 6 months, you could escape all income taxes on your traditional IRA proceeds? In my case, this would be cashing in $220000 -- and Carden would save me close to $50000 in taxes. Doesn't quite pass the smell test -- but sure sounds nice otherwise.

 

No, I think I'll pass. I feel this clown will be found out eventually. And those clients who have his EA license number on their returns should expect a knock on their door...........

Form 14242, or 3949-A and don't forget 211.

On 2/28/2019 at 2:05 PM, JimGant said:

gamb, thanx for your feedback.

 

That he's using the residence para to highlight a difference between the Swiss and Thai tax treaties makes no sense. In both situations, the US citizen is deemed a resident of Switzerland and Thailand, respectively, for IRA tax purposes. Ergo, both Switzerland and Thailand have exclusive tax authority on a US citizen's IRA proceeds. But, in both situations, the savings clause requires the US citizen to declare his IRA proceeds in his US tax return. That Switzerland actually executes its rights to taxation -- and thus the US citizen has to balance those taxes as a credit in his US filing -- changes nothing in the fact that Thailand doesn't tax the US citizen on his IRA proceeds, and thus there are no credits to reduce the US tax bite on the IRA.

 

Anyway, we're now going in circles on this. As Bill97, who's now understandably getting tired of this goat roap, asked: Do you really think that by moving to Thailand for 6 months, you could escape all income taxes on your traditional IRA proceeds? In my case, this would be cashing in $220000 -- and Carden would save me close to $50000 in taxes. Doesn't quite pass the smell test -- but sure sounds nice otherwise.

 

No, I think I'll pass. I feel this clown will be found out eventually. And those clients who have his EA license number on their returns should expect a knock on their door...........

Why not ask the good folks on AMCHAM's Tax Commitee in Bangkok their thoughts?  If this is true, they have surely heard of it.  Several CPAs, law degrees, and EAs among them and all long term expats with lots of experience.

 

On 2/27/2019 at 12:51 PM, JimGant said:

I don't know what the results of the Swiss ruling were. The requester was a "tax attache" based in Paris. Maybe he wanted confirming information before publishing a taxation pamphlet for expats..... Anyway, nothing available to suggest the ruling was used to reach back and tap tax offenders.

Just to clarify (not that it has any impact on your observations or conclusions), a "tax attache" is an IRS officer assigned to a US Embassy overseas, not some kind of private tax advisor.

Inflammatory post reported and removed.