Thai gov. to tax (remitted) income from abroad for tax residents starting 2024 - Part I

[oldcpu]

21 hours ago, redwood1 said:

 

The more well off expats would just get a LTR visa and not have to pay 1 baht in taxes ever for the rest of their life....

 

Which would only leave the expats of more modest means who budget and watch their spending much more closely so they can lead a decent life living off their pension and savings and maybe a few small modest investments....

 

This so called income tax will not tax the rich expats at all but will pick over the bones of those expats with the least amount of money to spare, who watch their spending and budget..

 

That is if this poorly thought out mess ever goes anywhere, which is very doubtful...

 

From what I have read & videos (of Thai officials) watched, is the recent changes re: taxing money coming into Thailand, was not aimed at expats, but rather it was aimed at wealthy Thai who were avoiding paying tax on income, which the Thai government wanted to tax.

 

This 'income tax' was NOT designed to tax the 'rich nor poor expats' like I believe you infer - for as pointed out , it was aimed at the wealthy Thai.

 

It stands to reason that they would apply this tax law  to all expat residents and not just Thai citizens (who also reside in Thailand).  ... So expats are in essence 'collateral damage'.

 

The LTR is a separate case, and it was put in place in the hope to attract wealthy foreigners to stimulate the economy.  Presumably the thinking was that those who qualify for the LTR would invest & spend more money in Thailand than the average expats who can't qualify for the LTR.  As to whether that is actually going to happen, and as to how this actually plays out in the next few years - well ...  we will see, as this could all change. 

 

Further, as for well off expats not paying 1 baht in taxes for the rest of their life - I seriously doubt that.  Seriously seriously doubt that.  They will still be paying VAT, and they will still likely be paying tax in the home country(s) from which they derive their income.

.

[stat]

4 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

Pot shots noted!

 

What can I say, we are a commercial site and we do have rules and when it comes to the subject of tax and the law, we will follow the rules to the letter. If members want to advise on these things they will need formal Thai qualifications and the sites owners permission. Until that time, debate away and set out options, share knowledge and opinions, no more.

Amazing that you "write" a tax guide after posting "we will follow the rules to the letter" when no foreigner is allowed to give tax advice in Thailand.

[oldcpu]

5 minutes ago, stat said:

Amazing that you then write a tax guide after posting "we will follow the rules to the letter" when no foreigner is allowed to give tax advice in Thailand.

 

From what I could read - that 'guide' does not provide advice - but rather it provides information - for the readers then to consider and come up with their own approach - or for the readers to seek actual advise from elsewhere.

 

In Canada, when I prepare my income tax, I can get over 100 pages of a tax guide from the Canadian government - and not one word in that official Canadian Government 'guide' is considered advice by the Canadian government.

 

You and I really interpret that 'guide' provided in this forum for expats on tax very very VERY differently.

[Lorry]

3 hours ago, JimGant said:

The gifter gets a tax holiday on 20M, otherwise taxable, because it is a gift

I think he meant exactly this.

I would say the gifter doesn't get a tax holiday,  he just never remitted the money to Thailand.  A remittance imho is a transfer to oneself.

 

But the RD case @Dogmatix quoted much earlier in this thread was the attached one iirc. It is about the taxes of the receiver of the gift, not about taxes the gifter has to pay.

In @Klonko's video the RD also talks very clearly about the tax of the receiver, and not very clear about the gifter.

 

I give up and agree with @Yumthaithat we just don't know.

 

PS thinking about it, @JimGant's argument makes sense in combination with @Dogmatic latest post:

If Mr U gifts 1m into Mr T's Thai account, Mr U has to pay personal income tax for it @JimGant

If Mr U gifts 1m to Mr T's US account, and then Mr T remits it to Thailand,  Mr T has to pay personal income tax for it @Dogmatix

So the 1m will always be taxed,  win-win for the RD.

 

Gift tax.mov

Gift Tax Case RD KK0702-530 11 Feb 2023.docx

[dinga]

6 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

I think if I was TRD in that scenario I might do some forensics and look at your lifestyle and your estimated monthly expenditures and also at your balance of funds in country and attempt to assess the balance of probability that the gift was genuine. You have genuine non-assessible income and you have assessable income, commingled within the remittance, and you claim Gift Tax exemption on all of it, does it appear that you are in a financial position to do that and if so, will you be able to support yourself adequately without resorting to that gift. If it appeared kosher, you might get a pass. If it appeared suspect I might dig deeper into every nook, crevice and orifice I could find along with a few I made up.

 

Frankly, in my experience it matters not how any farang/foreign Authority approaches regulatory provisions, their interpretations and the pursuit of compliance. 

 

What is critically important is the understanding the Thai environment and especially the experience of how Thai Authorities actually act in practice.  Of course, understanding how foreign Authorities conduct themselves may assist to identify risk minimisation measures.

 

I always remember the clear instructions that my very senior Thai boss gave us farang employees 20 years ago  -  to paraphrase "Just read the wording of the law; do not try to interprete them as is common outside Thailand".       

[stat]

1 hour ago, dinga said:

 

Frankly, in my experience it matters not how any farang/foreign Authority approaches regulatory provisions, their interpretations and the pursuit of compliance. 

 

What is critically important is the understanding the Thai environment and especially the experience of how Thai Authorities actually act in practice.  Of course, understanding how foreign Authorities conduct themselves may assist to identify risk minimisation measures.

 

I always remember the clear instructions that my very senior Thai boss gave us farang employees 20 years ago  -  to paraphrase "Just read the wording of the law; do not try to interprete them as is common outside Thailand".       

Spot on! The best we and anyone can do is risk minimisation in using as much layers of risk protection as possible. TRD can read a lot into their laws as can any RD. In Thailand you will have a very hard time to win your case in a thai court, so there is not much you can if you disagree with TRD.

[stat]

1 hour ago, Lorry said:

I think he meant exactly this.

I would say the gifter doesn't get a tax holiday,  he just never remitted the money to Thailand.  A remittance imho is a transfer to oneself.

 

But the RD case @Dogmatix quoted much earlier in this thread was the attached one iirc. It is about the taxes of the receiver of the gift, not about taxes the gifter has to pay.

In @Klonko's video the RD also talks very clearly about the tax of the receiver, and not very clear about the gifter.

 

I give up and agree with @Yumthaithat we just don't know.

 

PS thinking about it, @JimGant's argument makes sense in combination with @Dogmatic latest post:

If Mr U gifts 1m into Mr T's Thai account, Mr U has to pay personal income tax for it @JimGant

If Mr U gifts 1m to Mr T's US account, and then Mr T remits it to Thailand,  Mr T has to pay personal income tax for it @Dogmatix

So the 1m will always be taxed,  win-win for the RD.

 

Gift tax.mov 65.33 MB · 0 downloads

Gift Tax Case RD KK0702-530 11 Feb 2023.docx 24.19 kB · 0 downloads

If possible why not gift the money from your siblings or parents? I would not feel good in gifting my wife a lot of money via transferring it to her account, neither taxwise nor otherwise if you know what I mean 😉  Rather buy here some nice stuff from time to time, just my 2 cents.

[Mike Lister]

6 hours ago, Klonko said:

Although I consider Mike's approach to gifts as too restrictive and  have set up a structure with a gift component for myself, IMO your structure is tax evasion.

Can we be clear what you think my approach to Gift Tax is, because to the best of my knowledge, I don't recall ever setting out any approach? The Introduction to Personal Tax concludes the following on the subject of Gift tax, which really does mirror my personal views:

 

"Because Gift Tax is predominantly a domain of the wealthy and depends to a large extent on local practise, there is a shortage of confirmed information on this subject". And,

 

"Members wishing to exercise this option should seek qualified advice before using this option to Gift untaxed funds". And,

 

"Until this becomes more clear, it is critical that anyone wishing to use Gift Tax, seeks professional advice".

 

 

 

[Mike Lister]

9 hours ago, stat said:

Amazing that you "write" a tax guide after posting "we will follow the rules to the letter" when no foreigner is allowed to give tax advice in Thailand.

There is no Tax Guide, we haven't produced one, we only have an Introduction to Personal Tax.

 

As other posters in this thread have pointed out, the, "Introduction to Personal Tax in Thailand", does not provide advice, instead it provides information for members to consider. That effort has nothing to do however, with the way forum rules are enforced on the subject of tax and law, which is a totally different subject, as I suspect you well know!

[Klonko]

1 hour ago, Mike Lister said:

Can we be clear what you think my approach to Gift Tax is, because to the best of my knowledge, I don't recall ever setting out any approach? The Introduction to Personal Tax concludes the following on the subject of Gift tax, which really does mirror my personal views:

 

"Because Gift Tax is predominantly a domain of the wealthy and depends to a large extent on local practise, there is a shortage of confirmed information on this subject". And,

 

"Members wishing to exercise this option should seek qualified advice before using this option to Gift untaxed funds". And,

 

"Until this becomes more clear, it is critical that anyone wishing to use Gift Tax, seeks professional advice".

 

 

 

Very clear before my post. Exclusively recommending professional advice for any gifts is a restrictive approach. It is your tax guide and your choice not to elaborate on publicly known parameters.

 

Based on my experience with a reputable Thai tax consulting firm last year, which did not provide specific answers to specific questions, I would not expect too much clarification beyond the known parameters (traditional gift) and each one has to make his or her own assessment. Given the Ferrari example it is not necessarily a domain of the wealthy. 

[Lorry]

20 minutes ago, Klonko said:

Given the Ferrari example it is not necessarily a domain of the wealthy. 

In the Gift Tax Case from the RD (I posted the link 7 posts earlier) the sums are 700,000 - 1,000,000 THB per year . Not a domain of the wealthy.

 

Most expats in Thailand give gifts to their partners or Thai family (I mean real genuine gifts), and often this is the bigger part of the money they bring to Thailand.  So it would be of practical importance to know how the RD treats/will treat gifts.

But we know very little about it.

[Mike Lister]

1 hour ago, Klonko said:

Very clear before my post. Exclusively recommending professional advice for any gifts is a restrictive approach. It is your tax guide and your choice not to elaborate on publicly known parameters.

 

Based on my experience with a reputable Thai tax consulting firm last year, which did not provide specific answers to specific questions, I would not expect too much clarification beyond the known parameters (traditional gift) and each one has to make his or her own assessment. Given the Ferrari example it is not necessarily a domain of the wealthy. 

Yes it is restrictive, I agree. The reason for that is because I don't feel that collectively, we understand all the nuances sufficiently well to be able to make statements with confidence, above and beyond a small handful of applications of Gift Tax. From what you've written, it appears that I feel the same way that the reputable tax consulting firms do! I would much prefer to err on the side of caution on something like this, rather than rush to a conclusion that is not reliable. There will be members who are capable of making their own assessment but there will be far more who are not and who will be tempted by the first whiff of an opportunity to not pay tax, without understanding the implications. 

 

Those things said, the Introduction to Personal Tax in Thailand does set out the known parameters of the Gift Tax law but does not attempt to interpret them or their nuances.

[jayceenik]

10 hours ago, oldcpu said:

 

From what I have read & videos (of Thai officials) watched, is the recent changes re: taxing money coming into Thailand, was not aimed at expats, but rather it was aimed at wealthy Thai who were avoiding paying tax on income, which the Thai government wanted to tax.

 

This 'income tax' was NOT designed to tax the 'rich nor poor expats' like I believe you infer - for as pointed out , it was aimed at the wealthy Thai.

 

It stands to reason that they would apply this tax law  to all expat residents and not just Thai citizens (who also reside in Thailand).  ... So expats are in essence 'collateral damage'.

 

The LTR is a separate case, and it was put in place in the hope to attract wealthy foreigners to stimulate the economy.  Presumably the thinking was that those who qualify for the LTR would invest & spend more money in Thailand than the average expats who can't qualify for the LTR.  As to whether that is actually going to happen, and as to how this actually plays out in the next few years - well ...  we will see, as this could all change. 

 

Further, as for well off expats not paying 1 baht in taxes for the rest of their life - I seriously doubt that.  Seriously seriously doubt that.  They will still be paying VAT, and they will still likely be paying tax in the home country(s) from which they derive their income.

.

I agree with you. I've been thinking all along that this law was mainly aimed at Thais with big overseas income kept hidden to RD and we are unintended potential collateral damage. Potential because I don't think they'll come after us happy ordinary LOS retirees. 

Taxing the big Thai guys-yes. Taxing rich resident farangs with big worldwide income-maybe yes. Taxing modest farang retirees on their monthly 65k (home-taxed or not), I don't think so....

Of course, what I think is not RD law... 😉

 

[Mike Lister]

1 minute ago, jayceenik said:

I agree with you. I've been thinking all along that this law was mainly aimed at Thais with big overseas income kept hidden to RD and we are unintended potential collateral damage. Potential because I don't think they'll come after us happy ordinary LOS retirees. 

Taxing the big Thai guys-yes. Taxing rich resident farangs with big worldwide income-maybe yes. Taxing modest farang retirees on their monthly 65k (home-taxed or not), I don't think so....

Of course, what I think is not RD law... 😉

 

Very much agreed, we've been saying the same thing since December last year:

 

"The purpose of the new rule is to reduce tax avoidance and to help prevent tax evasion. This also now means that overseas funds transferred into Thailand, by foreigners who are tax resident here, potentially have an increased risk of being taxed". 

[Yumthai]

11 hours ago, oldcpu said:

From what I have read & videos (of Thai officials) watched, is the recent changes re: taxing money coming into Thailand, was not aimed at expats, but rather it was aimed at wealthy Thai who were avoiding paying tax on income, which the Thai government wanted to tax.

 

This 'income tax' was NOT designed to tax the 'rich nor poor expats' like I believe you infer - for as pointed out , it was aimed at the wealthy Thai.

 

It stands to reason that they would apply this tax law  to all expat residents and not just Thai citizens (who also reside in Thailand).  ... So expats are in essence 'collateral damage'.

 

The LTR is a separate case, and it was put in place in the hope to attract wealthy foreigners to stimulate the economy.

 

Alternative opinion:

 

Thai government intentions are pure demagogy, as they know as we all know that people in charge of this country will still get ways to keep somehow most of their (offshore) wealth tax-free. Instead, they smartly target the obedient mass i.e. Thai middle-class who invests abroad in order to get decent yields desperately trying to climb the social ladder.

 

LTR visa was created to give the same tax privileges and compensate the foreign wealthy counterparts who don't know or have access to the "Thai way" system.

 

[Dogmatix]

19 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

Pot shots noted!

 

What can I say, we are a commercial site and we do have rules and when it comes to the subject of tax and the law, we will follow the rules to the letter. If members want to advise on these things they will need formal Thai qualifications and the sites owners permission. Until that time, debate away and set out options, share knowledge and opinions, no more.

 

If the cap fits....  Actually I was thinking of a Thai based expat tax advice site that stated categorically in a podcast I had just watched that some one residing in Thailand for less than 180 days would still be classified by the RD as tax resident, if they could not show they were tax resident in another jurisdiction in that tax year. This notion is based on OECD countries like the UK which will not let you out of their tax net when you move abroad, unless you can prove to them you have entered the tax net of another jurisdiction.  But the definition of tax resident in Thailand is purely someone who spends over 180 days in the Kingdom without any of these OECD barbs attached to it - not yet anyway.

 

This advice was not supported by an reference to the RC and was purely a figment of the "tax expert's" imagination.  Judging by the comments some people had believed this which might put them off from moving to Thailand in the second half of a tax year and bringing enough loot with them to buy their condos and live the rest of their lives in the LoS without having to pay remittance tax.  

[Mike Lister]

23 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

If the cap fits....  Actually I was thinking of a Thai based expat tax advice site that stated categorically in a podcast I had just watched that some one residing in Thailand for less than 180 days would still be classified by the RD as tax resident, if they could not show they were tax resident in another jurisdiction in that tax year. This notion is based on OECD countries like the UK which will not let you out of their tax net when you move abroad, unless you can prove to them you have entered the tax net of another jurisdiction.  But the definition of tax resident in Thailand is purely someone who spends over 180 days in the Kingdom without any of these OECD barbs attached to it - not yet anyway.

 

This advice was not supported by an reference to the RC and was purely a figment of the "tax expert's" imagination.  Judging by the comments some people had believed this which might put them off from moving to Thailand in the second half of a tax year and bringing enough loot with them to buy their condos and live the rest of their lives in the LoS without having to pay remittance tax.  

Actually no, the cap does not fit. I am very pleased that members such as yourself have taken the time and put in effort, researching case histories and understanding the tax code et al, in great detail. Sadly you seem to be the only person (by a wide margin) who does understand that detail to the level that you do. Your knowledge and comprehension of the subject matter remains invaluable to the members, the thread and the document I am compiling.

 

For some peculiar reason that I don't fully understand, I seem to be viewed in some quarters as the subject matter expert, despite never once claiming to be such and despite stating I am the exact opposite, when in fact my role has only ever been to gather information provided from various sources  and to document it. This has meant that I have had to pay close attention to the various debates and extract those parts that are useful and incorporate them into the document that some still refer to as a tax guide. It has also meant that I have been forced to challenge some statements that are patently false, knowing they were false has not been difficult in many cases! I let slip many months ago that I had worked for Deloitte in The City for four years, I imagine this has been supportive of my perceived "expert" status. It's just as well that I didn't expand on my time with the firm, otherwise I might have mentioned that I spent a year as a part of a team of four who launched the joint venture company, Iveco/Ford UK, otherwise I might be labelled as an expert on trucks! 

 

My role always has been to produce a document on Thai tax that will benefit the membership, no more no less. My role has never been to act as the expert on Thai tax and I have never claimed to be such, I have even gone to great lengths in the document and elsewhere to reinforce that I am not. I happily leave that role of Thai tax expert to those such as yourself who have the first hand experience of the Thai tax system. That is not to say that I do not understand what I have penned and independently researched but that hardly qualifies as expert status. And because I understand the things I have written, I am well positioned to pass along that knowledge to other members, without detracting from the discussion in this thread. The fact that I am accustomed to filing Thai and international tax returns probably also helps.

 

If there was ever an expectation by anyone that I might research case histories, examine DTA's in detail, research precedents or anything similar, expecters might think carefully about where that idea originated because it was never from me! 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rimmer]

A troll post has been removed

[Mike Lister]

The forum rules are very clear, 

 

5. You will not use ASEAN NOW to post any material which is knowingly or can be reasonably construed as false, inaccurate, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise in violation of any law. Topics or posts deemed to be scaremongering, deliberately misleading or which deliberately distort information will be removed. In factual areas such as news forums and current affairs topics member content that is claimed or portrayed as a fact should be supported by a link to a relevant reputable source.

[Mike Lister]

I have PM'd you on this subject, that's where this discussion ends. Your post and any others along similar lines will be removed in five minutes time.

[Rimmer]

A misleading troll post has been removed

[Dogmatix]

For those who have already made remittances of pre-2024 foreign source income under P. 162/2566 or plan to in future, does anyone have any idea what evidence the RD would accept that it was pre-2024 income?  This would only be required, if challenged by the RD, since there is no need to declare non-assessable income.  Nevertheless,  I think this is a very important point and have only seen advice from the expat tax advisors saying make sure you keep statements as evidence . The problem IMHO is that Thai banks will for a small fee provide certified hard copy statements signed and stamped by a bank teller.  Thai auditors require certified statements for company accounts and this so this is the level of bank verification RD inspectors are accustomed to.  I doubt if many banks in developed countries will provide this service.  Most have already gone completely paperless for statements or will soon.  So there may be a risk of being taxed on remittances that were tax exempt under P. 162/2566, if the RD follows up on the remittances.

 

If would be nice, if the expat advisors would use their contacts at the RD, assuming they have any, to clarify this critical point.

[JohnnyBD]

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

What makes a remittance of assessable income no longer assessable or taxable

If you have time to share your thoughts on my question, I would appreciate it. Does foreign income (for example in 2024), but not remitted in 2024 or 2025, ever cease to be assessable income for a tax resident? Is there a statute of limitations on this? What if it was remitted in 2026, in 2028, or in 2030? Or, will it always be assessable income whenever it is remitted? What if those 2024 monies were remitted in a year when you were not a tax resident. I guess what I'm thinking is, if someone is not a tax resident and not required to file a tax return, why would TRD ever question them. Are they going to start questioning every non resident/tourist/visitor who remits money. Just thinking of different situations. 

[Dogmatix]

27 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

 

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or I've misunderstood what you're trying to say but if you really have found an official answer that says there are no provisions to remit "Gifts" tax free can you please share the source with us. 

 

Everything I've read suggests "Gifts" are exempt from Tax:-

• Between Ascendants, Descendants or Spouses up to 20Million THB
• To others 10Million THB if it's for "Moral Purposes", "Given for a Ceremony/Occasion in Accordance with Custom & Traditions" of the person providing the Gift or given with the intention of being used for "Religious, Education or Public benefit". 

 

I haven't found anywhere in the TRD or large accounting firms documentation that says this cannot come from outside of Thailand or anywhere that says any remitted monies will have tax withheld upfront. 

 

As I understand it, if I gift 100K to my GF for the occasion of her Birthday then this would be free of Tax but if any Tax was due then it would come as a result of her filing a Tax Return & the revenue rejecting the claim that it's a gift then it's at this point that she would need to pay the tax.

 

 

If the recipient believes they have received a gift that is not assessable income, they should not include it in their tax return.  So the only way the RD could challenge the recipient's position that it was a tax exempt gift would be, if the RD received information about the remittance or transfer and asked the recipient to clarify the payment to see whether it was assessable or not. Bearing in mind that domestic transfers can also qualify and there are millions of transfers made between individuals, any of which could be gifts, that will be a lot to sift through.  Of course the RD could just go after foreign remittances but logically but they stand to find far more transfers that turn out to be undeclared assessable income  purely in the domestic banking system, including payments for goods and services to sole traders who under declare their income or don't file anything at all.  

[ballpoint]

10 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

For those who have already made remittances of pre-2024 foreign source income under P. 162/2566 or plan to in future, does anyone have any idea what evidence the RD would accept that it was pre-2024 income?  This would only be required, if challenged by the RD, since there is no need to declare non-assessable income.  Nevertheless,  I think this is a very important point and have only seen advice from the expat tax advisors saying make sure you keep statements as evidence . The problem IMHO is that Thai banks will for a small fee provide certified hard copy statements signed and stamped by a bank teller.  Thai auditors require certified statements for company accounts and this so this is the level of bank verification RD inspectors are accustomed to.  I doubt if many banks in developed countries will provide this service.  Most have already gone completely paperless for statements or will soon.  So there may be a risk of being taxed on remittances that were tax exempt under P. 162/2566, if the RD follows up on the remittances.

At my little two woman run district office, it has sufficed to print statements for the previous year (covering Jan 1st to the end of the month of the last remittance that year) from the overseas account I remit from and cross link all those withdrawals to deposits in the Thai account I remit to.  My overseas bank doesn't issue paper statements, but I can download them as pdf's online.  I have done this for the six years I've been retired here (after working here many years) - including this year, and have never had to file a return, as I always topped up the overseas account at the end of the year, well after my final remittance for that period, thus no assessable income was remitted each year.

 

Whether they continue to accept non-certified printed statements under the new regime remains to be seen, as does whether other offices do the same, either currently or in future.  However, I imagine using this method going forward will involve presenting statements all the way back to Jan 1st this year showing that the funds were in an otherwise undisturbed account since then.  As there seems to be more at stake now, and it wouldn't be that hard to edit a pdf statement to show more funds available on Jan 1st 2024 than you actually had, they may very well demand certified ones in future.

[Dogmatix]

20 minutes ago, JohnnyBD said:

If you have time to share your thoughts on my question, I would appreciate it. Does foreign income (for example in 2024), but not remitted in 2024 or 2025, ever cease to be assessable income for a tax resident? Is there a statute of limitations on this? What if it was remitted in 2026, in 2028, or in 2030? Or, will it always be assessable income whenever it is remitted? What if those 2024 monies were remitted in a year when you were not a tax resident. I guess what I'm thinking is, if someone is not a tax resident and not required to file a tax return, why would TRD ever question them. Are they going to start questioning every non resident/tourist/visitor who remits money. Just thinking of different situations. 

 

This gets back to the questions posed about P. 161/2566 before they issued P. 162/2566 which exempts pre-2024 foreign source income. The way the reinterpretation was drafted in 161/2566 implied that foreign source income earned  going back to the year dot was assessable.  162/2566 drew a line at 1 Jan 2024 but, as time goes on, the original problem re-emerges.  Thus with no further amendments of re-interpretations, if we look at, for example, the year 2060, is foreign source income earned in 2024 still assessable income or is deemed untaxable capital by then?  

 

The problem is that this wasn't thought through and it was done by an ambitious man in his last week in the job and eager to get the attention of politicians in power and be thought of as doer worthy of greater things in future.  Since he had no authority to amend the law, he was limited to what he could to alter the interpretation of the existing law. This approach is bound to lead to endless problems in the execution of the chance but that was left to others to sort out.  Now he is busy as permanent secretary for finance supporting Thaksin's daughter in her assertions that the governor of the BoT, an MIT trained former World Bank economist cannot understand the need to reduce interest rates.

[Dogmatix]

3 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

At my little two woman run district office, it has sufficed to print statements for the previous year (covering Jan 1st to the end of the month of the last remittance that year) from the overseas account I remit from and cross link all those withdrawals to deposits in the Thai account I remit to.  My overseas bank doesn't issue paper statements, but I can download them as pdf's online.  I have done this for the six years I've been retired here (after working here many years) - including this year, and have never had to file a return, as I always topped up the overseas account at the end of the year, well after my final remittance for that period, thus no assessable income was remitted each year.

 

Whether they continue to accept non-certified printed statements under the new regime remains to be seen, as does whether other offices do the same, either currently or in future.  However, I imagine using this method going forward will involve presenting statements all the way back to Jan 1st this year showing that the funds were in an otherwise undisturbed account since then.  As there seems to be more at stake now, and it wouldn't be that hard to edit a pdf statement to show more funds available on Jan 1st 2024 than you actually had, they may very well demand certified ones in future.

 

Exactly.  That is my concern.  Of course it is easy to use software to edit Pdf files. Under CRS reporting the RD should have access to your end 2024 bank balance.  However, if we consider their system for checking on dividends paid by Thai companies, in the case the taxpayer claims a tax credit on them, they always ask for copies of all the dividend certificates, even though the taxpayer is filing his tax return online and the Thai stock exchange registry sends the dividend information directly to the RD.  Admittedly they don't demand certified copies of the dividend certificates but this are printed and verifiable in Thailand and would be a lot harder to forge than Pdf files.

[metisdead]

Some argumentative posts have been removed.  

 

Some posts commenting on moderation have been removed. 

 

An off topic deflection post about the Vietnam Tax Rules has been removed as this topic is about:

 

Thai government to tax all income from abroad for tax residents starting 2024

[oldcpu]

7 hours ago, Yumthai said:

 

Alternative opinion:

 

Thai government intentions are pure demagogy, as they know as we all know that people in charge of this country will still get ways to keep somehow most of their (offshore) wealth tax-free. Instead, they smartly target the obedient mass i.e. Thai middle-class who invests abroad in order to get decent yields desperately trying to climb the social ladder.

 

'As we all know' ?  .. My alternative opinion:   You are speaking for yourself and not for 'all'.

 

7 hours ago, Yumthai said:

LTR visa was created to give the same tax privileges and compensate the foreign wealthy counterparts who don't know or have access to the "Thai way" system.

 

 

Serious?  I  don't think so. Frankly, I don't believe for one second that the goal of anyone in the Thai government is to help foreigners financially.  They would rather find a way to get money from the foreigners.

 

Honestly - I think you could not be more wrong in that statement.  The LTR visa was created to get money from foreigners - for foreigners to spend money in the Thai economy.  I think the Thai government view is they won't get any tax money from those LTR foreigners regardless, so the idea is to convince those wealthy foreigner to reside in Thailand and spend their money in Thailand.

 

I never thought I would see the day on Asean Now when someone claims a visa was created to compensate wealthy foreigners.   lol ! lol !

[Dogmatix]

31 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

Exactly.  That is my concern.  Of course it is easy to use software to edit Pdf files. Under CRS reporting the RD should have access to your end 2024 bank balance.  However, if we consider their system for checking on dividends paid by Thai companies, in the case the taxpayer claims a tax credit on them, they always ask for copies of all the dividend certificates, even though the taxpayer is filing his tax return online and the Thai stock exchange registry sends the dividend information directly to the RD.  Admittedly they don't demand certified copies of the dividend certificates but this are printed and verifiable in Thailand and would be a lot harder to forge than Pdf files.

 

 

I just emailed a bank in Hong Kong, where I have a reasonable balance, to ask if they can provide a certified statement for Dec 2023.  I am not holding my breath for a positive reply or even a reply at all but will post her, if I get one.  If I get a negative reply, I will keep it in the tax file to show the RD, although they might ask for the email to be certified as well.