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

[redwood1]

 

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

 

The word '' ALL'' in this sentence is 100% incorrect....And I wish it would be fixed..

 

With a LTR visa there is no tax on income from abroad even if you never leave Thailand...

[Lorry]

17 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

 

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.

There are no certified statements in my home country. The RD there accepts pdf printouts.

[metisdead]

Another post commenting on moderation has been removed:

 

13. You will not publicly comment on moderation in an open forum. You will not comment on actions taken by individual moderators or on specific or general policies and issues. You will not post a negative emoticon in response to a public notice made by a moderator. You may send a private message to a moderator to discuss individual actions or you can email support (at) aseannow.com to discuss moderation policy and account suspensions. Aggression or abuse against moderators is not tolerated and any such action will be sanctioned. There is no excuse for abuse.

[Mike Lister]

A member has asked that his post be reinstated because it contains, "a very serious conclusion about gifts", allegedly. The same poster went on to say that I have supposedly been fighting his conclusion for months.

 

The post is shown below, it was removed because several posters, including myself, assumed it was thinly veiled sarcasm rather than anything sincere. The post concludes that there is no tax exemption of any remitted foreign assessible income. I'll leave it to that poster to argue that it was not sarcasm and for members to determine if it was or was not.

 

With regard to me having fought this posters position on this subject for many months: I don't really have a position on Gift tax and don't believe I ever have, other than we don't know enough about it to confidently state much apart from the blindingly obvious and those things are contained in the document we have produced. Once again, I'll leave it to that poster to substantiate that we do know enough to be able to make claims and to provide proof that we do.

 

 

Well, Mike, I think I finally found the answer to the question I've asked you several times, namely: What makes a remittance of assessable income no longer assessable or taxable -- because the end destination of this remittance is a gift? Well, of course, being an end destination as a gift doesn't -- as your answer above clearly states -- there's nothing special about (the assessability of remitted income) due to its final destination. Nothing - not real estate purchase, new car purchase, bill paying, stock investment, soi dog foundation, and gift. And RD doesn't care if it's a real gift, or bogus -- they get their tax payment upfront, before it's distributed, as either a real gift; a bogus gift, with recipient acting as an intermediary; or as a payment to the recipient, for services or products rendered. Those actions have separate tax implications.

 

So, as you say above, there's no tax exemption of remitted foreign assessable income for any final purpose, to include gifts. There. Glad we got that settled.

[topt]

34 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

A member

Can you tell us who so we can perhaps judge for ourselves based on posting history?

 

I remember reading the quote and thought then that we were just going round and round either in circles or down the rabbit hole........

[Mike Lister]

4 minutes ago, topt said:

Can you tell us who so we can perhaps judge for ourselves based on posting history?

 

I remember reading the quote and thought then that we were just going round and round either in circles or down the rabbit hole........

No, sorry, just take the post for the words it contains and let it be anonymous, so as not to allow knowledge of the poster to influence your views.

[JimGant]

You need to include your post, upon which I was commenting on:

Quote

 I agree, we already said:

 

"The Thai Revenue Code does not consider the purpose of the funds that are imported, only whether the funds are assessable or not. For example, funds imported to buy real estate will be viewed in the same way that imported funds for any other purpose will be, there's nothing special about the fact those funds are buying property versus anything else"

 

Then, my observation:

 

Quote

 Well, Mike, I think I finally found the answer to the question I've asked you several times, namely: What makes a remittance of assessable income no longer assessable or taxable -- because the end destination of this remittance is a gift? Well, of course, being an end destination as a gift doesn't -- as your answer above clearly states -- there's nothing special about (the assessability of remitted income) due to its final destination. Nothing - not real estate purchase, new car purchase, bill paying, stock investment, soi dog foundation, and gift. And RD doesn't care if it's a real gift, or bogus -- they get their tax payment upfront, before it's distributed, as either a real gift; a bogus gift, with recipient acting as an intermediary; or as a payment to the recipient, for services or products rendered. Those actions have separate tax implications.

So, as you say above, there's no tax exemption of remitted foreign assessable income for any final purpose, to include gifts. There. Glad we got that settled.

 I'll leave it up to the reader to determine whether or not you agreed with my assumption that gifts are not unique in that their end use exempts them from being assessable foreign remitted income.

 

Now, if that is not what you meant, well then, I'll give you a chance to give your reasoning as to why they might be exempt from being assessable income. To include the whole rationale behind Thai gift taxes, which like the US, are a means to penalize gifting away your whole taxable estate to avoid inheritance taxes. Which, for Thailand, has majority relevance to domestic gifting, not gifting from abroad -- and where providing a tax break for the gifter doesn't seem very relevant to anything, 'lest there actually is a law, with the implied corruption behind it, to exempt remitted income identified as having an end result as a gift. If that's what you believe, then, yes, maybe remitted foreign income slated to be a gift is exempt from being assessable and taxable. And, I guess, we'll have to leave it at that, until we identify such a law.

 

Cheers

[Mike Lister]

6 minutes ago, JimGant said:

You need to include your post, upon which I was commenting on:

 

Then, my observation:

 

 I'll leave it up to the reader to determine whether or not you agreed with my assumption that gifts are not unique in that their end use exempts them from being assessable foreign remitted income.

 

Now, if that is not what you meant, well then, I'll give you a chance to give your reasoning as to why they might be exempt from being assessable income. To include the whole rationale behind Thai gift taxes, which like the US, are a means to penalize gifting away your whole taxable estate to avoid inheritance taxes. Which, for Thailand, has majority relevance to domestic gifting, not gifting from abroad -- and where providing a tax break for the gifter doesn't seem very relevant to anything, 'lest there actually is a law, with the implied corruption behind it, to exempt remitted income identified as having an end result as a gift. If that's what you believe, then, yes, maybe remitted foreign income slated to be a gift is exempt from being assessable and taxable. And, I guess, we'll have to leave it at that, until we identify such a law.

 

Cheers

 

A couple of points:

 

My quote above comes from the Introduction section of the Personal Tax document we produced and is intended to set the scene as it begins to describe the tax system in Thailand. The quote is therefore not specific and directly relevant to Gift Tax, or potentially not even relevant to it at all, and has to be seen in the context of the document and the fact it is scene setting rather than information that is specific to any aspect of tax.

 

Secondly, it is not for me to agree or disagree with what posters have to say on any aspect of Thai tax, except where I might know that what is being said contradicts what is generally accepted as fact, in which case I will state so. Whether or not I agree with what you wrote is not relevant, as said earlier, I and others assumed your post to be sarcasm rather than an objective assessment and I'm still struggling with that, which is why I reposted it so that members can decide. To be honest, I find your post very difficult to decipher and understand exactly what you are saying so you'll forgive me if I sit and re-read it several times and try to make sence of it.

 

 

 

[stat]

32 minutes ago, JimGant said:

You need to include your post, upon which I was commenting on:

 

Then, my observation:

 

 I'll leave it up to the reader to determine whether or not you agreed with my assumption that gifts are not unique in that their end use exempts them from being assessable foreign remitted income.

 

Now, if that is not what you meant, well then, I'll give you a chance to give your reasoning as to why they might be exempt from being assessable income. To include the whole rationale behind Thai gift taxes, which like the US, are a means to penalize gifting away your whole taxable estate to avoid inheritance taxes. Which, for Thailand, has majority relevance to domestic gifting, not gifting from abroad -- and where providing a tax break for the gifter doesn't seem very relevant to anything, 'lest there actually is a law, with the implied corruption behind it, to exempt remitted income identified as having an end result as a gift. If that's what you believe, then, yes, maybe remitted foreign income slated to be a gift is exempt from being assessable and taxable. And, I guess, we'll have to leave it at that, until we identify such a law.

 

Cheers

This is a very interesting topic! Let me formulate positive: **Baiting phrase removed by moderator

 

Jim thanks for bringing this up! Pls elaborate:

 

1. What would it take to be designated and accepted as a gift by TRD according to your view? In my understanding if I receive 5 Mio baht in my Thai bank account designated as gift from my father that should be taxfree. But I am no expert in this area.

 

2. How would TRD tax the remittance beforehand? I know they could but I never heard of anything like this before.

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

[Mike Lister]

30 minutes ago, JimGant said:

You need to include your post, upon which I was commenting on:

 

Then, my observation:

 

 I'll leave it up to the reader to determine whether or not you agreed with my assumption that gifts are not unique in that their end use exempts them from being assessable foreign remitted income.

 

Now, if that is not what you meant, well then, I'll give you a chance to give your reasoning as to why they might be exempt from being assessable income. To include the whole rationale behind Thai gift taxes, which like the US, are a means to penalize gifting away your whole taxable estate to avoid inheritance taxes. Which, for Thailand, has majority relevance to domestic gifting, not gifting from abroad -- and where providing a tax break for the gifter doesn't seem very relevant to anything, 'lest there actually is a law, with the implied corruption behind it, to exempt remitted income identified as having an end result as a gift. If that's what you believe, then, yes, maybe remitted foreign income slated to be a gift is exempt from being assessable and taxable. And, I guess, we'll have to leave it at that, until we identify such a law.

 

Cheers

 

For clarification, the phrase above in bold....did you mean to write "unique", instead of "not unique"?

[JimGant]

12 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

The quote is therefore not specific and directly relevant to Gift Tax, or potentially not even relevant to it at all,

Au contraire: "The Thai Revenue Code does not consider the purpose of the funds that are imported, only whether the funds are assessable or not."

 

What could be more encompassing of whether or not funds destined as a gift are taxable -- than the Thai Revenue Code stating that the purpose of the funds has no impact on their assessability and potential taxability.

 

Quote

I and others assumed your post to be sarcasm rather than an objective assessment

 Sarcastic, how? That really has me scratching my head.

[Mike Lister]

2 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Au contraire: "The Thai Revenue Code does not consider the purpose of the funds that are imported, only whether the funds are assessable or not."

 

What could be more encompassing of whether or not funds destined as a gift are taxable -- than the Thai Revenue Code stating that the purpose of the funds has no impact on their assessability and potential taxability.

 

 Sarcastic, how? That really has me scratching my head.

Go and read the document on tax that we wrote, my quote sits in the Introduction and, as everyone can see, it's scene setting, not connected to or intended to be directly relevant to Gift Tax...that is indisputable.

 

Re: sarcasm: well, one poster right after yours, asked directly if you were being sarcastic, which is exactly what I wondered also and subsequently led to your post being removed.  Some of the things you wrote were pretty dubious:

 

 Nothing - not real estate purchase, new car purchase, bill paying, stock investment, soi dog foundation, and gift. And RD doesn't care if it's a real gift, or bogus -- they get their tax payment upfront, before it's distributed, as either a real gift; a bogus gift, with recipient acting as an intermediary; or as a payment to the recipient, for services or products rendered. 

 

I appreciate you write in casual American English but still, your post seemed to be more of a joke than serious. TBH I still haven't fully understood what you've written.

 

[JimGant]

17 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

For clarification, the phrase above in bold....did you mean to write "unique", instead of "not unique"?

No, not unique, as in: gifts, like money sent for expenditures, to buy a new car, to buy a condo, whatever -- are NOT UNIQUE. Thus, the purpose of imported foreign income has no bearing on its taxability, just as you said in your quote: "The Thai Revenue Code does not consider the purpose of the funds that are imported, only whether the funds are assessable or not." Ergo, money imported, whose final purpose is a gift, is NOT UNIQUE from other importations, and thus is not tax exempt if otherwise assessable. 

[JimGant]

6 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

as everyone can see, it's scene setting, not connected to or intended to be directly relevant to Gift Tax...that is indisputable.

 But why wouldn't it be relevant to a gift tax -- are you inferring importations destined as gifts are somehow unique compared to the purposes of other importations? Anyway, we seem to be on a treadmill here. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

[Mike Lister]

4 minutes ago, JimGant said:

No, not unique, as in: gifts, like money sent for expenditures, to buy a new car, to buy a condo, whatever -- are NOT UNIQUE. Thus, the purpose of imported foreign income has no bearing on its taxability, just as you said in your quote: "The Thai Revenue Code does not consider the purpose of the funds that are imported, only whether the funds are assessable or not." Ergo, money imported, whose final purpose is a gift, is NOT UNIQUE from other importations, and thus is not tax exempt if otherwise assessable. 

OK thanks, we might just be getting there!

 

I think my view on this, which I don't believe I have ever stated previously, within the specific context of Gift Tax is, that a genuine gift remittance is not assessable income and does not need to be declared on a tax return. It is merely coincidental that coincides with what I wrote in the Introduction.

[Mike Lister]

1 minute ago, JimGant said:

 But why wouldn't it be relevant to a gift tax -- are you inferring importations destined as gifts are somehow unique compared to the purposes of other importations? Anyway, we seem to be on a treadmill here. Maybe we should just agree to disagree.

As it turns out it is coincidently relevant but that quote was not intended to reflect that, when it was posted earlier.

[Lorry]

1 hour ago, stat said:

This is a very interesting topic! Let me formulate positive: **Baiting phrase removed by moderator

 

Jim thanks for bringing this up! Pls elaborate:

 

1. What would it take to be designated and accepted as a gift by TRD according to your view? In my understanding if I receive 5 Mio baht in my Thai bank account designated as gift from my father that should be taxfree. But I am no expert in this area.

 

2. How would TRD tax the remittance beforehand? I know they could but I never heard of anything like this before.

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

This discussion mixes up two completely different situations:

 

Situation 1 (the situation most posters talk about):

A foreigner, tax resident in Thailand,  transfers money from abroad to the Thai bank account of another person in Thailand. The other person may be his wife or the Soi Dog Foundation, doesn't matter.  The money is a gift.  The money never goes into the foreigner's Thai bank account. 

 

Does the foreigner - who never controls the money since it left his bank account abroad - have to pay personal income tax on this money?

 

@Etaoin Shrdlu thinks yes, and @JimGanttoo, if I understand him correctly.

I would like to know from native speakers of English and/ or Thai ( @Dogmatix?) whether a "remittance" according to RD 161/2566 necessarily means a remittance to oneself or not.

 

Situation 2 (the situation @stat is taking about)

Another person,  e.g. a close relative like stat's father,  who is not a tax resident in Thailand,  sends money as a gift from abroad to his beloved son's (who is a tax resident in Thailand) Thai bank account (not so much as to buy a Ferrari, that would not be customary, see @Klonko's video).

Has the son to pay personal income tax on this money?

 

@stat thinks no, I agree with him. Anybody thinks otherwise? 

 

 

[JimGant]

1 hour ago, stat said:

What would it take to be designated and accepted as a gift by TRD according to your view? In my understanding if I receive 5 Mio baht in my Thai bank account designated as gift from my father that should be taxfree. B

TRD hasn't the foggiest interest in the purposes of the remittances -- because the purpose of the remittance in no way affects the assessability nor taxability of the remittance.  It's up to you to self assess the nature, thus the potential taxability, of the remittance. For a Yank, govt pension, social security, VA disability payments, for example, are not assessable income -- and wouldn't be noted anywhere on a tax return. But a pension check from Boeing would. But other cash flows into Thailand need not be noted as assessable, like loans you're bringing over to buy a condo; an inheritance from Uncle Joe; and a gift from Aunt Martha (in this case, the only gift reporting onus is on Aunt Martha, who reports it to the IRS, if above a certain amount). Thus, there's nothing on your Thai tax return that reflects, or is affected by, the fact that the final destination of this remittance is as someone's gift.

 

Now, the burden of any gift tax will now lie on that recipient -- not you. Sorry, then -- no tax exemption on remittances of assessable income destined as gifts. Even to a monastery -- yes, charitable deductions are available -- but only on after-tax (disposable) income, not on incoming remittances.

 

 

[stat]

4 hours ago, Dogmatix said:

 

 

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.

Never heard of certified account statements neither in Germany or US. All in .pdf format.

[stat]

1 hour ago, Lorry said:

This discussion mixes up two completely different situations:

 

Situation 1 (the situation most posters talk about):

A foreigner, tax resident in Thailand,  transfers money from abroad to the Thai bank account of another person in Thailand. The other person may be his wife or the Soi Dog Foundation, doesn't matter.  The money is a gift.  The money never goes into the foreigner's Thai bank account. 

 

Does the foreigner - who never controls the money since it left his bank account abroad - have to pay personal income tax on this money?

 

@Etaoin Shrdlu thinks yes, and @JimGanttoo, if I understand him correctly.

I would like to know from native speakers of English and/ or Thai ( @Dogmatix?) whether a "remittance" according to RD 161/2566 necessarily means a remittance to oneself or not.

 

Situation 2 (the situation @stat is taking about)

Another person,  e.g. a close relative like stat's father,  who is not a tax resident in Thailand,  sends money as a gift from abroad to his beloved son's (who is a tax resident in Thailand) Thai bank account (not so much as to buy a Ferrari, that would not be customary, see @Klonko's video).

Has the son to pay personal income tax on this money?

 

@stat thinks no, I agree with him. Anybody thinks otherwise? 

 

 

Great post, thanks for the clarification! The situation 2 is well described! I was not aware of the customary aspect , so I assume it would help to receive the gift around xmas or my birthday etc? Any ideas if 1-5 M Baht is customary and how it would be judged? I was also planing of receiving the gifts in my offshore account and then use foreign cc in Thailand. Maybe I will use Thai account but unlikely. I am still hoping for an e-wallet like GCash or other accesible for falangs in TH that I would transfer money to.

[stat]

54 minutes ago, JimGant said:

TRD hasn't the foggiest interest in the purposes of the remittances -- because the purpose of the remittance in no way affects the assessability nor taxability of the remittance.  It's up to you to self assess the nature, thus the potential taxability, of the remittance. For a Yank, govt pension, social security, VA disability payments, for example, are not assessable income -- and wouldn't be noted anywhere on a tax return. But a pension check from Boeing would. But other cash flows into Thailand need not be noted as assessable, like loans you're bringing over to buy a condo; an inheritance from Uncle Joe; and a gift from Aunt Martha (in this case, the only gift reporting onus is on Aunt Martha, who reports it to the IRS, if above a certain amount). Thus, there's nothing on your Thai tax return that reflects, or is affected by, the fact that the final destination of this remittance is as someone's gift.

 

Now, the burden of any gift tax will now lie on that recipient -- not you. Sorry, then -- no tax exemption on remittances of assessable income destined as gifts. Even to a monastery -- yes, charitable deductions are available -- but only on after-tax (disposable) income, not on incoming remittances.

 

 

If the remittance is a gift it should not be taxible so IMHO the purpose (gift or loan or transfer) should be important to TRD, but maybe I am missing some nuances in the english language here. Thanks for clarification!

[Lorry]

1 hour ago, JimGant said:

TRD hasn't the foggiest interest in the purposes of the remittances -- because the purpose of the remittance in no way affects the assessability nor taxability of the remittance.  It's up to you to self assess the nature, thus the potential taxability, of the remittance. For a Yank, govt pension, social security, VA disability payments, for example, are not assessable income -- and wouldn't be noted anywhere on a tax return. But a pension check from Boeing would. But other cash flows into Thailand need not be noted as assessable, like loans you're bringing over to buy a condo; an inheritance from Uncle Joe; and a gift from Aunt Martha (in this case, the only gift reporting onus is on Aunt Martha, who reports it to the IRS, if above a certain amount). Thus, there's nothing on your Thai tax return that reflects, or is affected by, the fact that the final destination of this remittance is as someone's gift.

 

Now, the burden of any gift tax will now lie on that recipient -- not you. Sorry, then -- no tax exemption on remittances of assessable income destined as gifts. Even to a monastery -- yes, charitable deductions are available -- but only on after-tax (disposable) income, not on incoming remittances.

 

 

I thought about situation 1 and about JimGant's "sarcastic" post and I think in situation 1 he is right.

 

I could pay my rental apartment in Bangkok by international wire transfer from my foreign bank account to the bank of my landlord. I could even pay my baker like this. Obviously this money is still  money that I remitted into Thailand (the UK rules even explicitly say so).  So the receiver of the wire transfer and the purpose of the transfer do not matter, and they don't matter either if the transfer is a gift to anyone.

 

This is important,  it means gifts a tax resident sends to his Thai wife instead of himself don't help. 

 

About situation 2, I think JimGant is wrong. If Aunt Mary in Tallahassee sends me a customary gift, this is not a kind of income as specified in  RD 162/2566.

Stat is right here. 

3 problems:

1. In Klonko's video,  even the RD guy said a gift to your son has to be customary. That's wrong (read the law) because he was talking about father and son, but he is the RD.

2. What's customary? We only know a Ferrari isn't.  What about a Mercedes?

3. As stat mentioned before,  you could easily live off gifts from close relatives.  I don't think Somchai, the tax inspector, will let you pull this off.

But it certainly is one more layer of protection. 

[Mike Lister]

19 minutes ago, Lorry said:

I thought about situation 1 and about JimGant's "sarcastic" post and I think in situation 1 he is right.

 

I could pay my rental apartment in Bangkok by international wire transfer from my foreign bank account to the bank of my landlord. I could even pay my baker like this. Obviously this money is still  money that I remitted into Thailand (the UK rules even explicitly say so).  So the receiver of the wire transfer and the purpose of the transfer do not matter, and they don't matter either if the transfer is a gift to anyone.

 

This is important,  it means gifts a tax resident sends to his Thai wife instead of himself don't help. 

 

About situation 2, I think JimGant is wrong. If Aunt Mary in Tallahassee sends me a customary gift, this is not a kind of income as specified in  RD 162/2566.

Stat is right here. 

3 problems:

1. In Klonko's video,  even the RD guy said a gift to your son has to be customary. That's wrong (read the law) because he was talking about father and son, but he is the RD.

2. What's customary? We only know a Ferrari isn't.  What about a Mercedes?

3. As stat mentioned before,  you could easily live off gifts from close relatives.  I don't think Somchai, the tax inspector, will let you pull this off.

But it certainly is one more layer of protection. 

That is tax evasion. You can't Gift funds to your landlords account from an overseas account and call it a gift when you're also paying your rent with the same money.

[JohnnyBD]

This thread has changed from a tax information thread into a tax evasion thread.

[Lorry]

16 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

That is tax evasion. You can't Gift funds to your landlords account from an overseas account and call it a gift when you're also paying your rent with the same money.

That was a theoretical example in order to demonstrate that the receiver and the purpose of the transfer cannot matter.

Nowhere did I say that the transfer to landlord and baker should be called " gift", quite the opposite

[Mike Lister]

8 minutes ago, Lorry said:

That was a theoretical example in order to demonstrate that the receiver and the purpose of the transfer cannot matter.

Nowhere did I say that the transfer to landlord and baker should be called " gift", quite the opposite

 

OK, so you pay your rent directly to the landlords account from your overseas account, which means your landlord has his assessible income. But the funds never hit your account in Thailand which means you don't have any remittances to declare to Thai tax, how is that not evasion? 

[Lorry]

8 minutes ago, JohnnyBD said:

This thread has changed from a tax information thread into a tax evasion thread.

No.

If someone transfers gifts from his father or the inheritance from his mother to Thailand,  it's not one of the kinds of income listed in RD 161/2566 and no PIT is due.

That's not tax evasion, that's following the law

[JimGant]

1 hour ago, Lorry said:

Another person,  e.g. a close relative like stat's father,  who is not a tax resident in Thailand,  sends money as a gift from abroad to his beloved son's (who is a tax resident in Thailand) Thai bank account (not so much as to buy a Ferrari, that would not be customary, see @Klonko's video).

Has the son to pay personal income tax on this money?

No, it's not the son's income. And the father is not a Thai tax resident -- so it matters not what the nature of the funds being sent to the son consist of (after tax, before tax, savings --

Dad has to sort any tax implication out with his resident country.) Thus, if the son receives a chunk of money from Dad, no strings attached, it would be considered a gift.

 

Which leads to the question: The son received a gift from Dad, say in excess of 20M baht -- is he now subject to the Thai gift tax for the excess over 20M? Nope. Say Dad is a resident of the US. The DTA covers such a situation, whereby double taxation on gifts and estate taxes is avoided. Thus, Dad will be subject to a gift tax on that gift to sonny boy. And sonny boy won't need to file a tax return with Thailand for the excess gift over 20M.

 

 

[Lorry]

1 minute ago, Mike Lister said:

 

OK, so you pay your rent directly to the landlords account from your overseas account, which means your landlord has his assessible income. But the funds never hit your account in Thailand which means you don't have any remittances to declare to Thai tax, how is that not evasion? 

Now the argument really spirals out of control. 

 

The whole point of @Etaoin Shrdlu and @JimGantis: 

A wire transfer as a gift to your Thai wife is still subject to YOUR personal income tax, even that transfer never hits your account in Thailand. 

And it doesn't matter whether it's a transfer to your wife, your landlord or the Soi Dog Foundation.  Money that never hits YOUR Thai bank account it's still a remittance YOU have to pay tax for.

Much earlier in this thread the corresponding UK rules were quoted,  and they say exactly this. 

 

This part is wrong:

"which means you don't have any remittances to declare to Thai tax"

 

It may be that Etaoin and Jim are wrong,  but I don't think so.

And of course, if I would use transfers to my landlord hoping the RD would not find out that these are my remittances and that I have to pay taxes on them, and if I would not declare them,   that would be tax evasion. Same in the UK.

BTW of course the landlord and the baker have to pay their income tax, too.

 

 

 

 

[Mike Teavee]

4 hours ago, stat said:

1. What would it take to be designated and accepted as a gift by TRD according to your view? In my understanding if I receive 5 Mio baht in my Thai bank account designated as gift from my father that should be taxfree. But I am no expert in this area.

As I understand it if you were sent 5Million THB as a Gift by your father then you would 1st assess this as a gift and decide not to declare it on your Tax Return (assuming you filed one). 

 

IF TRD somehow notice this large remittance & decide to audit you, it would be on you to prove that it was a gift which came from your father & not from one of your own overseas account [I use this example as I have exactly the same name & UK address as my father on one of my UK accounts so it would look like I was sending money to myself].