Reduce taxation by gifting.

[sometimewoodworker]

7 hours ago, terryq said:

 If the gift is between spouses a contract between them whilst legal is unenforceable  (CCC1469)

You really don’t understand the law or the detail if a gift contract, the contract makes the gift 

 Sin Suan Tua which Is property acquired by either spouse during marriage through a will or gift, just voiding the contract doesn’t magically make it Sin Somros and the contract is a onetime thing so denying it after the fact has no meaning. It is not a continuing contract.

 

If either party wants to void it then they just don’t sign it and nothing changes hands, no gift is given or received.

[sometimewoodworker]

7 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Thank you but I can say I’m not missing anything.  I do what’s recommended by my Thai Tax Accountant & qualified Auditor.  

You clearly missed the point that a minor can sign a contract, with the consent if a legal guardian. That rather upsets your argument doesn’t it?

[JBChiangRai]

15 hours ago, JBChiangRai said:

Thank you but I can say I’m not missing anything.  I do what’s recommended by my Thai Tax Accountant & qualified Auditor.  

 

7 hours ago, sometimewoodworker said:

You clearly missed the point that a minor can sign a contract, with the consent if a legal guardian. That rather upsets your argument doesn’t it?

 

Not at all, as I said, I'm well represented, but thank you for your concern.

[KhunHeineken]

On 9/8/2024 at 4:45 AM, proton said:

If it's this confusing the Thai tax offices wont have a hope of understanding what they are doing or what the rules are

You are probably right, hence, I have said, and it's just my opinion, expats will simply be made to pay "something."  By "something" I don't mean the actual correct amount of tax you should pay, but just "something" for a BS document for you annual extension that says you have paid tax.

 

That "something" could be like the 300 baht for the Certificate of Residence that should be free, but most pay 300 baht for it. 

 

For a tax document, it MAY be 300, 500 or 1000 baht.

 

For high net worth individuals, they can pull out the laws and go at them, but for most expats, it MAY mean paying just a little "something."  

 

Time will tell.   

[KhunHeineken]

On 9/6/2024 at 12:17 AM, JBChiangRai said:

 

 

I'm not so sure, I think it would depend on how you constructed that arrangement.

 

For example, British owner is Christian and allows Australian tenant to stay rent free but in return do some ministry.

 

Australian tenant independently donates to British owner for him to apply in whatever charitable way he sees fit or not at his sole discretion.

 

I think a tax accountant/lawyer could construct the right agreement, this is what they do day-in, day-out.

 

Maybe the Australian tenant "gifts" the rent money to the British landlord, into his UK bank account. 

Edited Thursday at 07:53 PM by KhunHeineken

[KhunHeineken]

On 9/5/2024 at 9:12 PM, chiang mai said:

Blatant tax evasion which is illegal and not allowed to be discussed.

What proof would be presented at Court? 

[Lorry]

On 9/13/2024 at 2:55 AM, KhunHeineken said:

What proof would be presented at Court? 

It's YOU who may have to present evidence at Court - if you sue the TRD, that is.

The TRD doesn't have to sue you. They just say, we have determined you owe us x amount of taxes. If you don't agree,  you can sue them.

 

[chiang mai]

2 hours ago, Lorry said:

It's YOU who may have to present evidence at Court - if you sue the TRD, that is.

The TRD doesn't have to sue you. They just say, we have determined you owe us x amount of taxes. If you don't agree,  you can sue them.

 

A major feature of these discussions about tax is that most foreigners fail to realise that the burden of proof rests with the tax payer to prove that the TRD is wrong,  rather than the other way around. When TRD, or any other Revenue service in any country, determines that tax is due and payable, the taxpayer must prove that it is not. It's difficult for the Revenue service to lie and make things up because simple facts usually prevail. The problem is that providing that proof can sometimes be an arduous journey, unless you keep  complete records.

Edited Friday at 10:48 PM by chiang mai

[Lorry]

6 hours ago, chiang mai said:

The problem is that providing that proof can sometimes be an arduous journey, unless you keep  complete records.

Proof is often next to impossible. 

 

Examples:

A well known catch22: IRS in home country demands a certificate from TRD that one is tax resident here. They don't care about passport stamps. But TRD doesn't issue this certificate unless one has actually paid tax. The workarounds are quite ridiculous. 

 

 

[KhunHeineken]

20 hours ago, Lorry said:

It's YOU who may have to present evidence at Court - if you sue the TRD, that is.

Who said anything about suing the TRD?

 

The TRD would be accusing me of tax evasion.  The burden of proof is on them.  What evidence do you think they could / would produce in Court?

 

That said, as I mentioned to another member, NO ONE would want to be the first falang to go up against it.  Not only would you not win, but no more visa for you.  Remember, that retirement visa / extension is nothing more than a 1 year tourist visa.  

 

20 hours ago, Lorry said:

The TRD doesn't have to sue you. They just say, we have determined you owe us x amount of taxes. If you don't agree,  you can sue them.

Once again.  Who's talking about suing anyone?  

 

Has a crime been committed.  Yes, or no?  If yes, post why, and what evidence there would be.  If no, case closed.   

[KhunHeineken]

18 hours ago, chiang mai said:

A major feature of these discussions about tax is that most foreigners fail to realise that the burden of proof rests with the tax payer to prove that the TRD is wrong,  rather than the other way around. When TRD, or any other Revenue service in any country, determines that tax is due and payable, the taxpayer must prove that it is not. It's difficult for the Revenue service to lie and make things up because simple facts usually prevail. The problem is that providing that proof can sometimes be an arduous journey, unless you keep  complete records.

I go to the Cambodian boarder and stay in a casino a day or two, and come back with a wad of money, under the declarable amount.  

 

You have called it out as "tax evasion" thus a crime. 

 

You state the burden of proof is on the person charged.  Ok, let's go with that. My defense it I won the money. They will disprove this how?  

[Lorry]

29 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

The TRD would be accusing me of tax evasion.  The burden of proof is on them

No, its not.

Have you ever paid taxes anywhere? Then you should know how it works: the tax office tells you how much they think you should pay.  They don't have to sue you.

You have been told twice already, you are free not to believe it.

Maybe rules in down under are upside down, I doubt it.

[KhunHeineken]

4 minutes ago, Lorry said:

No, its not.

Have you ever paid taxes anywhere? Then you should know how it works: the tax office tells you how much they think you should pay.  They don't have to sue you.

You have been told twice already, you are free not to believe it.

Maybe rules in down under are upside down, I doubt it.

So, if you don't know about the "rules down under" how can you say I am wrong and you are right? 

 

For the record, I am specifically talking about "tax evasion" which is a crime, not "tax avoidance" or "tax minimization" which is not a crime. 

 

A crime means you are charged, and the burden of proof is upon the government, in this case, being the accuser.

 

That said, I do see the point you are making.  A high net worth individual's law / accounting firm may argue it is tax minimization when the government may argue it's tax evasion.  Should that be the case, the government has to present their case, which is defended.  Quite often, one case is a test case for many others, over the years to follow.  

 

You really are blurring the lines between tax evasion and tax minimization.  One is illegal, the other legal, and whilst both can end up in Court, one is a crime, the other is not.  

 

If you are American, think Al Capone.   

[Lorry]

29 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

I go to the Cambodian boarder and stay in a casino a day or two, and come back with a wad of money, under the declarable amount.  

 

You have called it out as "tax evasion" thus a crime. 

 

You state the burden of proof is on the person charged.  Ok, let's go with that. My defense it I won the money. They will disprove this how?  

For the sake of argument,  let's say this would work.

It would work once.

It's not a sustainable solution in the long term.

 

BTW if you were serious about it, you probably wouldn't post it

 

If they are serious about going after small fry (a big IF), the foreigners who use cash, ATMs, CCs - if they really feel it's worth it harassing them,  then the TRD will start with the obvious question: what money do you live on?

But this is all chump change.  The big ticket items - car, condo, land and houses - you are not going to finance like this.

[KhunHeineken]

10 minutes ago, Lorry said:

For the sake of argument,  let's say this would work.

It would work once.

It's not a sustainable solution in the long term.

I do take your point. 

 

I have offered it up as part of an annual tax minimizing strategy.  I have never suggested that expats can / should do this and remit zero money to Thailand to live on.  

 

I have suggested remitting just the right amount of funds under the threshold for their individual circumstances.  Perhaps using their home country's ATM card, and doing a "cash run" which, in my case, will also be the Singapore F1.  

 

I have never suggested it as a way to pay ZERO tax in Thailand, forever, only to minimize one's tax liability in relation to remitted funds. 

 

Yes, the argument about ATM use, which I put forward when all this came light, has been discussed, like many other tax minimization strategies. 

 

Time will tell how hard the Thai authorities go at this in 2025. 

 

17 minutes ago, Lorry said:

BTW if you were serious about it, you probably wouldn't post it

Why not? 

 

What crime has been committed?  Once again, you are confusing "tax evasion" with "tax minimization." 

 

19 minutes ago, Lorry said:

If they are serious about going after small fry (a big IF), the foreigners who use cash, ATMs, CCs - if they really feel it's worth it harassing them,  then the TRD will start with the obvious question: what money do you live on?

But this is all chump change.  The big ticket items - car, condo, land and houses - you are not going to finance like this.

Completely agree. 

 

I have debated with a member that should this tax policy be enforced to the letter of the law, that car / condo will cost more in the future.  The particular member disagreed.  Fine. 

 

I also put forward the unfortunate situation of serious medical intervention.  That emergency operation and hospitalization needs to happen immediately, that's remitted funds, ASAP.  The tax implications for this MAY be felt the year later. 

 

I have said many times, using your "small fry" example, maybe it's all about most expats paying 300, 500, 1000 baht for a document for their extension.  Any post even suggesting a TRD document MAY be needed for the annual extension was declared scaremongering and deleted by Mods, yet, now we have a Mod posing that very question.  It was obvious then, it is obvious now, I am not sure what has changed. 

 

Gifting, savings, earnings, ATM withdraws, gold, cash blah blah blah may be irrelevant for the majority.  Maybe they just want to create another simple revenue earner like the Certificate of Residence that is 300 baht, but should be free. 

 

For high net worth individuals, they can pull out the law book. 

 

Time will tell. 

 

[chiang mai]

4 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

So, if you don't know about the "rules down under" how can you say I am wrong and you are right? 

 

For the record, I am specifically talking about "tax evasion" which is a crime, not "tax avoidance" or "tax minimization" which is not a crime. 

 

A crime means you are charged, and the burden of proof is upon the government, in this case, being the accuser.

 

That said, I do see the point you are making.  A high net worth individual's law / accounting firm may argue it is tax minimization when the government may argue it's tax evasion.  Should that be the case, the government has to present their case, which is defended.  Quite often, one case is a test case for many others, over the years to follow.  

 

You really are blurring the lines between tax evasion and tax minimization.  One is illegal, the other legal, and whilst both can end up in Court, one is a crime, the other is not.  

 

If you are American, think Al Capone.   

The line between tax evasion and tax avoidance is often blurred but the onus remains on you to prove what you've declared on the tax return, the TRD doesn't have and wont have to defend anything. If you haven't declared anything and haven't filed a tax return, the TRD will simply ask you why not and what funds are you living on. A forensic audit of  the account that you tell them will reveal cash in and out and require explanation and receipts, lest they think it might be money from an illegal activity. If you say you don't have an account and everything is in cash, expect the gates of h*ll to open up and swallow you because no Revenue service likes that answer, simply because nothing is verifiable. That means they will keep digging into  your affairs as deep as they can, until they get fed up, at which point they will estimate the tax you owe based on life style and present you with a bill.

 

You may well be bringing money in by cash every few months but that's likely to cost you more in airfare than the tax that would have been cheaper to pay so a rational person probably wouldn't go that route! Assuming that's what you tell them, along with your border casino winnings, they will ask you to prove it, show us receipts for accomodation, travel expense etc etc because now the focus of their attention has shifted to whether you are working here illegally.  

 

I don't think you understand how Revenue Departments can and do operate. They are highly unlikely to be interested in broadly normal returns where there is some form of proof but the further away from normal that you are, the riskier it becomes. Most worrying in your case is that you think the government has to prove a case, they don't, you have to disprove what the decide upon. If you think that standing in front of a tax tribunal judge on the last day of the investigation, arguing that you don't really owe 500k in estimated tax, just because you've been operating a cash based accounting system and have no receipts or proof, is going to save you, you may wish to read up on customary practice and reasonability tests. You will not have been the first person to try and walk down that road, they will have seen and heard it all before, many times. You may think you are sharper than them, trust me, you aren't.

[Lorry]

Well said.

 

But we are still allowed to bring in cash, and the rates at Superrich are better than a bank transfer. I once tried to declare cash I brought in, neither home country nor Thailand would let me as it was under the threshold. It seems you can't voluntarily declare cash.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[sometimewoodworker]

On 9/15/2024 at 5:52 AM, chiang mai said:

The line between tax evasion and tax avoidance is often blurred but the onus remains on you to prove what you've declared on the tax return, the TRD doesn't have and wont have to defend anything. If you haven't declared anything and haven't filed a tax return, the TRD will simply ask you why not and what funds are you living on. A forensic audit of  the account that you tell them will reveal cash in and out and require explanation and receipts, lest they think it might be money from an illegal activity. If you say you don't have an account and everything is in cash, expect the gates of h*ll to open up and swallow you because no Revenue service likes that answer, simply because nothing is verifiable. That means they will keep digging into  your affairs as deep as they can, until they get fed up, at which point they will estimate the tax you owe based on life style and present you with a bill.

 

You may well be bringing money in by cash every few months but that's likely to cost you more in airfare than the tax that would have been cheaper to pay so a rational person probably wouldn't go that route! Assuming that's what you tell them, along with your border casino winnings, they will ask you to prove it, show us receipts for accomodation, travel expense etc etc because now the focus of their attention has shifted to whether you are working here illegally.  

 

I don't think you understand how Revenue Departments can and do operate. They are highly unlikely to be interested in broadly normal returns where there is some form of proof but the further away from normal that you are, the riskier it becomes. Most worrying in your case is that you think the government has to prove a case, they don't, you have to disprove what the decide upon. If you think that standing in front of a tax tribunal judge on the last day of the investigation, arguing that you don't really owe 500k in estimated tax, just because you've been operating a cash based accounting system and have no receipts or proof, is going to save you, you may wish to read up on customary practice and reasonability tests. You will not have been the first person to try and walk down that road, they will have seen and heard it all before, many times. You may think you are sharper than them, trust me, you aren't.

Rather nicely put.

45 years ago HMRC presented me with an estimated tax bill of a reasonably large number of thousands of pounds. Reading the notice closely I found that unless I filed a dispute within a few weeks the estimate would become my tax bill with no appeal possible. I filed a tax return with zero tax owed, sorted.

 

It is unlikely that the TRD acts much differently.

 

It is always the taxpayers duty to prove that the tax they pay, or don’t pay, is accurate and can be supported by proof. Tax authorities are quite reasonable if you show that you are following  or trying to follow the regulations and will often overlook small differences or missing receipts or documents . They are  Jekyll and Hyde  if they feel you are trying to pull a fast one.