Reduce taxation by gifting.

[jerrymahoney]

I watched the video. He nowhere says that any of his clients have ever done that since 2016.

Nor has any of the other tax/legal advisory services that I have read said that any client has done so with Revenue Dept. approval.

If what is being suggested is true, it should be already routine in the 8 years since the gift tax revision.

[BKKKevin]

Another method of reducing your accessible income is to pay your rent via transfer from your Wise account… 😉

[Lorry]

8 hours ago, BKKKevin said:

Another method of reducing your accessible income is to pay your rent via transfer from your Wise account… 😉

Are you kidding?

This is so obviously tax evasion, it should be clear to anybody.

[proton]

Another totally confusing thread on this, I don't even understand the tax form 

[KhunHeineken]

1 hour ago, Lorry said:

Are you kidding?

This is so obviously tax evasion, it should be clear to anybody.

Have you considered the owner of the property, the landlord, may be a foreigner, say from the USA, UK, Australia, Germany etc etc.  If one was to pay rent into their home country bank account, what rent money has been remitted to Thailand?  The whole transaction has bypassed Thailand. 

 

It's been going on for decades with those working as property managers here without a work permit, and for those using AirBnB etc.  

 

Wake up. 

[Lorry]

1 hour ago, KhunHeineken said:

Have you considered the owner of the property, the landlord, may be a foreigner, say from the USA, UK, Australia, Germany etc etc.  If one was to pay rent into their home country bank account, what rent money has been remitted to Thailand?  The whole transaction has bypassed Thailand. 

 

It's been going on for decades with those working as property managers here without a work permit, and for those using AirBnB etc.  

 

Wake up. 

I haven't considered this,  it's not exactly the typical constellation. 

The poster didn't hint at this possibility. 

 

I do consider it now, and can tell you this: we don't know,  what the TRD will think about it or whether they even care. 

If they care, they won't like it.

Whether they would consider it tax evasion? HMRS would (rules posted in the 1st thread iirc), but TRD hopefully wouldn't. 

I wouldn't do something so blatantly showing them you consider them a banana republic when they can audit me 10 years back.

 

"The transaction has bypassed Thailand" - no, it hasn't.  The service has been delivered in Thailand. Only the money flow  has bypassed Thailand. 

 

People devise many "smart" tax evasion strategies of dubious legality. How smart these people are, shows the fact that they publish it on the internet. 

Many ideas posted are so stupid and outlandish that it makes me cringe. 

[jerrymahoney]

6 hours ago, Lorry said:

People devise many "smart" tax evasion strategies of dubious legality. How smart these people are, shows the fact that they publish it on the internet. 

Many ideas posted are so stupid and outlandish that it makes me cringe. 

Seems TRD may already be ahead of the issue. From Thai Revenue Code:

 

Section 37 Any person who:

 

(2) by fault, fraud, scheme or any other method of similar nature, evades or attempts to evade tax or request for tax refund under this Title, shall be subject to an imprisonment from 3 months to 7 years and a fine from 2,000 Baht to 200,000 Baht.

 

https://www.rd.go.th/english/37746.html

 

My definition for scheme: A series of transactions, legal or not, that have no other purpose or function other than to evade taxes.

[anrcaccount]

11 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Have you considered the owner of the property, the landlord, may be a foreigner, say from the USA, UK, Australia, Germany etc etc.  If one was to pay rent into their home country bank account, what rent money has been remitted to Thailand?  The whole transaction has bypassed Thailand. 

 

It's been going on for decades with those working as property managers here without a work permit, and for those using AirBnB etc.  

 

Wake up. 

 

You're correct here.

 

IMO, even if it is sent from WISE into the Thai Bank account, the remittance is by the receiver, not the sender. So the sender ( tenant) isn't remitting to Thailand. 

 

IMO, same logic holds for agift. That's why the gift exemption exists for the receiver, the sender hasn't remitted it to Thailand.  

 

It can't be considered remitted by both the sender and the receiver. 

 

 

[Lorry]

2 hours ago, anrcaccount said:

 

You're correct here.

 

IMO, even if it is sent from WISE into the Thai Bank account, the remittance is by the receiver, not the sender. So the sender ( tenant) isn't remitting to Thailand. 

 

IMO, same logic holds for agift. That's why the gift exemption exists for the receiver, the sender hasn't remitted it to Thailand.  

 

It can't be considered remitted by both the sender and the receiver. 

 

 

I had to read this 3 times. 

So, a remittance is a remittance by the receiver, not by the sender.

Now, that's an idea.

 

[Yumthai]

5 hours ago, anrcaccount said:

It can't be considered remitted by both the sender and the receiver. 

Good point here.

[anrcaccount]

3 hours ago, Lorry said:

I had to read this 3 times. 

So, a remittance is a remittance by the receiver, not by the sender.

Now, that's an idea.

 

 

I sense you are being sarcastic, but I'm not sure why. To me, it's pretty simple. 

 

You don't levy PIT (personal income tax) on spending , you levy it on income. 

 

Foreign WISE transfers to a Thai account of someone else like a landlord , a gift, foreign credit card spending and foreign ATM withdrawals aren't income, and are not remitted to Thailand by that individual. They won't be taxed in Thailand.  The view I have read on here, that these things, in reality (not theory), could be be taxable in Thailand,  is IMO, ludicrous. 

 

IF & WHEN the TRD actually decides to start enforcement of foreign INCOME remitted to Thailand, the first ( and only to start with) place they'll look - is Thai Bank accounts of foreign individuals, for income. 

 

 

 

 

[damen]

GF means not wife right? At least in paper. If no, then it is no. 

You can however don't pay your tax and tax man if they came for you. You may gift them. 

[chiang mai]

20 minutes ago, anrcaccount said:

 

I sense you are being sarcastic, but I'm not sure why. To me, it's pretty simple. 

 

You don't levy PIT (personal income tax) on spending , you levy it on income. 

 

Foreign WISE transfers to a Thai account of someone else like a landlord , a gift, foreign credit card spending and foreign ATM withdrawals aren't income, and are not remitted to Thailand by that individual. They won't be taxed in Thailand.  The view I have read on here, that these things, in reality (not theory), could be be taxable in Thailand,  is IMO, ludicrous. 

 

IF & WHEN the TRD actually decides to start enforcement of foreign INCOME remitted to Thailand, the first ( and only to start with) place they'll look - is Thai Bank accounts of foreign individuals, for income. 

 

 

 

 

Those transfers to foreign accounts are not income, but if the money that is transferred was income, it is assessable. Giving away your income to somebody else, doesn't allow you to escape tax on that income. Paying a bill overseas using income doesn't  mean that income is suddenly transformed into something else, just because you gave it a way.

[chiang mai]

6 hours ago, anrcaccount said:

 

You're correct here.

 

IMO, even if it is sent from WISE into the Thai Bank account, the remittance is by the receiver, not the sender. So the sender ( tenant) isn't remitting to Thailand. 

 

IMO, same logic holds for agift. That's why the gift exemption exists for the receiver, the sender hasn't remitted it to Thailand.  

 

It can't be considered remitted by both the sender and the receiver. 

 

 

No! a remittance is not made by the receiver, the remittance is made by the remitter or sender. To remit means to send, not to receive. A person can receive a remittance but cannot remit it. 

[Lorry]

1 hour ago, anrcaccount said:

I sense you are being sarcastic

Sorry, if I came across as sarcastic.

I wasn't sarcastic, I was really speechless.

I understood your logic, it's just that this idea never occured to me and... honestly, don't know what to say.

Maybe you are right???

I don't dare to believe it, I would still follow @chiang mai

 

BTW in the embassy videos, TRD has said ATM withdrawals, even using a CC, are taxable remittances. 

Have they ever been asked about sending one's rent directly to the landlord (especially if he has a foreign bank account)?

[anrcaccount]

1 hour ago, chiang mai said:

Those transfers to foreign accounts are not income, but if the money that is transferred was income, it is assessable. Giving away your income to somebody else, doesn't allow you to escape tax on that income. Paying a bill overseas using income doesn't  mean that income is suddenly transformed into something else, just because you gave it a way.

 

 

I fundamentally disagree with many  ( not all, but most) of your views on tax in Thailand, including what is a remittance and what is a payment.

 

My view, shared by prominent tax advisors, there are many but I'll start with Mahanakorn Partners - only a transfer to an individual's own Thai bank account can constitute a remittance. 

 

Again, my view, there's no way any foreign WISE transfers to a Thai 3rd party ( payments or gifts) , foreign credit card transactions, or foreign ATM Withdrawals would be possible for the TRD to prove as assessable Thai income. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chiang mai]

46 minutes ago, anrcaccount said:

 

 

I fundamentally disagree with many  ( not all, but most) of your views on tax in Thailand, including what is a remittance and what is a payment.

 

My view, shared by prominent tax advisors, there are many but I'll start with Mahanakorn Partners - only a transfer to an individual's own Thai bank account can constitute a remittance. 

 

Again, my view, there's no way any foreign WISE transfers to a Thai 3rd party ( payments or gifts) , foreign credit card transactions, or foreign ATM Withdrawals would be possible for the TRD to prove as assessable Thai income. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And herein lies the problem. You're talking about what is capable of being proven by TRD, I'm talking about what is assessable in law and must be declared on a tax return....two very different things.

 

It may well be that Devious Dave can devise ingenious ways to send money, using carrier pigeon routed via Timbuktu and that TRD would never ever find out what happened.  But Honest Harry doesn't play those games, he wants to pay strictly by the book so he follows the rules to the letter of the law. You appear to be coaching Dave, I'm coaching Harry!

 

Playing word games using the words remittance, transfer and payment are not helpful to these discussions. Claiming that an overseas payment made to a third party, for goods or services received, is not really a remittance at all, just delays arriving at the correct answer, it turns the discussions on Thai tax into a lesson on the English language and word definitions. If posters are not prepared to have the real discussion without these word games, there is no point to the thread. Mahanakorn Partners may well believe what they do and the Oxford Dictionary may well agree but I doubt very much that the Thai Revenue Service will agree that doesn't represent assessable income and that's all that really matters.

 

 

[Yumthai]

18 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

But Honest Harry doesn't play those games, he wants to pay strictly by the book so he follows the rules to the letter of the law.

Honest Harry will really have a hard time in Thailand.

[chiang mai]

2 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

Honest Harry will really have a hard time in Thailand.

Maybe so, but HH is the guy who wants to understand the rules and the law and doesn't immediately try to imagine ways to circumvent them.....you see my point.

[Yumthai]

6 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

Maybe so, but HH is the guy who wants to understand the rules and the law and doesn't immediately try to imagine ways to circumvent them.....you see my point.

Sure... but he should also digest the full spectrum of the real situation here, i.e. corruption everywhere, inconsistent unfair and vastly unenforced rules barely followed with reason by the huge majority of the population, before making blind moves. And maybe, just maybe he'll become Smart Sean.

[chiang mai]

1 minute ago, Yumthai said:

Sure... but he should also digest the full spectrum of the real situation here, i.e. corruption everywhere, inconsistent unfair and vastly unenforced rules barely followed with reason by the huge majority of the population, before making blind moves. And maybe, just maybe he'll become Smart Sean.

So much of those things is subjective though, different people claim to see different things so I never really know who is telling the truth and who is exaggerating or simply BS'ing. I've been here for about 22 years now and hand on heart I can say that I've never been faced with a situation involving corruption or changed rules. I use an agent to handle all my Immigration work so I have very little contact  with them, TRD has always been as straight as an arrow in our dealings. I take the view that if I follow the rules I probably can't go too far wrong, even if some of it is unnecessary. I can't believe I'm the only one who does that.

[Yumthai]

7 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

I've been here for about 22 years now and hand on heart I can say that I've never been faced with a situation involving corruption or changed rules.

I've been here for about the same, it seems then we live in two parallel universes.

[chiang mai]

Just now, Yumthai said:

I've been here for about the same, it seems then we live in two parallel universes.

It's always been the case that two different people of different ages and lifestyles, living in different locations, both will have different experiences when dealing with the same aspect of life here. We're semi-rural Chiang Mai, our existence doesn't even begin to compare with that of the Pattaya or Phuket crowd.

[Lorry]

32 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

It's always been the case that two different people of different ages and lifestyles, living in different locations, both will have different experiences when dealing with the same aspect of life here. We're semi-rural Chiang Mai, our existence doesn't even begin to compare with that of the Pattaya or Phuket crowd.

Good point.

In Bangkok,  I have encountered blatant corruption only once (about a grand total of 250B).

Idiotic bureaucrats, bending the rules,  sometimes in my favor, sometimes not - lots and lots of them.

My guidance comes from Thais in Bangkok, and by and large they do follow the rules, About the same as in my home country. 

But friends of mine in Pattaya tell a very different story. 

[KhunHeineken]

14 hours ago, anrcaccount said:

You're correct here.

Yes, I know. 

 

14 hours ago, anrcaccount said:

IMO, even if it is sent from WISE into the Thai Bank account, the remittance is by the receiver, not the sender. So the sender ( tenant) isn't remitting to Thailand. 

You missed the point.

 

Example:

 

Owner / Landlord is British.  Tenant is Australian.  Tenant and Owner want to minimize their Thai tax liability.  Owner and tenant come to an agreement that the Australian tenant will pay the rent into the British owner's UK bank account.  The whole transaction it outside of Thailand, completely.  

 

14 hours ago, anrcaccount said:

IMO, same logic holds for agift. That's why the gift exemption exists for the receiver, the sender hasn't remitted it to Thailand.  

In my opinion, if "gift" exemption is used by thousands of expats in 2025, that exemption will cease to exist in 2026.  Just my opinion, but when the Thai government sees many using this loophole, they will close it. 

 

14 hours ago, anrcaccount said:

It can't be considered remitted by both the sender and the receiver. 

The idea is to NOT remit anything to Thailand.

 

Sender, receiver, whoever.  None of the parties should be receiving any funds in Thailand, to be safe from this tax. 

[chiang mai]

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Yes, I know. 

 

You missed the point.

 

Example:

 

Owner / Landlord is British.  Tenant is Australian.  Tenant and Owner want to minimize their Thai tax liability.  Owner and tenant come to an agreement that the Australian tenant will pay the rent into the British owner's UK bank account.  The whole transaction it outside of Thailand, completely.  

 

In my opinion, if "gift" exemption is used by thousands of expats in 2025, that exemption will cease to exist in 2026.  Just my opinion, but when the Thai government sees many using this loophole, they will close it. 

 

The idea is to NOT remit anything to Thailand.

 

Sender, receiver, whoever.  None of the parties should be receiving any funds in Thailand, to be safe from this tax. 

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

[JBChiangRai]

5 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

 

Owner / Landlord is British.  Tenant is Australian.  Tenant and Owner want to minimize their Thai tax liability.  Owner and tenant come to an agreement that the Australian tenant will pay the rent into the British owner's UK bank account.  The whole transaction it outside of Thailand, completely.  

 

 

3 hours ago, chiang mai said:

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

 

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.

 

[chiang mai]

8 minutes ago, 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.

 

If the UK owner is UK tax resident and declares the rental income received in the UK, the landlord is free and clear. If however the landlord is Thai tax resident, rental income should be declared in Thailand, UNLESS the tenant is an employee of the landlord who receives benefits in kind AND the landlord operates a registered religious entity for which there are tax breaks. Possible but messy, as a foreigner in Thailand I wouldn't want to sit in front of a Thai tax tribunal and try to explain it all and keep a straight face.

[JBChiangRai]

2 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

If the UK owner is UK tax resident and declares the rental income received in the UK, the landlord is free and clear. If however the landlord is Thai tax resident, rental income should be declared in Thailand, UNLESS the tenant is an employee of the landlord who receives benefits in kind AND the landlord operates a registered religious entity for which there are tax breaks. Possible but messy, as a foreigner in Thailand I wouldn't want to sit in front of a Thai tax tribunal and try to explain it all and keep a straight face.

 

I agree it is not something you can construct yourself, but I suspect a good tax lawyer could.

 

We have people like Bezos & Musk paying no tax because of schemes created by good tax lawyers (Buy, Borrow, Die).

[chiang mai]

2 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

 

I agree it is not something you can construct yourself, but I suspect a good tax lawyer could.

 

We have people like Bezos & Musk paying no tax because of schemes created by good tax lawyers (Buy, Borrow, Die).

The risk with these things, apart from the obvious, is that people spend large sums on accountants and other fees, in order to avoid small amounts of tax and still don't fully mitigate the risk.