Its Happening - Law to Tax Overseas Income Now in Progress

[wmlc]

5 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

There is no official confirmation that the existence of a DTA means remittances escape assessability, none whatsoever.

I think you need to understand what a DTA is. This will be my last reply to you. The DTA ensures you won’t be double taxed. For most, they pay tax already at the source. This would mean in most cases, no further payment will be needed in Thailand. If there is, very little. Stop twisting words. You don’t know. You are not a tax lawyer and you have no knowledge of Thai law. On the other hand I have a lot of knowledge about Thai law as it’s my job. Next……. Enjoy your last words which I know you will ensure you have. 

[chiang mai]

1 minute ago, wmlc said:

I think you need to understand what a DTA is. This will be my last reply to you. The DTA ensures you won’t be double taxed. For most, they pay tax already at the source. This would mean in most cases, no further payment will be needed in Thailand. If there is, very little. Stop twisting words. You don’t know. You are not a tax lawyer and you have no knowledge of Thai law. On the other hand I have a lot of knowledge about Thai law as it’s my job. Next……. Enjoy your last words which I know you will ensure you have. 

I understand what a DTA is, you appear not to!

 

The purpose of a DTA is to determine primary taxation rights to funds and also identify any opportunity for secondary taxation rights. A downstream bi-product of those things is to try to ensure that taxpayers don't pay tax twice, in two different countries. But that does not mean that taxpayers may not have their taxes rebalanced and ending up paying more in one country than the other, because of DTA rules.,

[Yumthai]

28 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

Once again, these things are not about enforcement, only people wishing to evade tax have an interest in that aspect.

The huge majority of sane-brained people is eager to avoid tax in any possible legal way, specifically when these people are foreigners considered as non-immigrant temp residents in a country where tax rules are unfair/discriminatory, inconsistent, and vastly unenforced.

[chiang mai]

3 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

The huge majority of sane-brained people is eager to avoid tax in any possible legal way, specifically when these people are foreigners considered as non-immigrant temp residents in a country where tax rules are unfair/discriminatory, inconsistent, and vastly unenforced.

Yes, but before you can consider the enforcement risks, you have to understand all the underlying factors, including the facts of the matter....the latter is where we are presently on tax,consideeration of  the enforcement aspects is downstream.

[Yumthai]

2 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

Yes, but before you can consider the enforcement risks, you have to understand all the underlying factors, including the facts of the matter....the latter is where we are presently on tax,consideeration of  the enforcement aspects is downstream.

I think rules definition and in-field enforcement should be considered altogether, can't much dissociate one from another. The issue being if no enforcement then rules become pointless.

[chiang mai]

1 minute ago, Yumthai said:

I think rules definition and in-field enforcement should be considered altogether, can't much dissociate one from another. The issue being if no enforcement then rules become pointless.

I disagree with that. Many people want to know what the rules are and don't give a thought to understanding what the penalties are if they don't adhere to them. Many parts of society function because of rules, not because of deterrents or enforcement if the rules aren't followed. It sounds like you may only follow rules where there is a derent to do so, kind wild west like!

[Yumthai]

18 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

I disagree with that. Many people want to know what the rules are and don't give a thought to understanding what the penalties are if they don't adhere to them. Many parts of society function because of rules, not because of deterrents or enforcement if the rules aren't followed. It sounds like you may only follow rules where there is a derent to do so, kind wild west like!

You certainly can be aware of the rules but choose to follow the ones you know for sure are enforced (as Thai people do).

[JimGant]

28 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

The issue being if no enforcement then rules become pointless.

Amen! It cretins pass a law that society views as absurd -- and thus is ignored -- then we can continue in a normal fashion -- the lawmakers are trumped by a sane society. Kinda like not filing a Thai tax return, in spite of a cretin law about about having to, even with no taxable income.

[chiang mai]

4 minutes ago, JimGant said:

Amen! It cretins pass a law that society views as absurd -- and thus is ignored -- then we can continue in a normal fashion -- the lawmakers are trumped by a sane society. Kinda like not filing a Thai tax return, in spite of a cretin law about about having to, even with no taxable income.

Driving whilst drunk is widely ignored, driving on the wrong side of the road is also. Large parts of society ignore those laws does that make the people who passed the laws cretins! 

 

I personally favour the negative taxation approach which only works if everyone files a return. If they do, the poorest in society get the support they need. But because people think that filing a return when no tax is due is cretinous, a useful supportive system can't be adopted.

 

TBH the debates would be more palatable if everyone were to focus on the rules rather than lining up to promote their personal for or against position, that way people can make they own decisions, without the advertising in-between.

[JimGant]

5 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

I personally favour the negative taxation approach which only works if everyone files a return. If they do, the poorest in society get the support they need. But because people think that filing a return when no tax is due is cretinous, a useful supportive system can't be adopted.

Ridiculous comparison. Obviously if the masses were told they'd get money back from a scheme like an Earned Income Tax Credit -- they'd be lining up to file a tax return. Currently, however, filing a tax return, if no taxes are owed, is a wasted effort, to no one's advantage.

[JimGant]

12 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

TBH the debates would be more palatable if everyone were to focus on the rules rather than lining up to promote their personal for or against position, that way people can make they own decisions, without the advertising in-between.

You're kidding me? Just roll over, and file a tax return, 'cause THE RULES say your assessable income says to, even 'tho no taxes are owed? Yes, they say you might have to pay 2000bt if you don't -- in the very unlikely scenario you somehow show up on a TRD radar screen. And, the fear mongering you're mainly responsible for, namely, to somehow being scared for being subject to ten years of back audits. Jeez, talk about what any empty hole that would find, with everyone claiming "remitted next year," under the old rules.

 

So, you're saying we're all supposed to get in line behind you -- obey the rules, and file a tax return. Sorry -- as a disruptor of your misguided guidance -- I'll just say: barf burgers.

[chiang mai]

6 minutes ago, JimGant said:

You're kidding me? Just roll over, and file a tax return, 'cause THE RULES say your assessable income says to, even 'tho no taxes are owed? Yes, they say you might have to pay 2000bt if you don't -- in the very unlikely scenario you somehow show up on a TRD radar screen. And, the fear mongering you're mainly responsible for, namely, to somehow being scared for being subject to ten years of back audits. Jeez, talk about what any empty hole that would find, with everyone claiming "remitted next year," under the old rules.

 

So, you're saying we're all supposed to get in line behind you -- obey the rules, and file a tax return. Sorry -- as a disruptor of your misguided guidance -- I'll just say: barf burgers.

That's not what I said but you know that, those are your words, not mine. Go bait somebody else if that's all you've got.

[D2Pipes]

and to put the cat amongst the pigeons:-

https://thepattayanews.com/2024/10/13/legal-corner-the-new-2024-tax-laws-in-thailand-implications-for-foreign-residents/

[wmlc]

30 minutes ago, D2Pipes said:

and to put the cat amongst the pigeons:-

https://thepattayanews.com/2024/10/13/legal-corner-the-new-2024-tax-laws-in-thailand-implications-for-foreign-residents/

An example of the law firm taking advantage. Pattaya News owned by Bryan Flowers. Bryan Flowers is a partner in Isaan Lawyers who owns this  law firm posting  this. It’s to drum up business for getting tax IDs

[chiang mai]

19 minutes ago, D2Pipes said:

and to put the cat amongst the pigeons:-

https://thepattayanews.com/2024/10/13/legal-corner-the-new-2024-tax-laws-in-thailand-implications-for-foreign-residents/

Misleading 

[chiang mai]

Can I just point out that trolling by emoji is against forum rules, 12 confused emoji's in six minutes is nearly a record...reported!

[wmlc]

4 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

Much of what is written there is incomplete or inaccurate, you should ignore.

As much as I don’t like the article’s purpose, it’s accurate. The only fault I have is the terminology is changed for the normal person to understand. This is a law firm who I know very well and they know what they are talking about. Today you are getting in debates with everyone it seems. You are not a lawyer and your posts are not backed up by any laws. If you want to make statements like this about the article, contact John Spooner directly. He knows his stuff. I may not agree with his advertising practices but he knows his stuff. 

[chiang mai]

7 minutes ago, wmlc said:

As much as I don’t like the article’s purpose, it’s accurate. The only fault I have is the terminology is changed for the normal person to understand. This is a law firm who I know very well and they know what they are talking about. Today you are getting in debates with everyone it seems. You are not a lawyer and your posts are not backed up by any laws. If you want to make statements like this about the article, contact John Spooner directly. He knows his stuff. I may not agree with his advertising practices but he knows his stuff. 

 

 

[Lorry]

The article is pure advertising and contains several factual errors.

[anrcaccount]

19 hours ago, chiang mai said:

"interest income data is only sent to the TRD for those who have already registered a TIN at their bank and are trying to reclaim the interest WHT".

 

OK, maybe I worded this poorly . Let me clarify.

 

Banks will withhold the 15% WHT on all interest, regardless of the customer (exception with the exemption if you fill out the right forms as per the Krungski link I provided earlier. ) . This interest is forwarded to the TRD. 

 

If a customer has a tax ID, and notifies it to their bank, the TRD will receive this data, and know which WHT paid is related to that customer (your case). Then for future years, the TRD already has that interest and WHT data sent, that's it. 

For the majority of foreigners with bank accounts, who don't have tax ID's, and many are not tax residents, the TRD does not know which WHT received,  is related to that person. 

 

If any of those people wish to reclaim WHT paid, they need firstly, a document from the bank showing the WHT paid on their behalf. They then, need to register as a Thai taxpayer, get a TIN and file a return. 

 

 

 

19 hours ago, chiang mai said:

 

 

It can't possibly be that banks only send interest/tax data to TRD, for those people who have registered their TIN at the banks.

 

As above. 

 

19 hours ago, chiang mai said:

 

Many people will not have a TIN but they will have savings interest income that is taxed and will request a refund from TRD at year end.

 

No, no one can do this. It is not possible to request a refund from the TRD without having a TIN and filing a return. 

 

19 hours ago, chiang mai said:

Many of those people appear not to have applied for a TIN but may have had one assigned by TRD, as a part of the refund process but they may not realise this. As I understand it. TRD has some sort of short form that allows that refund to be applied for and paid but many people don't understand that to be a tax return in the traditional sense.

 

What wild speculation is this? Are you saying there's some kind of automatic creation/assignment of TINS? 

 

'Short form"

 

Do you have any kind of source for this thought bubble?  

 

 

19 hours ago, chiang mai said:

 

EDIT TO ADD:

 

Given the scenario you've set out, it's difficult to imagine what banks actually do with the 15% WHT taken from people who haven't provided a TIN to the bank. Do they just keep it or do they write a check and say here's a lump sum, without any associated account or customer details? I very very seriously don't think so.

 

The banks send the WHT tax paid to the TRD. 

[wmlc]

2 minutes ago, Lorry said:

The article is pure advertising and contains several factual errors.

It seems that way, but it’s just the terminology. For example “foreign resident” is not clear. Some may perceive this to mean any  foreigners living here. However, it is referring to foreigners who qualify as a resident such as employees, business owners and people who have resided in Thailand for more than 180 days in a calendar year. I agree the article is very sales oriented and that’s a shame but understandable in the industry. 

[chiang mai]

1 minute ago, anrcaccount said:

 

OK, maybe I worded this poorly . Let me clarify.

 

 

No, no one can do this. It is not possible to request a refund from the TRD without having a TIN and filing a return. 

 

What wild speculation is this? Are you saying there's some kind of automatic creation/assignment of TINS? 

 

'Short form"

 

Do you have any kind of source for this thought bubble?  

 

"As I understand it. TRD has some sort of short form that allows that refund to be applied for and paid".

 

There have been a number of reports from members where they have said that they have never filed a tax return yet they have reclaimed WHT on interest paid. The conclusion there is that some sort of return has been filed on their behalf but they have not understood this. I recall in my early years here the TRD staff would fill out a short form and attached my bank letter to it, at the time I never understood that was a tax return and never queried it. For me at least it is unclear what process TRD staff go through when a foreigner says they are there to reclaim tax paid and whether they have a short internal process to accomplish that since TRD staff do all the form filling and the foreigner just signs to approve.

 

[Rimmer]

Multiple negative emojis have been removed from one persons posts, keep that up and you will have your ability to use them removed and a posting suspension for stalking. You know who you are and so do I.

 

11. You will not troll or stalk other members by misusing forum posts, private messages, reactions, emojis or by any other means.  

[Lorry]

4 hours ago, wmlc said:

No I am not talking about money laundering laws. Read the law I posted. It’s about reporting only to the revenue dept. You have no idea what you are talking about. Banks are obligated to report to the revenue dept on bank accounts that fall under these two scenarios. What they will find is not relevant. People want to know possible enforcement options for the Thai government and this is an example of how TRD will know about your account activities and that’s it. Nothing more or nothing less. The people who want to know about this law as I have described are the ones who don’t have a tax ID and have never filed personal income tax in Thailand. They might want to know in what situations their Thai bank account activities could be sent to the revenue dept and this is the only time their account activities will be sent and that’s the end of the story. If you already have a tax ID, my post may not be of interest to you. 
 

For example, expat A is retired and has a non O visa based on retirement and an extension of stay. He never had a tax ID and never filed personal income tax in Thailand. He does not want to comply with the law, he does not want to  file, but wants to know how Thailand can enforce the law and get him to file. My post is an example of one way the revenue dept could know about his account activities. Therefore, being a part of enforcement by identifying  how much funds he transferred in that particular year. 

Thx for reminding us of this law and clarifying its implications, someone mentioned it a long time ago and it has been buried by too many other posts. 

 

It means that TRD will not know all the activities of your bank account. 

They do know your WHT and your interest,  but this is, in my experience, treated quite separate from other income.

 

I suspect, that, if they audit you (a big if),  they can demand to show them your bank account activities?

[Lorry]

25 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

"As I understand it. TRD has some sort of short form that allows that refund to be applied for and paid".

 

There have been a number of reports from members where they have said that they have never filed a tax return yet they have reclaimed WHT on interest paid. The conclusion there is that some sort of return has been filed on their behalf but they have not understood this. I recall in my early years here the TRD staff would fill out a short form and attached my bank letter to it, at the time I never understood that was a tax return and never queried it. For me at least it is unclear what process TRD staff go through when a foreigner says they are there to reclaim tax paid and whether they have a short internal process to accomplish that since TRD staff do all the form filling and the foreigner just signs to approve.

 

At my tax office,  the form the foreigner signs is a complete tax return. Of course,  nobody realizes this. 

[chiang mai]

11 minutes ago, Lorry said:

At my tax office,  the form the foreigner signs is a complete tax return. Of course,  nobody realizes this. 

Any clues as to where they get the TIN from, assuming the foreigner hasn't already got one? I can't recall in my early days ever being told to go and get a TIN and then come back but that was many years ago. It doesn't sound as though many of those people applying for refunds had got a TIN first but I could be wrong.

[topt]

2 hours ago, chiang mai said:

Any clues as to where they get the TIN from, assuming the foreigner hasn't already got one? I can't recall in my early days ever being told to go and get a TIN and then come back but that was many years ago. It doesn't sound as though many of those people applying for refunds had got a TIN first but I could be wrong.

When this was being regularly discussed probably 8 or more years ago the advice was get a TIN first and then claim - which is what I and numerous others did at the time. I only ever 9up to about 4 years ago) completed a 1 page return which I have mentioned before - but had my TIN on it.

If I can I will dig out a copy.

[topt]

3 hours ago, wmlc said:

It seems that way, but it’s just the terminology. For example “foreign resident” is not clear. Some may perceive this to mean any  foreigners living here. However, it is referring to foreigners who qualify as a resident such as employees, business owners and people who have resided in Thailand for more than 180 days in a calendar year. I agree the article is very sales oriented and that’s a shame but understandable in the industry. 

Sorry but I don't agree with your "rationale".

 

Everybody reading these posts is well aware (or should be) that you need to be here for 180 days in a calendar year to be tax resident - doesn't matter what else you call it.

 

At the start of the article they state -

Quote

Foreign residents in Thailand are subject to Thai income tax on their worldwide income, earned after the first of January 2024, regardless of where the income is earned, and when it is sent into Thailand after December 2023

This,  to me anyway, is downright misleading and towards the end of the piece it then states -

Quote

In general, foreign residents are subject to Thai income tax on their worldwide income, earned after the first of January 2024 when remitted into Thailand, 

So there they add the caveat - when remitted into Thailand which is fine but the damage arguably has already been done.

 

So generally I agree with @chiang mai statement that it is misleading. Whoever was responsible (John Spooner to quote you) perhaps should have fact checked it better.

 

It note also that TPN Media effectively disassociated themselves from the content.......not surprising considering they had to print a correction not that long ago from another "lawyer/tax specialist".

 

It is disappointing, to me, that some firms I may have previously considered as reference points, appear a little more than just ethically challenged with the potential monetisation of this particular issue - although at least the fees they quote seem a little more realistic 

 

 

[wmlc]

18 minutes ago, topt said:

Sorry but I don't agree with your "rationale".

 

Everybody reading these posts is well aware (or should be) that you need to be here for 180 days in a calendar year to be tax resident - doesn't matter what else you call it.

 

At the start of the article they state -

This,  to me anyway, is downright misleading and towards the end of the piece it then states -

So there they add the caveat - when remitted into Thailand which is fine but the damage arguably has already been done.

 

So generally I agree with @chiang mai statement that it is misleading. Whoever was responsible (John Spooner to quote you) perhaps should have fact checked it better.

 

It note also that TPN Media effectively disassociated themselves from the content.......not surprising considering they had to print a correction not that long ago from another "lawyer/tax specialist".

 

It is disappointing, to me, that some firms I may have previously considered as reference points, appear a little more than just ethically challenged with the potential monetisation of this particular issue - although at least the fees they quote seem a little more realistic 

 

 

None of these statements are false. However, I do agree the wording is not clear and it could have been written a lot better. That’s my point and I stand  by my statement about Anglo Saxon and John Spooner being a good and knowledgeable law firm that can be trusted. 

[topt]

35 minutes ago, topt said:

When this was being regularly discussed probably 8 or more years ago the advice was get a TIN first and then claim - which is what I and numerous others did at the time. I only ever 9up to about 4 years ago) completed a 1 page return which I have mentioned before - but had my TIN on it.

If I can I will dig out a copy.

 @chiang mai        Here is a copy from 2018 - I think they filled in a little more info in later years but I have never previously heard that anyone could get a refund of tax withheld from bank interest without a TIN.