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

[ballpoint]

1 hour ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

Well, okay then!

 

Their anecdotal audits are irrelevant to the average retired foreigner.

 

We still have exactly zero retirees living on pensions or remitting 65K/month being audited.

 

As the person who was audited after retiring from work here, I agree that the chances of it happening to the average pensioner here are very low - or have been up till now. Whether that continues under the new rules remains to be seen.  I suspect that it will, but can also see the TRD head office setting targets for tax offices to investigate a small portion of non-filing tax residents in their districts / areas each year.  I'd be careful to, at minimum, keep good records over the next couple of years until we see the way things are going.

 

The main reason I posted my experience, however, was the way that I was informed about the audit.  My passport was flagged on the Immigration Bureau computer system, meaning whoever entered my name and number - including departure immigration at every airport and border, got a message saying I was up for a tax audit. As my local immigration office told me, this meant I was prevented from leaving the country until this flag was cleared.  (Which eventually I had to arrange myself following the audit, by making a trip to Bangkok to visit the immigration detention centre in Soi Suan Plu). 

 

Therefore, the TRD do have the resources to identify and conduct audits on non Thai citizens, and do have sufficient integration with the Immigration Bureau to firstly identify that people have been in country long enough in a year to be tax residents, and get their passport details (I had obtained a new passport after retiring, so had a new number, but the TRD must have been informed of this by immigration), and then flag that passport in the Immigration computer system.  They can, and will prevent you leaving the country until they are satisfied.  Anecdotal?  Not to me it isn't.

 

And, while I'm here, I was clearly told during the audit that they use a last in, first out system when assessing remittances from savings.  They look at the start and end balances of your overseas account following the remittance.  For example, if you have $100k in your account on Jan 1st, you receive a further $50k to that account, then remit $50k to Thailand, the whole $50k is assessable income.  You had $100k on Jan 1st, you still have $100k in there following the remittance, therefore that money was "earned" the same year it was remitted.

 

 

Edited August 30 by ballpoint

[Lorry]

5 hours ago, topt said:

Some of it but he does not start off well -

just over 4 mins talks about 6 months and a day - did not hear any mention of 179 or 180 days

gets confused over LTR and LTV

18/19 minutes start of sales pitch to get a Thai Tin.........

 

Will listen to rest later as only got to 25 minutes.......

More mistakes follow when he talks about all kind of different pension systems in different countries,  at least some of which he doesn't understand. 

[Lorry]

42 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

 

As the person who was audited after retiring from work here, I agree that the chances of it happening to the average pensioner here are very low - or have been up till now. Whether that continues under the new rules remains to be seen.  I suspect that it will, but can also see the TRD head office setting targets for tax offices to investigate a small portion of non-filing tax residents in their districts / areas each year.  I'd be careful to, at minimum, keep good records over the next couple of years until we see the way things are going.

 

The main reason I posted my experience, however, was the way that I was informed about the audit.  My passport was flagged on the Immigration Bureau computer system, meaning whoever entered my name and number - including departure immigration at every airport and border, got a message saying I was up for a tax audit. As my local immigration office told me, this meant I was prevented from leaving the country until this flag was cleared.  (Which eventually I had to arrange myself following the audit, by making a trip to Bangkok to visit the immigration detention centre in Soi Suan Plu). 

 

Therefore, the TRD do have the resources to identify and conduct audits on non Thai citizens, and do have sufficient integration with the Immigration Bureau to firstly identify that people have been in country long enough in a year to be tax residents, and get their passport details (I had obtained a new passport after retiring, so had a new number, but the TRD must have been informed of this by immigration), and then flag that passport in the Immigration computer system.  They can, and will prevent you leaving the country until they are satisfied.  Anecdotal?  Not to me it isn't.

 

And, while I'm here, I was clearly told during the audit that they use a last in, first out system when assessing remittances from savings.  They look at the start and end balances of your overseas account following the remittance.  For example, if you have $100k in your account on Jan 1st, you receive a further $50k to that account, then remit $50k to Thailand, the whole $50k is assessable income.  You had $100k on Jan 1st, you still have $100k in there following the remittance, therefore that money was "earned" the same year it was remitted.

 

 

Thx for posting your story again. 

 

It only now dawns on me what you are saying: they can flag your passport without you knowing - you know once you are at the airport and can't leave.

That's much worse than requiring a tax certificate for leaving. 

[dinga]

10 minutes ago, Lorry said:

More mistakes follow when he talks about all kind of different pension systems in different countries,  at least some of which he doesn't understand. 

Agree - some useful info/comments but questionable accuracy at least as far as this non-US bloke is concerned.  Therefore in my view the video is NOT to be relied on - but he did have the good grace [ie reserved the right to change those positions] by saying these were opinions based on current TRD practices which (a) have never had to address the remittance complexities; and therefore (b) detailed information/rulings/guidelines are expected to be issued by TRD.

 

For what it's worth, I still reckon the changed interpretation will be reversed/not implemented so can't see any reason for the continued paranoia, hand-wringing, and unnecessary fanning of doom & gloom based on what (may) happen in other jurisdictions. 

 

Let's wait to see if Daddy puts his considerable fingers on the scales ....   

[chiang mai]

50 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

 

As the person who was audited after retiring from work here, I agree that the chances of it happening to the average pensioner here are very low - or have been up till now. Whether that continues under the new rules remains to be seen.  I suspect that it will, but can also see the TRD head office setting targets for tax offices to investigate a small portion of non-filing tax residents in their districts / areas each year.  I'd be careful to, at minimum, keep good records over the next couple of years until we see the way things are going.

 

The main reason I posted my experience, however, was the way that I was informed about the audit.  My passport was flagged on the Immigration Bureau computer system, meaning whoever entered my name and number - including departure immigration at every airport and border, got a message saying I was up for a tax audit. As my local immigration office told me, this meant I was prevented from leaving the country until this flag was cleared.  (Which eventually I had to arrange myself following the audit, by making a trip to Bangkok to visit the immigration detention centre in Soi Suan Plu). 

 

Therefore, the TRD do have the resources to identify and conduct audits on non Thai citizens, and do have sufficient integration with the Immigration Bureau to firstly identify that people have been in country long enough in a year to be tax residents, and get their passport details (I had obtained a new passport after retiring, so had a new number, but the TRD must have been informed of this by immigration), and then flag that passport in the Immigration computer system.  They can, and will prevent you leaving the country until they are satisfied.  Anecdotal?  Not to me it isn't.

 

And, while I'm here, I was clearly told during the audit that they use a last in, first out system when assessing remittances from savings.  They look at the start and end balances of your overseas account following the remittance.  For example, if you have $100k in your account on Jan 1st, you receive a further $50k to that account, then remit $50k to Thailand, the whole $50k is assessable income.  You had $100k on Jan 1st, you still have $100k in there following the remittance, therefore that money was "earned" the same year it was remitted.

 

 

Yet when I wrote earlier that the Revenue would notify Immigration and a person would be prevented from leaving the country, I was admonished and accused of scaremongering! @DrJack54

 

 

[dinga]

53 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

 

And, while I'm here, I was clearly told during the audit that they use a last in, first out system when assessing remittances from savings.  They look at the start and end balances of your overseas account following the remittance.  For example, if you have $100k in your account on Jan 1st, you receive a further $50k to that account, then remit $50k to Thailand, the whole $50k is assessable income.  You had $100k on Jan 1st, you still have $100k in there following the remittance, therefore that money was "earned" the same year it was remitted.

 

 

Despite strong/dogmatic statements to the contrary, it always seemed to me that LIFO approach was the only realistic and simple option for TRD.

 

In my view, folks should base their calculations on LIFO since for many that is likely to be their worst possible outcome if the new remittance interpretation makes it out of ICU.... (which I doubt)

  

[dinga]

8 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

Yet when I wrote earlier that the Revenue would notify Immigration and a person would be prevented from leaving the country, I was admonished and accused of scaremongering! @DrJack54

 

 

Sad to say this blog pretty well lives in the contrary Twilight Worlds of  (1)  Dogmatism based on often assumed approaches used by Authorities in other countries  (2)  Non-recognition of the Thai environment; (3) Goldilocks naviety and failure to consider possible impacts; (4) Ostrich ignorance; (5) Farang superiority.

 

Better to be labelled a scaremonger (by flagging possible impacts - no matter how farfetched), than to let other folks sleep-walk into severe difficulties.

 

Kudos  

[NoDisplayName]

1 hour ago, ballpoint said:

And, while I'm here, I was clearly told during the audit that they use a last in, first out system when assessing remittances from savings.  They look at the start and end balances of your overseas account following the remittance.  For example, if you have $100k in your account on Jan 1st, you receive a further $50k to that account, then remit $50k to Thailand, the whole $50k is assessable income.  You had $100k on Jan 1st, you still have $100k in there following the remittance, therefore that money was "earned" the same year it was remitted.

 

This doesn't make sense.  It implies that "earnings prior to Jan 2024 are not assessable" is false.

 

It means that ANY earnings during the tax year take precedence over any prior savings to determine assessability of remittances.

[jwest10]

14 minutes ago, dinga said:

Sad to say this blog pretty well lives in the contrary Twilight Worlds of  (1)  Dogmatism based on often assumed approaches used by Authorities in other countries  (2)  Non-recognition of the Thai environment; (3) Goldilocks naviety and failure to consider possible impacts; (4) Ostrich ignorance; (5) Farang superiority.

 

Better to be labelled a scaremonger (by flagging possible impacts - no matter how farfetched), than to let other folks sleep-walk into severe difficulties.

 

Kudos  

No forms and again the local tax office stated do not worry too much as your circumstances mean you are below all the allowances and stated do not frett.

[dinga]

29 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

This doesn't make sense.  It implies that "earnings prior to Jan 2024 are not assessable" is false.

 

It means that ANY earnings during the tax year take precedence over any prior savings to determine assessability of remittances.

Makes perfect sense  -  a couple of theoretical  examples to illustrate potential TRD LIFO treatment where account Balance at 31/12/2023 = $100,000:

 

*  On 1/6/2024, account balance remained at $100,000.  $50,000 remitted on 2/6/2024  -  the whole $50,000 is NOT Assessable as treated as Savings - remaining $50,000 balance remains to be treated as NOT Assessable Savings if remitted

 

*  On 1/9/2024, account balance was $55,000 (reflecting receipt of $5,000 Interest payment).  $55,000 remitted on 2/9/2024  -  $5,000 ASSESSABLE, remaining $50,000 NOT Assessable as treated as Savings [remainder of NOT Assessable Savings = $50,000 remaining balance - $50,000 = $NIL carried over]

 

In my view, LIFO is likely to be the easiest way for TRD to deal with Savings balances as at 31/12/2023.  Plenty of contrary views but the OP's real TRD experience is strong evidence this is the likely approach  -  let's see if I'm correct and if official guidelines are actually issued.  

 

 

[ballpoint]

1 hour ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

This doesn't make sense.  It implies that "earnings prior to Jan 2024 are not assessable" is false.

 

It means that ANY earnings during the tax year take precedence over any prior savings to determine assessability of remittances.

If they come from a comingled account.  That is the reason I used to transfer funds to a separate account prior to Dec 31st, then make my remittances from that account the following year before transferring any more money into it.  I could have remitted the money in January, and then added more to it in February with no problem, as long as I didn't remit any further money that year.  Things have changed now, but I still keep that separate account, which I topped up last year, that I can remit non-assessable income (savings prior to Jan 1st 2024) from with no worries about comingling.  I won't be making any transfers to it until the current money is gone.

[ballpoint]

2 hours ago, Lorry said:

Thx for posting your story again. 

 

It only now dawns on me what you are saying: they can flag your passport without you knowing - you know once you are at the airport and can't leave.

That's much worse than requiring a tax certificate for leaving. 

 

I only found out when I went to my local office to do a 90 day report.  But yes, I could just imagine turning up at the airport with family to go on a holiday only to be told you can't leave the country.  I wonder if it would show up on the airline's system when checking in?

[stat]

13 hours ago, chiang mai said:

It shouldn't matter how the funds are delivered into Thailand. If the method of transport is hand carried cash, bank to bank transfers using TT's or electronic transfer via an ATM card, the end product is exactly the same, funds are remitted. There must be a case to say foreign credit card usage is different since that remits credit rather than cash but that could ultimately go either way.

Easy to make/invent the distinction in case of a credit card I: am getting a loan and I am not receiving funds/making profit as I have to pay them back. BTW this is what the rich Thais are doing for decades receiving loans from offshore companies.

 

You do understand that it is all a matter of interpretation of the law? Logic, especially western logic does not apply in this case. All I am saying is that the case is not clear cut.

Edited August 30 by stat

[JimGant]

10 hours ago, chiang mai said:

Different people have reported different things, some of the reports from his visit to the chiang mai expat club were less than stellar

Yeah, read here, if you've got nothing better to do:

https://aseannow.com/topic/1008555-tax-specialist-in-chiang-mai/page/3/

 

He's a snake oil salesman. An IRS-blessed Enrolled Agent, most of whom are very competent and honest. However, he's found a gimmick around the "savings clause," found in all US tax treaties, that gives the US at least secondary taxation rights in all but a few situations (alimony, child support). But he claims Thailand is exempt from the savings clause, when it comes to IRAs. Thus, if you're a Thai tax resident, US taxpayer, and you cash out part (or all) of your conventional IRA every year -- don't pay the US, and remit to Thailand in a later year (old rules), and don't pay Thailand. Hey, what could be better? Move to Thailand for 181 days, and never again have to pay anyone tax on your IRA distributions. Sound too good to be true? You bet. [How he sells his con with the new remittance rules will be interesting -- just don't remit, I guess -- but still don't declare on your US tax return.]

 

If you read the link, digest what's in the Swiss example, which identically describes treaty situations re IRAs with other countries, including Thailand. The Swiss example was elevated to the top floor of the IRS -- thus the sensical ruling. But apparently similar, auditable situations with this EA charlatan in Thailand, have never gotten by a confused GS11, completely perplexed by treaty language (imagine).

 

Anyway, this case study had been, back when it appeared on this forum in 2017, a topic of interest with the retired group of CPAs I belong to.  That, apparently, nobody using his services has ever be adversely audited -- sadly says a lot about the current IRS manpower and brainpower situation at the IRS. But, maybe moving forward, IRA tax avoiders will now, at least, have to pay Thailand -- if the IRS doesn't have the skills to detect fraud.

 

 

 

 

[dinga]

12 hours ago, JimGant said:

Yeah, read here, if you've got nothing better to do:

https://aseannow.com/topic/1008555-tax-specialist-in-chiang-mai/page/3/

 

He's a snake oil salesman. An IRS-blessed Enrolled Agent, most of whom are very competent and honest. However, he's found a gimmick around the "savings clause," found in all US tax treaties, that gives the US at least secondary taxation rights in all but a few situations (alimony, child support). But he claims Thailand is exempt from the savings clause, when it comes to IRAs. Thus, if you're a Thai tax resident, US taxpayer, and you cash out part (or all) of your conventional IRA every year -- don't pay the US, and remit to Thailand in a later year (old rules), and don't pay Thailand. Hey, what could be better? Move to Thailand for 181 days, and never again have to pay anyone tax on your IRA distributions. Sound too good to be true? You bet. [How he sells his con with the new remittance rules will be interesting -- just don't remit, I guess -- but still don't declare on your US tax return.]

 

If you read the link, digest what's in the Swiss example, which identically describes treaty situations re IRAs with other countries, including Thailand. The Swiss example was elevated to the top floor of the IRS -- thus the sensical ruling. But apparently similar, auditable situations with this EA charlatan in Thailand, have never gotten by a confused GS11, completely perplexed by treaty language (imagine).

 

Anyway, this case study had been, back when it appeared on this forum in 2017, a topic of interest with the retired group of CPAs I belong to.  That, apparently, nobody using his services has ever be adversely audited -- sadly says a lot about the current IRS manpower and brainpower situation at the IRS. But, maybe moving forward, IRA tax avoiders will now, at least, have to pay Thailand -- if the IRS doesn't have the skills to detect fraud.

 

 

 

 

 

AHHH - that might explain his pushing to set-up some Hong Kong 'pension' arrangement as the universal tax solution.

[Mike Teavee]

14 hours ago, JimGant said:

Yeah, read here, if you've got nothing better to do:

https://aseannow.com/topic/1008555-tax-specialist-in-chiang-mai/page/3/

 

He's a snake oil salesman. An IRS-blessed Enrolled Agent, most of whom are very competent and honest. However, he's found a gimmick around the "savings clause," found in all US tax treaties, that gives the US at least secondary taxation rights in all but a few situations (alimony, child support). But he claims Thailand is exempt from the savings clause, when it comes to IRAs. Thus, if you're a Thai tax resident, US taxpayer, and you cash out part (or all) of your conventional IRA every year -- don't pay the US, and remit to Thailand in a later year (old rules), and don't pay Thailand. Hey, what could be better? Move to Thailand for 181 days, and never again have to pay anyone tax on your IRA distributions. Sound too good to be true? You bet. [How he sells his con with the new remittance rules will be interesting -- just don't remit, I guess -- but still don't declare on your US tax return.]

 

If you read the link, digest what's in the Swiss example, which identically describes treaty situations re IRAs with other countries, including Thailand. The Swiss example was elevated to the top floor of the IRS -- thus the sensical ruling. But apparently similar, auditable situations with this EA charlatan in Thailand, have never gotten by a confused GS11, completely perplexed by treaty language (imagine).

 

Anyway, this case study had been, back when it appeared on this forum in 2017, a topic of interest with the retired group of CPAs I belong to.  That, apparently, nobody using his services has ever be adversely audited -- sadly says a lot about the current IRS manpower and brainpower situation at the IRS. But, maybe moving forward, IRA tax avoiders will now, at least, have to pay Thailand -- if the IRS doesn't have the skills to detect fraud.

 

Around about 26:45 in he mentions a statement (presumably from TRD) that says something like "If income is not taxed in the country you/it came from with a DTA it will not be taxed in Thailand"...

 

 

1st I've heard about this & Google brings nothing back to support the claim, has anybody heard anything like this before as it would make a huge difference to the Capital Gains discussions. 

 

Edited August 31 by Mike Teavee

[Presnock]

22 hours ago, beammeup said:

If next year I am tax resident and  I remitt enough savings to live on (greater than 60k+150K) but they are savings from before Jan 1 2024, so not assessable. Do I still need to do a tax return the next year?

If no assessable income then you don't have to file a tax return...you might get audited but if you can prove the remittance was from prior savings there should be no problem.  but TIT and I am no expert but this is my understanding of assessable and non-assessable income remitted.  Good luck

[NoDisplayName]

18 hours ago, dinga said:

Makes perfect sense  -  a couple of theoretical  examples to illustrate potential TRD LIFO treatment where account Balance at 31/12/2023 = $100,000:

 

*  On 1/6/2024, account balance remained at $100,000.  $50,000 remitted on 2/6/2024  -  the whole $50,000 is NOT Assessable as treated as Savings - remaining $50,000 balance remains to be treated as NOT Assessable Savings if remitted

 

*  On 1/9/2024, account balance was $55,000 (reflecting receipt of $5,000 Interest payment).  $55,000 remitted on 2/9/2024  -  $5,000 ASSESSABLE, remaining $50,000 NOT Assessable as treated as Savings [remainder of NOT Assessable Savings = $50,000 remaining balance - $50,000 = $NIL carried over]

 

In my view, LIFO is likely to be the easiest way for TRD to deal with Savings balances as at 31/12/2023.  Plenty of contrary views but the OP's real TRD experience is strong evidence this is the likely approach  -  let's see if I'm correct and if official guidelines are actually issued.  

 

 

 

But it doesn't make sense in the real world, where "an account" with "a balance" does not exist.

 

In the real world, random expat has half a dozen brokerage accounts, three checking accounts, a couple savings accounts, two IRA's and a 401K, a dozen credit cards, a credit union account and a Wise account.  He makes hundreds of stock trades throughout the year, receives bond interest, dividends, capital gains, and a wee tiny bit of savings account interest, perhaps even a pension or two.

 

Random expat has his accounts set up and has maintained records for half a century according to the rules of his cuddly home country tax department that enforces global taxing authority.  "A balance" in "an account" does not theoretically sit in place.

 

Nobody, especially the TRD, has the capability of matching any particular remittance to any specific transaction, at least not without a specialized team of forensic experts willing to put in weeks of effort for little to no reward.

 

We'll be continuing the long-standing practice of self-determining assessability of remittances as "savings."

 

 

[dinga]

16 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

But it doesn't make sense in the real world, where "an account" with "a balance" does not exist.

 

In the real world, random expat has half a dozen brokerage accounts, three checking accounts, a couple savings accounts, two IRA's and a 401K, a dozen credit cards, a credit union account and a Wise account.  He makes hundreds of stock trades throughout the year, receives bond interest, dividends, capital gains, and a wee tiny bit of savings account interest, perhaps even a pension or two.

 

Random expat has his accounts set up and has maintained records for half a century according to the rules of his cuddly home country tax department that enforces global taxing authority.  "A balance" in "an account" does not theoretically sit in place.

 

Nobody, especially the TRD, has the capability of matching any particular remittance to any specific transaction, at least not without a specialized team of forensic experts willing to put in weeks of effort for little to no reward.

 

We'll be continuing the long-standing practice of self-determining assessability of remittances as "savings."

 

 

 

For mine, as far as Remittances are concerned what matters is the source(s) of the funds  - at present, it matters nought about all the other offshore accounts/investments and their performance unless they generate monies that are remitted to Thailand.

 

The simple approach would be to evidence (1) the balance of the account source(s) as at 31/12/2023; (b) the balance of that/those accounts at the time the funds were remitted to Thailand.  My simple example tries to illustrate how the TRD may use LIFO approach to assess the taxability of the remittance(s) - which a poster has said has been already used by TRD, in his experience, in relation to his personal tax affairs.

 

Self assessment is the responsibility of every tax payer - along with justification therefore.  Can't see TRD being confused/distracted by such claimed, irrelevant complexities  -  but let's see....      

  

[JimGant]

5 hours ago, Mike Teavee said:

Around about 26:45 in he mentions a statement (presumably from TRD) that says something like "If income is not taxed in the country you/it came from with a DTA it will not be taxed in Thailand".

He's just confused, and has it in reverse. Early in this goat rope, a phrase came out from the Thais saying something like," If your home country has a DTA with Thailand, and if you pay taxes to your home country on your income, then Thailand will not bother taxing this income." We haven't heard anything about this subsequently -- probably because somebody realized that if Thailand followed this rule, they'd be forfeiting a lot of taxes they have first dibs on, per DTA.

 

Another fumble by this guy is where he says, "All pensions paid or issued by the US federal govt are exempt from Thai taxes." Not quite. Only if that pension is for services rendered to the federal govt. My wife gets a pension from the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation -- a federal organization established to take over bankrupt pension funds. But that was for services rendered to PanAm. Thus, this doesn't qualify under the DTA. But, hey, maybe I"ll advise the wife to hire this guy when I croak, and thus pay no taxes to the US on her IRA required minimum distribution -- and pay no taxes to Thailand on her PanAm pension.....

[chiang mai]

There is no doubt in my mind that the video can safely be disregarded.

[stat]

On 8/30/2024 at 8:14 AM, Lorry said:

More mistakes follow when he talks about all kind of different pension systems in different countries,  at least some of which he doesn't understand. 

There is also the mistake where he claims a capital gains rate of 10% in Thailand which IMHO is not the case as PiT will be applied to cap gains so up to 35%. This all shows that the whole tax issue is completly unclear.

[stat]

6 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

But it doesn't make sense in the real world, where "an account" with "a balance" does not exist.

 

In the real world, random expat has half a dozen brokerage accounts, three checking accounts, a couple savings accounts, two IRA's and a 401K, a dozen credit cards, a credit union account and a Wise account.  He makes hundreds of stock trades throughout the year, receives bond interest, dividends, capital gains, and a wee tiny bit of savings account interest, perhaps even a pension or two.

 

Random expat has his accounts set up and has maintained records for half a century according to the rules of his cuddly home country tax department that enforces global taxing authority.  "A balance" in "an account" does not theoretically sit in place.

 

Nobody, especially the TRD, has the capability of matching any particular remittance to any specific transaction, at least not without a specialized team of forensic experts willing to put in weeks of effort for little to no reward.

 

We'll be continuing the long-standing practice of self-determining assessability of remittances as "savings."

 

 

Great post! My understanding is that I will keep a seperated account at the start of the year (previous year not in TH) with 100.000 USD account balance in cash. Now I will remit only from this account to TH so all my other accounts are hopefuly save. Any refil of the account will be a gift from a close relative. As soon as the accounts are mingled you COULD be in a world of pain as I have hundreds of trades, dividends etc per year.

[chiang mai]

Just now, stat said:

There is also the mistake where he claims a capital gains rate of 10% in Thailand which IMHO is not the case as PiT will be applied to cap gains so up to 35%. This all shows that the whole tax issue is completely unclear.

I think it shows he's making it up as he goes along or simply doesn't know, but I don't know that means the entire tax issue is unclear. I think the members here have done a very good job at disseminating much of what is required and where the major gaps are.

 

One of the bigger problems is that too many members think Thai's are stupid and that none of this has been thought through when I suspect most of it has but it hasn't been communicated to everyone's satisfaction. Whether it should have been or not is another subject. Another aspect is the idea that long standing practices are now deemed at risk, foreign ATM withdrawals being one and this has unsettle many people who question the legitimacy of taxiing funds taken from a home country account. There's a lot of education needed here amongst members, many of whom still appear to be in denial.

[Presnock]

On 8/30/2024 at 1:38 PM, dinga said:

Agree - some useful info/comments but questionable accuracy at least as far as this non-US bloke is concerned.  Therefore in my view the video is NOT to be relied on - but he did have the good grace [ie reserved the right to change those positions] by saying these were opinions based on current TRD practices which (a) have never had to address the remittance complexities; and therefore (b) detailed information/rulings/guidelines are expected to be issued by TRD.

 

For what it's worth, I still reckon the changed interpretation will be reversed/not implemented so can't see any reason for the continued paranoia, hand-wringing, and unnecessary fanning of doom & gloom based on what (may) happen in other jurisdictions. 

 

Let's wait to see if Daddy puts his considerable fingers on the scales ....   

THis is the same ol' crap we have been seeing since they came out with the scheme.  Agents and other forum members here are still just guessing as the RD hasn't come out with any changes or updates that have been published anyway.  Maybe when the "new" tax forms reportedly will come out in Nov or Dec will have something new in them.  Until then I am only continuing to glance through these messages.  Good luck to all this tax season.

[Presnock]

7 minutes ago, stat said:

Great post! My understanding is that I will keep a seperated account at the start of the year (previous year not in TH) with 100.000 USD account balance in cash. Now I will remit only from this account to TH so all my other accounts are hopefuly save. Any refil of the account will be a gift from a close relative. As soon as the accounts are mingled you COULD be in a world of pain as I have hundreds of trades, dividends etc per year.

Agree that some of the expats will have quite a varied financial life and the more varied, the more important it is to keep great detailed documentation just in case.... be able to protect your stand in my opinion.  Hopefully very few will actually have any problems this first year until we all see how well the RD did plan to tackle the new schemes.

[KhunHeineken]

On 8/30/2024 at 5:45 AM, ballpoint said:

My passport was flagged on the Immigration Bureau computer system, meaning whoever entered my name and number - including departure immigration at every airport and border,

I posted some time ago that the day MAY come where you see a "tax desk" at airports and boarders, in a similar way you see the "overstay desk."  

 

My post was the subject of some ridicule. 

 

As with many of these tax threads, most members are asking the question, "why would they" when they really should be asking "why wouldn't they?" 

 

Answer is:  Money, Money Money.

[KhunHeineken]

On 8/30/2024 at 4:50 AM, TroubleandGrumpy said:

My opinions are exactly the same as his regarding DTAs - most Govt pensions are taxable in that State - when means the State that is paying them - not Thailand.

I believe you are Australian.  Correct me if I am wrong.  

 

Not all pensions are treated equally. 

 

Government aged pensions are not treated the same way as occupation pensions are in the Australia / Thailand DTA.

 

Yes, the old Article 18 being subject to the provisions of Article 19 in the DTA. 

 

 

 

Watch between 16 minutes to 20 minutes.

 

Quotes:  "Aus/Thai DTA does not have an exclusion on Age Pension or Superannuation." and "Age Pension and Superannuation are assessable income if remitted to Thailand and taxable if remitted to Thailand are classed as assessable income."  

 

Are they wrong?  If so, can you point out where in Article 18 and Article 19 of the DTA between Australia and Thailand where they are wrong?  Go on the record. 

[Phulublub]

On 8/30/2024 at 6:04 PM, stat said:

Easy to make/invent the distinction in case of a credit card I: am getting a loan and I am not receiving funds/making profit as I have to pay them back. BTW this is what the rich Thais are doing for decades receiving loans from offshore companies.

 

You do understand that it is all a matter of interpretation of the law? Logic, especially western logic does not apply in this case. All I am saying is that the case is not clear cut.

In the case of a credit card purchase, you have taken a loan in <home currency>.  The money you have been loaned is then (in a completely distinct transaction) remitted to Thailand to make your purchase.  Later (and, again quite separately) you repay the loan in <home currency>.   

 

PH

[chiang mai]

5 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

In the case of a credit card purchase, you have taken a loan in <home currency>.  The money you have been loaned is then (in a completely distinct transaction) remitted to Thailand to make your purchase.  Later (and, again quite separately) you repay the loan in <home currency>.   

 

PH

I don't think the TRD cares about what happens outside of its borders. What it knows is that consideration was given for goods or services that were received, inside Thailand. The way the purchaser intends to reimburse the lender abroad is of no concern to TRD. What if the buyer obtained a cash advance on their credit card and then paid cash for those goods or services, the overseas lender would still have to be reimbursed but this was a cash transaction, is it still not assessable?