Revenue Department boss calls on tax residents in Thailand to file 2024 returns by March 31

[NoDisplayName]

Just now, The Cyclist said:

 

 

Who, and where are these millions of retiree tax residents that you speak of ?
 

hyperbole much.

 

Neither I in my first paragraph, nor the tax department big guy (mis)quoted in the OP at any time ever, mentioned retiree (or foreign!)  taxpayers.  I didn't mention foreign taxpayers (Russians and Chinese) until the final paragraph.

 

Both I in most of my comment, and the big guy throughout the entirety of his comments, was (were?) referring to all tax residents.  I would bet big guy didn't gave a single passing thought to foreigners during the entire interview.

 

 

 

 

 

[anchadian]

16 minutes ago, redwood1 said:

 

Even better, when Thailand moves to global taxation (on English forms only), me and the Russian and Chinese non-English speaking tax residents won't have to comply.

 

 

 

Well if the Tax forms are in UK  English  instead of American English then I for sure will not need to file because UK English sounds funny to me and I cant understand it....... 

 

 

 

[oldcpu]

2 hours ago, The Cyclist said:

The First step in the process has been undertaken, by Thailand signing up to the OECD's CRS.

 

If I may comment on Thailand signing up .....

 

Is it like the USA signed up to the OECD CRS ? ... oh ... I forgot ... the USA did not sign up to the OECD CRS ...

 

... its not that I am advocating to follow the lead of the USA.  Its just interesting in the context of the video.

 

These are interesting times.

 

 

[The Cyclist]

12 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

Both I in most of my comment, and the big guy throughout the entirety of his comments, was (were?) referring to all tax residents.  I would bet big guy didn't gave a single passing thought to foreigners during the entire interview.

 

Lets take the big guys comment on all tax residents, shall we.

 

I have already posted the UK's stance on UK tax residents declaring foreign income on an annual tax return.

 

@oldcpu has already posted that all Canadian tax residents must declare foreign income on an annual tax return.

 

Here is the Aussie take

 

Quote

As an Australian resident for tax purposes, you must declare income you earn anywhere in the world in your Australian tax return. This is known as your worldwide income. It includes any foreign income you may receive from: pensions and annuities

 

https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/income-deductions-offsets-and-records/income-you-must-declare/foreign-and-worldwide-income/australian-resident-foreign-and-worldwide-income

 

And I will bet that if I went through every single Country signed up to CRS, their tax office will also say the same thing.

 

But you seem to think, for some bizarre reason Thailand will be exempt this.

 

From the same ATO site

 

Quote

Australia is one of many countries that has committed to new global standards on the automatic exchange of financial account information. This information is required by law to be collected by financial institutions around the world for reporting to tax authorities. Tax authorities will exchange this information to help make sure everyone pays the right amount of tax.

 

 " To make sure everyone pays the right amount of tax "

 

That will be the Global Standard that Thailand joined by Royal Degree on the 31 March 2023.

 

How can you comply with that Global Standard, without people declaring their Foreign income ?

[The Cyclist]

11 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

s it like the USA signed up to the OECD CRS ? ... oh ... I forgot ... the USA did not sign up to the OECD CRS ...

 

Correct, the US has not signed up to CRS, they have FATCA

 

And as a Brit, I don't know very much about FATCA, and I would suggest that Mr Hart, as an American is not up to speed with CRS.

[oldcpu]

10 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

@oldcpu has already posted that all Canadian tax residents must declare foreign income on an annual tax return.

 

 

A minor point .. Canada requires anyone who submits a Canadian tax form to Revenue Canada, whether or not a Canadian resident, to state on that tax form their total global income.   And if one has Canadian income above a specific (pretty small) threshold, that person needs to file a Canadian tax return, even if they are not a Canadian tax resident.

 

I am not stating that is an approach other countries should adopt.  I am just noting that is what Canada does.

 

For years, when I lived/worked in Europe, I had no Canadian income, so i did not have to submit a Canadian tax form.  However once I started receiving Old Age Security and Pension income from Canada that changed, and a Canadian tax return was / is required.

 

Death and taxes.  Something one can not escape.

[NoDisplayName]

16 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

And I will bet that if I went through every single Country signed up to CRS, their tax office will also say the same thing.

 

The only requirement for individual taxpayers under CRS is to identify themselves to financial institutions as having a tax residency in another country.

 

Financial institutions gather taxpayer info from the taxpayer when the taxpayer opens an account detailing external connections.

 

The financial institution may send reports to the TRD/BOT containing some taxpayer account information.

 

There is no CRS requirement for individual taxpayers to declare all remittances anywhere.  That would be country-specific local policy.

 

 

I don't have a link to a TRD statement yet, but we've got this appearing in multiple locations across the intertubes, including some accounting agency websites and in this here forum:

 

And now the Revenue Department's recent interpretation of Order No. Di. Por.161/2023 presents a major shift. Foreign-sourced income earned before January 1, 2024, won't need to be declared in Thai tax returns, irrespective of when it’s brought into the country. This is very welcome news for expats. 

 

Unclear, but logical, that would apply to all non-assessable funds under DTA's.

[The Cyclist]

17 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

A minor point .. Canada requires anyone who submits a Canadian tax form to Revenue Canada, whether or not a Canadian resident, to state on that tax form their total global income.

 

Think that might have been updated to filing a

 

Form T1135, Foreign Income Verification Statement, must be filed by:

 

For the purpose of

 

Quote

 

he objectives of this reporting requirement are:

1. to enhance compliance with tax laws that require reporting of foreign-source income
2. to increase taxpayers' awareness of these laws
3. to provide information to the CRA for the purpose of verifying taxpayers' compliance with these laws
4. to better target international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/international-non-residents/information-been-moved/foreign-reporting/foreign-income-verification-statement.html

[The Cyclist]

3 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

The only requirement for individual taxpayers under CRS is to identify themselves to financial institutions as having a tax residency in another country.

 

Sure

 

That is why the tax residents of UK, Canada, Aus and probably every other CRS member Country are declaring foreign income on annual tax returns.

 

All these Countries put their heads together and came up with a plan designed to muck everyone around, from the man in the street, right up to tax officials of those Countries, just for the sake of being absolute penis's

 

Sure

[oldcpu]

14 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/international-non-residents/information-been-moved/foreign-reporting/foreign-income-verification-statement.html

 

That is not for all Canadian tax residents,  but rather for Canadian tax residents who exceed a $100,000 cdn$ threshold of assets outside the country. 

 

It never applied to me when I lived in Canada about 3 decades ago.  I didn't have the money outside the country at that time.

 

Reading that you can possibly infer why, when Revenue Canada sent me a letter recently, offering to treat me as a Canadian tax resident,  even thou I live outside of Canada, I declined that offer.  I will stay a Thailand tax resident thankyou.

[NoDisplayName]

3 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

That is why the tax residents of UK, Canada, Aus and probably every other CRS member Country are declaring foreign income on annual tax returns.

 

No, they report foreign income because the country in which they are tax resident wants their cut.

 

If the remittance is non-assessable/exempt/non-taxable, Thailand doesn't want to know about it.

 

We, meaning you, have nothing that says otherwise except a misquoted interpretation poorly translated appearing in an infotainment tabloid.

[The Cyclist]

1 minute ago, oldcpu said:

 

That is not for all Canadian tax residents,  but rather for Canadian tax residents who exceed a $100,000 cdn$ threshold of assets outside the country. 

 

It never applied to me when I lived in Canada about 3 decades ago. 

 

Reading that you can possibly infer why, when Revenue Canada sent me a letter, offering to treat me as a Canadian tax resident,  even thou I live outside of Canada, I declined that offer.  I will stay a Thailand tax resident thankyou.

 

You are reading it wrong 😀😀

 

It applies to

 

* Canadian resident individuals,

* corporations

* certain trusts that, at any time during the year, own specified foreign property costing more than $100,000

* certain partnerships that hold more than $100,000 of specified foreign property

 

For the purpose of

 

1. to enhance compliance with tax laws that require reporting of foreign-source income
2. to increase taxpayers' awareness of these laws
3. to provide information to the CRA for the purpose of verifying taxpayers' compliance with these laws
4. to better target international tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance

Points 1, 3 and 4 being most pertinent to Individuals.

 

[oldcpu]

4 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

You are reading it wrong 😀😀

 

It applies to

 

* Canadian resident individuals,

 

 

Regardless,  I think you can infer why, when recently Revenue Canada offered to treat me, a non resident to Canada, as a deemed tax resident to Canada. I declined. 

 

I will stay a Thailand tax resident thankyou.

[The Cyclist]

7 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

No, they report foreign income because the country in which they are tax resident wants their cut.

 

Are you Mike Lister in disguise ? He also had a severe issue dealing with the fact that International Agreements / Treaties take precedent over Domestic Laws and Regulations.

 

And as a direct example of why your comment quoted above is absolute garbage.

 

I report my UK Government Pension monthly remttances for Thai Tax year 2024. How muchof a tax payment do you think I will need to pay to the RD.

 

Do you think it might be a big fat zero ?

[oldcpu]

19 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

No, they report foreign income because the country in which they are tax resident wants their cut.

 

I think that true.

 

19 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

If the remittance is non-assessable/exempt/non-taxable, Thailand doesn't want to know about it.

 

Thailand likely needs to update its tax forms if it wants all global income reported, or even if just all remitted income reported on a Thailand tax form. Currently the 2023 tax form does not do a good job for supporting the reporting of all remitted foreign income. The exemption section has no field for DTA tax exempt remitted money, no field for paw.161/162 tax exempt remitted money, and no fields for LTR tax exempt remitted funds.

 

I like to think Revenue Department in Thailand try their best, and accordingly I can't help but think this omission  is deliberate on their part. This does support the view that the remitted income I noted could indeed be treated as not assessable by RD and hence not be listed on a tax return to Thailand.

 

I find this confusing and my hope ( possibly in vain) is that this will be better clarified in the next few years.

 

[Dogmatix]

On 1/4/2025 at 2:40 PM, oldcpu said:

 

The article mentions the electronic forms P.N.D. 90 and Form P.N.D. 91 and states they can be submitted online.  However I believe that is only possible 'online' if one already has a Thailand Tax ID Number (TIN). (And if someone knows better, please correct me on that).

 

I suspect if one does not yet have a Thai TIN and one wishes to submit, then the one could fill in the forms (minus the Thai TIN), print them out, and take them to one's local Thai RD.   .... ( and then 'maybe' sit for an hour or more while they try to figure out what to do with a tax submission from someone who has no Thai TIN).

 

However I type the above noting tax year 2024 P.N.D. 90 and Form P.N.D. 91 forms are not as of yet (as of me typing this) on the Thai Revenue Department web site, so I make this post from how I understand the year-2023 tax forms to work (which require a Thai TIN, I believe).

 

Again - I am not 100% certain on this - but that is my understanding (that a Thai TIN is needed).

 

Definitely need a TIN to register for online filing of PND 90 or 91.  These only in Thai  and are quite difficult to fill in, unless you have a good knowledge of the Revenue Code. Income and deductions are based on their enumeration in the RC.  Little pop ups tend to occur in tiny Thai letters. But, if you can use them, they save a lot of trouble as they calculate tax for you.  Thai dividends can be automatically input from the Thai Stock Depository and calculated out with tax rebate benefit too.

 

Last year some of the self proclaimed Thai experts here assured everyone the Revenue Department was going to produce English language PND 90 and 91 forms and that the Thai and English versions woul be amended to provide space for claiming relief under double tax treaties.  I said that wasn't going to happen and, as expected, it turned out to be a fantasy.

 

Now the only way you can file, if you can't read Thai and/ or want to claim DTA relief is to go along to you local tax office in person and let them do it for you.  Can't wait for the thread with farangs' experiences of trying to do this and for news of farangs audited/shaken down by revenue officials for not declaring remittances.

[Yumthai]

22 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

That is why the tax residents of UK, Canada, Aus and probably every other CRS member Country are declaring foreign income on annual tax returns.

Most probably because these countries use true residence-based taxation, along with efficient tax department, where all foreign sourced income has to be declared.

 

Thailand is also categorized as residence-based taxation but with an important twist: "only if the income is remitted to Thailand".

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation

 

[JimGant]

4 hours ago, Yumthai said:

What's the point of stricter reporting if it's not to eventually collect more tax?

Ah, Oldcpu's answer to that, with his report on how the Canadians require reporting global income, even if it's not taxable -- to add to your taxable income and adjust your tax bracket upwards. Very clever. Now, you pay more taxes on taxable income -- because you have a higher tax bracket, courtesy of having to report non taxable income.

 

Anyway, Thailand doesn't do this, of course. But they could, if they, in the future, had you report non assessable foreign remitted income, and used this to adjust your tax bracket. Then, there could be a higher tax bill on assessable income, 'cause you're in a higher tax bracket. That would, then, give meaning to having to report non assessable foreign remitted income. But, I wouldn't hold my breath on Thailand adopting this approach.

 

Bad news, Oldcpu:  When Canada becomes the 51st state of the US, all your worldwide income will be taxable. Good news: You won't have to learn or speak French.

[NoDisplayName]

14 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

I report my UK Government Pension monthly remttances for Thai Tax year 2024. How muchof a tax payment do you think I will need to pay to the RD.

 

Do you think it might be a big fat zero ?

 

Up to you.

If not assessable then not required to report.

If not assessable, no provision to report.

If not assessable and reported, no provision to exempt.

If not assessable and reported and not exempted, then taxed.

If you report non-assessable remittances they are deemed taxable.

If over your TEDA you will owe tax.

 

Look, YOU went to one office (Pak Chong?) where some random uninformed official told you incorrect information, refused to admit her error, and proceeded to deduct the reported income in a manner not allowed for under the tax return instructions.  You can't do that online, and no other office or officer is likely to permit that.

 

The lady just wanted to get rid of you before you called out her misteak.

 

Any other tax office will tell you not to report that which need not be reported.

[oldcpu]

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Correct, the US has not signed up to CRS, they have FATCA

 

 

 

... they have the FATCA and ???

 

The FATCA is not about sharing US citizen financial income information to other countries, from what I read.  Rather it is about getting financial information (from other countries) on USA citizens for the USA IRS. 

 

Do I have that wrong?  (I might have).

 

But if I have it right, then I think it is in some aspects very different from the CRS.

.

[JimGant]

45 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

I report my UK Government Pension monthly remttances for Thai Tax year 2024. How muchof a tax payment do you think I will need to pay to the RD.

Well, they may think that, since you report it, that it's assessable income, and thus potentially taxable. Because, there are no lines to report non assessable foreign remitted income.

 

That you end up paying tax on this, because you're stupid enough to report non assessable income -- because you're on some kind of crusade -- is fine with me. Maybe pays for those needed road repairs in my neighborhood.

[The Cyclist]

7 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

 

... they have the FATCA and ???

 

The FATCA is not about sharing US citizen financial income information to other countries, from what I read.  Rather it is about getting financial information (from other countries) on USA citizens for the USA IRS. 

 

Do I have that wrong?  (I might have).

 

But if I have it right, then I think it is in some aspects very different from the CRS.

.

 

You would need an American to explain FATCA.

 

But yes, it has differences to CRS.

[oldcpu]

1 hour ago, The Cyclist said:

 

Correct, the US has not signed up to CRS, they have FATCA

 

And as a Brit, I don't know very much about FATCA, and I would suggest that Mr Hart, as an American is not up to speed with CRS.

 

OK - you had me curious.

 

There are crucial differences between the FATCA vs the CRS.

 

https://www.diligent.com/resources/blog/fatca-vs-crs-the-difference-is-crucial

 

Though both FATCA and CRS try to combat tax evasion, there are some notable differences between the two sets of regulations ...
...
One of the biggest differences between FATCA and CRS is the breadth of its design. Whereas FATCA requires financial institutions to report only those customers who qualify as U.S. persons, CRS involves more than 90 countries.   Under CRS, virtually all foreign investments handled by a financial institution become subject to a CRS report.
...
Under FATCA, each country entered into a separate bilateral intergovernmental agreement with the United States.
...
Part of FATCA's power lies in its resolve to collect information from RFIs concerning the financial dealings of U.S. taxpayers. Initially, this relationship was entirely one-sided; thus, it was truly a collection, not an exchange. In subsequent years, at the insistence of the G20, FATCA has modified its position on data reciprocity, but it is still not an equal exchange.

I could go on, but there we have it.

 

The FATCA does NOT share as much as the CRS.

 

The USA refused to sign the CRS.  Ergo the USA refuses to share information to the same scope.  It begs the question.  Why?

 

Again , I am not advocating Thailand follow the USA lead, but I think the USA can see issues with the CRS, else they would sign such.

[jwest10]

17 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

English tax forms available online:

https://www.rd.go.th/english/65308.html

 

Last updated: 17.12.2024

 

This is convenient.  Saves the expense of white-out.

Top line of the 2023 forms leaves the year blank.

Tax Year ........

Yes noticed that and my local Revenue office still saying with my circumstances I do not need to file a tax form and in any case can not get a Tin as one has to have employment in Thailand and explained have a pink ID card and below the 500 or 560K threshold .
Also the form Income Exemption was dated in previous years but think noticed yesterday that it was blank at the top?

[The Cyclist]

5 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

The USA refused to sign the CRS.  Ergo the USA refuses to share information to the same scope.  It begs the question.  Why?

 

As a non American, I have no idea, and TBH, neither do I care.

 

As a Brit, who is tax resident of Thailand, CRS is more of a concern for me.

 

I can also read and see what way it is all heading under CRS, and I also understand that International Agreements / Treaties, trump and take precedent over Domestic Laws and Policies.

 

I also know that the Royal Degree was signed on 31 March 2023, which means that Thailand will comply with all the Laws, diktats and rules as laid down by OECD in terms of CRS.

 

Something that some posters have difficulty in understanding. In Simple terms, it is not Thailand calling the shots, it is a supranational organisation called the OECD.

[oldcpu]

18 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

As a non American, I have no idea, and TBH, neither do I care.

 

The point is, when it comes to believe there is a trend about financial information sharing, while , yes, Thailand now has signed up to CRS, not every country in the world has signed on, and in particular, the world's only super power, which purportedly values freedom above most else, has not signed on.  It will not share information to the same extent.

 

I do ask myself - why.

 

 

18 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

I can also read and see what way it is all heading under CRS, and I also understand that International Agreements / Treaties, trump and take precedent over Domestic Laws and Policies.

 

Only in regards to limited financial aspects ... Also, one should not overstate the details of the CRS.  Countries do have a range of flexibility in regards to various aspects.

 

 

18 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 it is not Thailand calling the shots, it is a supranational organisation called the OECD.

 

No. That is an exaggeration. 

 

OECD is not the be-all and end-all. 

 

Thailand is a sovereign nation, and it will comply with the OECD CRS to the extent it sees fit.  If push comes to shove, with regard to any non-compliance, Thailand can leave any time it wants.  Thailand also (in addition to OECD)  gets in part to call the shots whether it stays or leaves.

.

 

 

[The Cyclist]

2 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

No. That is an exaggeration. 

 

No, it is not.

 

International Agreements / Treaties, trump and take precedent over domestic Laws and rules.

 

You can look that up to your hearts content.

 

4 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

OECD is not the be-all and end-all. 

 

It is for CRS and the Countries that have signed up to CRS.

 

4 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

Thailand is a sovereign nation, and it will comply with the OECD CRS to the extent it sees fit.

 

Actually, it wont. It will comply completely or leave. This is why International agreements usually have a timescale for being fully compliant. I do not know if Thailand has a timescale for being fully compliant.

 

6 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

If push comes to shove, with regard to any non-compliance, Thailand can leave any time it wants.

 

Sure, but that is a different issue.

 

7 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

Thailand gets to call the shots whether it stays or leaves.

 

Again, sure, but a different issue.

 

The whole idea of International Agreements / Treaties, is that the Countries involved are all doing the same thing, usually as laid down by the central authority, in this case the OECD.

 

CRS is no different.

 

Why do you think Mr Hart has been raging against the OECD in many of his video’s ? And as I have said before, he is absolutely correct to rage, but its a bit late, as CRS has been done and dusted since March 2023.

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

48 minutes ago, oldcpu said:

 

... they have the FATCA and ???

 

The FATCA is not about sharing US citizen financial income information to other countries, from what I read.  Rather it is about getting financial information (from other countries) on USA citizens for the USA IRS. 

 

Do I have that wrong?  (I might have).

 

But if I have it right, then I think it is in some aspects very different from the CRS.

.

 

 

My understanding is that the Model 2 FATCA agreement allows for the US to share financial account information with another country at the other country's option. I think it would be up to the other country to negotiate the mechanism and details of the information provided by the US.

 

I believe the FATCA Model 1 does not contain this option. Thailand is a Model 1 FATCA partner, so there is no automatic transfer of US account information to Thailand.

[jwest10]

Yes, I am not going to repeat myself and if you would like to see my posts feel free to do so.
However yet again there is no change as of today in what I have stated quite a few times before.

I know slightly different issues but was half expecting a question on my visit to my Immigration office this morning about this tax issue and yes the normal procedure but again had trouble locating our marriage translated certificate and thought I had passport photos from past years.
In any case had to go and get new ones but got my permission to stay for another year all done and dusted and yes we all worry about our families and until your passport is stamped it is a stressful event.

Som yet again from another source but from someone who works at the Revenue stating yet again you can not get a Tin as you have no employment in Thailand and yes knew about my personal  circumstances and my income is below the current thesholds of 500 or 560K 
Mentioned have a pink card ID and stated perhaps you can use it but again it is not necessary and also clarified that my UK frozen State Pension is sent by DWP directly to my bank here and yes this does not have to be reported but in your case no tax form is required,


 

[oldcpu]

28 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

 

No, it is not.

 

International Agreements / Treaties, trump and take precedent over domestic Laws and rules.

 

You can look that up to your hearts content.

 

It is an exaggeration. 

 

You stated "  it is not Thailand calling the shots, it is a supranational organisation called the OECD. "  ( I applied the 'bold' / 'italics' )

 

I pointed out that Thailand is also calling the shots as a sovereign nation.   Thailand can leave any time it wants and OECD can not call the shots and say Thailand can not leave.  Thailand can tell OECD to 'stuff it' ANYTIME and leave any time it wants.

 

Further, OECD can not tell Thailand how to precisely implement any of the  requirements.  Thailand can follow the route it choses to implement the requirements.

 

Stating it is OECD calling the shots is simply an exaggeration when sovereign nations are involved.  Both parties (OECD and relevant nations) are partnered here in calling the shots.  Thinking it is only OECD is so very wrong.

 

I repeat.  It is an exaggeration.

 

 

28 minutes ago, The Cyclist said:

Why do you think Mr Hart has been raging against the OECD in many of his video’s ? And as I have said before, he is absolutely correct to rage, but its a bit late, as CRS has been done and dusted since March 2023.

 

I inferred such as much myself when I pointed out USA did NOT sign up to CRS.   What citizenships do you understand Mr.Hart has from watching that video?  And what superpower refused to sign CRS (quite possibly due to it NOT wanting to share as much information).