Thai tax tangle: Expats warned of new rules on overseas income

[Yumthai]

10 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:

You missed "he can become non-resident for a year."

Sell and remit during that non-resident year.

Sorry but I don't get it. He surely can do what you say but he can also sell during a tax resident year and remit tax free during a later non-resident year.

[NoDisplayName]

5 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

Sorry but I don't get it. He surely can do what you say but he can also sell during a tax resident year and remit tax free during a later non-resident year.

 

Maybe, but why take the chance?

Wait until we know how this will work in the reality.

[anchadian]

 

[ukrules]

2 hours ago, Yumthai said:

Sorry but I don't get it. He surely can do what you say but he can also sell during a tax resident year and remit tax free during a later non-resident year.

 

I did read something, some kind of clarification by one of the big accountancy firms about this very issue as it is important.

If you realise any asset during a resident year then they will tax it on remittance in any future year when it is remitted, regardless of whether you're resident or not during the year of remittance.

 

The important thing is the date when the assets were converted from whatever they are (shares, bonds, etc) into cash. If you were tax resident in that year then you are liable on that money for the rest of your life if it is traced back to that transaction.

The clarification / interpretation was by Mazars and here's a link to it :

https://www.forvismazars.com/th/en/insights/doing-business-in-thailand/tax/revenue-department-s-guidance-on-foreign-income

 

Back in the original threads on this tax change it was suggested that being non resident in both the year or asset realisation and remittance might be prudent but it does appear that all that really matters is that you were non resident during the year the assets were sold.

However, remitting large amounts of money in a year when you are a resident may attract more attention and personally I would avoid it as I suspect it may be an event that triggers an audit depending on the amount, and they likely won't know when the assets were realised until they dig deeper by inspecting past statements from previous years, etc.

 

[Yumthai]

4 hours ago, ukrules said:

I did read something, some kind of clarification by one of the big accountancy firms about this very issue as it is important.

If you realise any asset during a resident year then they will tax it on remittance in any future year when it is remitted, regardless of whether you're resident or not during the year of remittance.

 

The important thing is the date when the assets were converted from whatever they are (shares, bonds, etc) into cash. If you were tax resident in that year then you are liable on that money for the rest of your life if it is traced back to that transaction.

The clarification / interpretation was by Mazars and here's a link to it :

https://www.forvismazars.com/th/en/insights/doing-business-in-thailand/tax/revenue-department-s-guidance-on-foreign-income

 

Back in the original threads on this tax change it was suggested that being non resident in both the year or asset realisation and remittance might be prudent but it does appear that all that really matters is that you were non resident during the year the assets were sold.

However, remitting large amounts of money in a year when you are a resident may attract more attention and personally I would avoid it as I suspect it may be an event that triggers an audit depending on the amount, and they likely won't know when the assets were realised until they dig deeper by inspecting past statements from previous years, etc.

There is no law backing what you mention.

 

There is nowhere in the Mazars link mentioning non tax residents, it is always question of taxpayers i.e. tax residents.

You will note that in the example Mr. A is always tax resident including in 2026, it would have been mentioned if otherwise.

 

Third-parties stating: "If you realise any asset during a resident year then they will tax it on remittance in any future year when it is remitted, regardless of whether you're resident or not during the year of remittance." is nothing less than their opinion/interpretation.

 

Again, to me, the current rule "A non-resident is, however, subject to tax only on income from sources in Thailand." prevails in any case until a potential amendment.

 

[oldcpu]

5 hours ago, ukrules said:

 

I did read something, some kind of clarification by one of the big accountancy firms about this very issue as it is important.

If you realise any asset during a resident year then they will tax it on remittance in any future year when it is remitted, regardless of whether you're resident or not during the year of remittance.

 

 

I don't believe that correct.   Its only for income realized (earned) in the year in which one was a resident of Thailand. That is consistent with Por.161.162, where it notes the remitted income must be assessable income to be taxed.

 

Please note, and this is very important .... Income earned, when one was not a resident is not assessable income, and it does not magically change to assessable income when brought into Thailand if one still a non-resident.

 

However income earned abroad, when one was a resident, will be assessable income when remitted to Thailand.

 

The officials from those 'big accounting firms' whose names you do not mention, would be well served to call the Thai RD help line and get their interpretation straightened.

 

Further,  ... don't forget with the caveat it needs to be income from 1-Jan-2024 onward, and it needs to be assessable in consideration as to what is in the foreign source income country's DTA with Thailand ... and also one's Visa (such as an LTR-WP, LTR-WGC, and LTR-WFTP) needs to be taken into account.

 

If what you type is accurate re accounting firm interpretations, it is disheartening to read of big accounting firms making such errors.

[redwood1]

1 hour ago, oldcpu said:

 

I don't believe that correct.   Its only for income realized (earned) in the year in which one was a resident of Thailand. That is consistent with Por.161.162, where it notes the remitted income must be assessable income to be taxed.

 

Please note, and this is very important .... Income earned, when one was not a resident is not assessable income, and it does not magically change to assessable income when brought into Thailand if one still a non-resident.

 

However income earned abroad, when one was a resident, will be assessable income when remitted to Thailand.

 

The officials from those 'big accounting firms' whose names you do not mention, would be well served to call the Thai RD help line and get their interpretation straightened.

 

Further,  ... don't forget with the caveat it needs to be income from 1-Jan-2024 onward, and it needs to be assessable in consideration as to what is in the foreign source income country's DTA with Thailand ... and also one's Visa (such as an LTR-WP, LTR-WGC, and LTR-WFTP) needs to be taken into account.

 

If what you type is accurate re accounting firm interpretations, it is disheartening to read of big accounting firms making such errors.

 

it is disheartening to read of big accounting firms making such errors.

 

 

Hey errors can be very profitable to the accounting firms when the errors convince the weak they need to shell out $$$ to the firms for their tax services....

[KhunHeineken]

2 minutes ago, redwood1 said:

Hey errors can be very profitable to the accounting firms when the errors convince the weak they need to shell out $$$ to the firms for their tax services....

Errors can also be very costly for individuals who have convinced themselves this Thai tax policy is all a big NOTHING. 

 

They talked themselves into not shelling out anything, and perhaps will have to shell out what's owed, and more, in the future.  

[Jinxed1]

On 2/4/2025 at 5:04 PM, Jingthing said:

If the sold investment was sold into cash in a bank account before 2024, then yes that is exempt in any future year you might remit it.

If it was in a cash bucket portion in a brokerage account, I am not sure about that though. 

Is there any certified information on that last part? looks like all lawyers don't agree

does anyone know a reliable tax advisor regarding this topic?

[ukrules]

3 hours ago, oldcpu said:

I don't believe that correct.   Its only for income realized (earned) in the year in which one was a resident of Thailand.

 

That's literally what I said to the word and is included in your quote.

 

Specifically this point is about someone earning a load of money whilst resident but remitting it in a later year when non resident - they're going to tax that.

So lets say you were resident in 2024, made $2 million in profit, remitted nothing as you don't want to pay tax on that.

Then in 2025 you go to some other country for 7 months becoming non resident - and during this subsequent non resident year remit prior earnings from 2024 - they're going to want to tax that as it was money made in a year when you were resident.

Now - would they know? - Who knows - unlikely unless you're audited but if audited they're going to want to trace that money back to the profit event and when they find you were resident when making it even though you didn't remit it in that year they will realise they have hit a bullseye

 

[ukrules]

8 hours ago, oldcpu said:

The officials from those 'big accounting firms' whose names you do not mention

 

The company name is in my post in the link and the link goes directly to their website.

They are a global giant with 40k employees in over 100 countries - : Forvis Mazars

Forvis Mazars is a prominent professional services firm in Thailand, ranking in the top 5 position in the market and holding the #1 position specifically in accounting outsourcing services

 

They are pretty much one of the most knowledgeable companies in the world.

 

Quote

The clarification / interpretation was by Mazars and here's a link to it :

https://www.forvismazars.com/th/en/insights/doing-business-in-thailand/tax/revenue-department-s-guidance-on-foreign-income

 

[roobaa01]

23 hours ago, anchadian said:

 

Thank you very much

Wbr

Roobaa01

[redwood1]

9 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Errors can also be very costly for individuals who have convinced themselves this Thai tax policy is all a big NOTHING. 

 

They talked themselves into not shelling out anything, and perhaps will have to shell out what's owed, and more, in the future.  

 

Well lucky we had Mike Lister.Chang Mai, and The Cyclist to keep us in line....Except it looks like they have abandoned ship....

 

[roobaa01]

2 minutes ago, redwood1 said:

 

Well lucky we had Mike Lister.Chang Mai, and The Cyclist to keep us in line....Except it looks like they have abandoned ship....

 

Gday 

My tax income return after deduction of the 560000 is minus THB 22000 , how do they treat a negative income at the Thai revenue department? Is that rolled over like in Austria to the next tax return?

 

Wbr

Roobaa01

[Yumthai]

8 hours ago, ukrules said:

Now - would they know? - Who knows - unlikely unless you're audited but if audited they're going to want to trace that money back to the profit event and when they find you were resident when making it even though you didn't remit it in that year they will realise they have hit a bullseye

If you're (unlikely, especially as a non tax resident) audited, TRD will disregard foreign sourced income remittances occurred during all back years you were not tax resident in Thailand, focusing only on local Thai income if any. Why? Because this is what the written law still says.

 

For anyone walking in a TRD office asking to file a tax return/get a TIN, what are the first and foremost questions the official asks?

"Do you live/reside in Thailand?" (implying: Are you a tax resident?), and "Do you work in Thailand?" (implying: Do you have local income?)  Then, non tax residents (often dismissed) and tax residents will be treated differently.

 

[jwest10]

24 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

If you're (unlikely, especially as a non tax resident) audited, TRD will disregard foreign sourced income remittances occurred during all back years you were not tax resident in Thailand, focusing only on local Thai income if any. Why? Because this is what the written law still says.

 

For anyone walking in a TRD office asking to file a tax return/get a TIN, what are the first and foremost questions the official asks?

"Do you live/reside in Thailand?" (implying: Are you a tax resident?), and "Do you work in Thailand?" (implying: Do you have local income?)  Then, non tax residents (often dismissed) and tax residents will be treated differently.

 

Precisely and been up to my local revenue office and stating the same and me deductibles higher than my non Tas income and "So you work in Thailand" 
If not again you do not need to file a tax form and also  and stated this before my Thai friend who knows someone ther confirmed a number of times.

[jwest10]

https://youtu.be/2_vGytBre2o?si=b1i40wyMtw0xj0Gy

Yes this is the link of 5Feb regarding the tax and forms.

Yes and think got it confirmed and also by my local tax revenue  several times and was asked "Do you work in Thailand"
No and why would you want to file a tax form but there is no need to file and yes it does state in earlier podcasts about the 60k or 60kx 2.
On the first option it  clearly states that if your personal allowances are higher than you income coming in then you do not or required to file a tax form and yes got this several times from going up to my local revenue office and yes there have been differing opinions on this.

Keeping manual records of any incoming monies but need to get my Thai bank updated to show my UK frozen state pension/

I would suggest that most UK ex-pats income is less than either the 500 or 560K Thai Baht allowances and it is at least crystal clear but who knows.
I have also mentioned got a pink id card and stated it makes no difference and Tin in required but did suggest possibly could use it but they states Why? 
You simply do not but wonder and might go up nearer March but do not want them going after funds which are taxed in the UK
If you have manual bank statements and the P60s and the like keep these records but do not worry 

 

[potless]

17 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

They talked themselves into not shelling out anything, and perhaps will have to shell out what's owed, and more, in the future.  

An unknown percentage, the elderly in particular, will feel that The Grim Reaper will be knocking on the door before the taxman does. I have come across this "Sod it, I might be dead by then" attitude.

[oldcpu]

15 hours ago, ukrules said:

 

That's literally what I said to the word and is included in your quote.

 

 

My error. I misread your post. 

 

As noted,  if one remits foreign income from any year, to Thailand, when earned  in a year when one is not a tax resident, and remitted when not a tax resident , then there is no Thai tax on such.

 

On defining residency for taxation purposes,  Thailand has relatively favorable laws there where one only needs to stay out of the country more than 185 days and one is not considered a Thai tax resident.  For some other western countries  ( Canada comes to my mind) one must do more to be considered a non tax resident. 

[jwest10]

2 hours ago, jwest10 said:

https://youtu.be/2_vGytBre2o?si=b1i40wyMtw0xj0Gy

Yes this is the link of 5Feb regarding the tax and forms.

Yes and think got it confirmed and also by my local tax revenue  several times and was asked "Do you work in Thailand"
No and why would you want to file a tax form but there is no need to file and yes it does state in earlier podcasts about the 60k or 60kx 2.
On the first option it  clearly states that if your personal allowances are higher than you income coming in then you do not or required to file a tax form and yes got this several times from going up to my local revenue office and yes there have been differing opinions on this.

Keeping manual records of any incoming monies but need to get my Thai bank updated to show my UK frozen state pension/

I would suggest that most UK ex-pats income is less than either the 500 or 560K Thai Baht allowances and it is at least crystal clear but who knows.
I have also mentioned got a pink id card and stated it makes no difference and Tin in required but did suggest possibly could use it but they states Why? 
You simply do not but wonder and might go up nearer March but do not want them going after funds which are taxed in the UK
If you have manual bank statements and the P60s and the like keep these records but do not worry 

 

No No ha ha FACTS

[KhunHeineken]

4 hours ago, potless said:

An unknown percentage, the elderly in particular, will feel that The Grim Reaper will be knocking on the door before the taxman does. I have come across this "Sod it, I might be dead by then" attitude.

What the elderly feel, and what the reality may be, are two different things. 

 

The "sod it" attitude does tend to support the argument that this tax policy will be linked to extensions, so there can be no "sod it" attitude. 

 

That would leave the only "out" as being to overstay, and then they have to catch you for overstay, and tax evasion.

 

Once again, it's funny how most expats abide by immigration laws strictly, yet, don't view this tax policy in the same light.  A quick way to fix that would be to link the two.   Basically, TRD use immigration compliance to ensure tax compliance.    

[Yumthai]

10 minutes ago, KhunHeineken said:

A quick way to fix that would be to link the two.   Basically, TRD use immigration compliance to ensure tax compliance.

You keep repeating this in circle in every tax thread like a mantra. If you strive to be heard by TRD I'm not sure it's the most effective way to do.

[redwood1]

20 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

You keep repeating this in circle in every tax thread like a mantra. If you strive to be heard by TRD I'm not sure it's the most effective way to do.

I agree 100%.....I think we hear this about once per page going back many pages...

[KhunHeineken]

12 hours ago, redwood1 said:

 

Well lucky we had Mike Lister.Chang Mai, and The Cyclist to keep us in line....Except it looks like they have abandoned ship....

 

They are probably doing a rekkie in another country, preparing for 6 months outside of Thailand every year.  

[KhunHeineken]

20 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

You keep repeating this in circle in every tax thread like a mantra. If you strive to be heard by TRD I'm not sure it's the most effective way to do.

I'm just so surprised by people like yourself that deny even the possibility that it can / will happen.  

[jwest10]

10 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

They are probably doing a rekkie in another country, preparing for 6 months outside of Thailand every year.  

Same as the so-called tax experts all with differing viewpoints and no clear direction this tax business  and all the various Revenue Departments!!!!

[Yumthai]

11 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I'm just so surprised by people like yourself that deny even the possibility that it can / will happen.

I'm not denying, just more concerned about what is probable rather than what is possible to occur.

 

Also, constantly predicting the worst is going to happen is surely counterproductive. Have you heard about Manifesting and the law of attraction?

[potless]

14 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

The "sod it" attitude does tend to support the argument that this tax policy will be linked to extensions, so there can be no "sod it" attitude. 

Putting the "sod it" attitude to one side, there are posters on this forum that have stated they have imported enough money to last them several years in order to have no interaction with the tax office. 

There are others that have made themselves non tax resident, myself included, for 2024. In those two scenarios, what paperwork would the aforementioned retirees produce at extension time? There are also non "sod its" those who have visited their tax office and been sent away with no T.I.N. because no tax due.

Would a non resident for tax be refused an extension because they have nothing to show immigration?

Thus, would it be compulsory for everyone on a retirement extension to register with the tax office even if they are not liable for tax or are non resident for tax?

Would it be worth the hassle for the tax office and immigration to instigate such a policy?   

I know there used to be a scenario where people generating income in Thailand had to show a tax clearance certificate to leave the country, although I dont think that is enforced.

Just a few points to consider in a land where anything is possible of course.

 

[Cuchulainn]

39 minutes ago, potless said:

 

There are others that have made themselves non tax resident, myself included, for 2024. In those two scenarios, what paperwork would the aforementioned retirees produce at extension time? There are also non "sod its" those who have visited their tax office and been sent away with no T.I.N. because no tax due.

Would a non resident for tax be refused an extension because they have nothing to show immigration?

Thus, would it be compulsory for everyone on a retirement extension to register with the tax office even if they are not liable for tax or are non resident for tax?

Would it be worth the hassle for the tax office and immigration to instigate such a policy?   

 

 

We'll know in April when the deadline for submitting tax returns has expired.

 

Will Immigration start asking for tax clearance forms after April for non O extensions?

 

THAT is the question.

[potless]

3 minutes ago, Cuchulainn said:

Will Immigration start asking for tax clearance forms after April for non O extensions?

 

THAT is the question.

As far as I know, the answer is no and no indication that they will do. I go for my extension in June. As non tax resident, what would I show them?