On 3/17/2026 at 11:14 AM, OneManShow said:

They did it for me at local tax office and they were very helpful. I was not required to pay any tax anyway. All for free.

It's simple enough to figure out whether or not you owe any tax on assessable remitted income. If not, why would you bother visiting the local tax office....?

On 3/17/2026 at 12:46 PM, Yumthai said:

Certainly as you say so, but your declaration is no proof.

My point is tax officer can't require something you are not able to provide evidence of.

There is nothing that they can prove. You are misinterpeting how tax assessment works.
I declare something, i can show them the evidence of what I am saying.
They have to prove something, not me.
How do they provide any evidence of something that is none existent?
Why continue with pointing at me for proof, when its the Thai RD that has to prove something?.
Just wasting time on this forum.

6 hours ago, JimGant said:

It's simple enough to figure out whether or not you owe any tax on assessable remitted income. If not, why would you bother visiting the local tax office....?

My understanding is that people do not have to file a tax return if you have no tax to pay.
So what you say is true.
But, please take note that we all have a right to claim back tax paid.
Its not just owing tax that is the issue.
Do you throw away about 16,000 baht that you can get back?

Many people miss the point of doing a tax return to claim back tax when entitled.

7 hours ago, jojothai said:

There is nothing that they can prove. You are misinterpeting how tax assessment works.
I declare something, i can show them the evidence of what I am saying.
They have to prove something, not me.
How do they provide any evidence of something that is none existent?
Why continue with pointing at me for proof, when its the Thai RD that has to prove something?.
Just wasting time on this forum.

I believe you are mistaken. If the TRD says you owe tax it is up to you to prove you do not. If they choose to assess you it will be your responsibility to provide them with any documentation they ask for. If someone is remitting money and not filing a tax return they could assess the tax due using the worst possible scenario. The person remitting the money would then be responsible for proving that tax was not due. Is that likely to happen to someone? I doubt it, but the possibility exists.

8 hours ago, jojothai said:

There is nothing that they can prove. You are misinterpeting how tax assessment works.
I declare something, i can show them the evidence of what I am saying.
They have to prove something, not me.
How do they provide any evidence of something that is none existent?
Why continue with pointing at me for proof, when its the Thai RD that has to prove something?.
Just wasting time on this forum.

This is exactly what I meant by saying "tax officer can't require something you are not able to provide evidence of."

As you have no possibility to provide evidence that you have not remitted any kind of income in Thailand (you can't prove that you have not brought cash, gold, jewelry, watch or any valuable goods you can resale), TRD cannot reasonably require you to document it.

The only way they can challenge you with foreign remittances is, during an audit, they find cash, gold, valuable goods,... and then require you to justify it.

3 hours ago, Yumthai said:

As you have no possibility to provide evidence that you have not remitted any kind of income in Thailand (you can't prove that you have not brought cash, gold, jewelry, watch or any valuable goods you can resale), TRD cannot reasonably require you to document it.

the revenue department may ask you to show how you pay for your living, like rent, food, car expenses and so on ... at the end you need to satisfy the TRD ...

17 minutes ago, motdaeng said:

the revenue department may ask you to show how you pay for your living, like rent, food, car expenses and so on ... at the end you need to satisfy the TRD ...

Yes but that does not mean you are necessarily using some undeclared or non-tax exempted foreign sourced remittances to pay for what you mentioned, if any at all.

On 3/17/2026 at 3:16 AM, Everyman said:

You would think if they were going to send out the brute squad to snatch foreign retirees off their plastic chairs drinking beer in a banana patch in Isaan and lock ‘em up for not filing a form saying they owe no taxes, they would at least put the form in English.

You are the Brute Squad! :D

On 3/20/2026 at 9:27 AM, MartinL said:

They've registered for a TIN if they're tax resident and have assessable income in Thailand, completed the annual tax return as required by law and, because of various TEDAs and foreign tax credits, have found there's no tax to pay. They have peace of mind in knowing that, because they've covered their ar5e5 legally, they've drastically reduced their chances of a call from the tax man, years down the road.

"Drastically reduced their chances of a call from the tax man" -- doubtful. Now TRD, after you've filed, have you in their records. If you now skip a year or two filing a tax return -- 'cause you have no assessable income -- they just might inquire why no tax return this year.....? But, if on the back of a matchbook, you figured out you owed no tax -- and thus never filed a null tax return -- TRD has never heard of you. You're completely off their radar.

But, of course, if you like to annually file a null tax return -- because of some misguided notion -- have at it.

30 minutes ago, JimGant said:

"Drastically reduced their chances of a call from the tax man" -- doubtful. Now TRD, after you've filed, have you in their records. If you now skip a year or two filing a tax return -- 'cause you have no assessable income -- they just might inquire why no tax return this year.....? But, if on the back of a matchbook, you figured out you owed no tax -- and thus never filed a null tax return -- TRD has never heard of you. You're completely off their radar.

But, of course, if you like to annually file a null tax return -- because of some misguided notion -- have at it.

I will. Thanks for the permission.

On 3/21/2026 at 12:54 AM, jojothai said:

But, please take note that we all have a right to claim back tax paid.
Its not just owing tax that is the issue.
Do you throw away about 16,000 baht that you can get back?

Many people miss the point of doing a tax return to claim back tax when entitled.

If you're a Yank, that Thai interest needs to go on your US tax return. But, you can get a one-for-one tax credit for those Thai taxes paid, as Thailand has primary taxation rights on interest earned in Thailand. Of course, you can't get this credit if you waste time submitting a Thai tax return -- and Thailand refunds these taxes.

A couple of related scenarios. IRS Pub 514 says: If you can get a tax refund from Thailand, then you can't claim a credit for same on your US tax return. But, you can't get a refund if you don't have a Thai tax TIN. And from many reports on this forum, and others, folks have been told they can't get a TIN without a work permit, or don't owe any taxes, whatever. Thus, I've never tried to get a TIN. Yes, maybe a lame excuse if audited. But certainly not blatant tax evasion -- in the unlikely (<1%) chance of having a three figure tax credit triggering some audit algorithm. Anyway, if you don't have a TIN, are a Yank, and have some Thai tax withholding -- this credit route vice filing a Thai tax return is the way to go.

Of course, if you're a Yank pauper, and don't have any taxable income (standard deduction greater than AGI), thus can't utilize a credit -- then, yeah, spend some time filing a Thai tax return to get your measly withholding tax back; certainly you're in a situation to need it.

On 3/21/2026 at 8:43 AM, alanrchase said:

I believe you are mistaken. If the TRD says you owe tax it is up to you to prove you do not. If they choose to assess you it will be your responsibility to provide them with any documentation they ask for. If someone is remitting money and not filing a tax return they could assess the tax due using the worst possible scenario. The person remitting the money would then be responsible for proving that tax was not due. Is that likely to happen to someone? I doubt it, but the possibility exists.

On 3/21/2026 at 8:43 AM, alanrchase said:

I believe you are mistaken. If the TRD says you owe tax it is up to you to prove you do not. If they choose to assess you it will be your responsibility to provide them with any documentation they ask for. If someone is remitting money and not filing a tax return they could assess the tax due using the worst possible scenario. The person remitting the money would then be responsible for proving that tax was not due. Is that likely to happen to someone? I doubt it, but the possibility exists.

My comment was clearly with respect to filing a tax return.
Why do people always think of the situation for not submitting a tax return?

With respect, I believe the opposite.
Tax authorities need to have evidence to support their case.
Otherwise they can prosecute anybody and everybody on heresay or disagreeing with what they declare without any evidence. How is that legally possible?

On 3/21/2026 at 10:02 AM, Yumthai said:

This is exactly what I meant by saying "tax officer can't require something you are not able to provide evidence of."

As you have no possibility to provide evidence that you have not remitted any kind of income in Thailand (you can't prove that you have not brought cash, gold, jewelry, watch or any valuable goods you can resale), TRD cannot reasonably require you to document it.

The only way they can challenge you with foreign remittances is, during an audit, they find cash, gold, valuable goods,... and then require you to justify it.

Agreed.

8 minutes ago, jojothai said:

My comment was clearly with respect to filing a tax return.
Why do people always think of the situation for not submitting a tax return?

With respect, I believe the opposite.
Tax authorities need to have evidence to support their case.
Otherwise they can prosecute anybody and everybody on heresay or disagreeing with what they declare without any evidence. How is that legally possible?

That is how it works in the UK. When I went back there and got a job I was automatically put on the most severe tax code. It was then up to me to provide relevant information, such as proof of marriage, for them to assess me and give me the correct tax code. At the end of the tax year any excess tax paid while on the severe code is refunded.

If the Thai tax authorities see you have remitted money to Thailand they can assess you for the maximum tax on that money. It would then be up to you to provide proof of where the funds originated, any dual tax agreements applicable, allowances you think are applicable. Whether or not you submitted a tax return is irrelevant.

4 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

That is how it works in the UK. When I went back there and got a job I was automatically put on the most severe tax code. It was then up to me to provide relevant information, such as proof of marriage, for them to assess me and give me the correct tax code. At the end of the tax year any excess tax paid while on the severe code is refunded.

I can understand that in the special circumstances, but do not consider that relevant to what is being discussed.

I have a good friend who worked in the far east for a along time and went back to live in UK with wife and family.
Because of that he was automatically targetted by Inland Revenue to check income. As soon as he went out to do some work in Hong Kong, they were on his tail and required tax payments even though he was non-resident. If i remember correctly there is a rule that he is considered domiciled in the UK if the wife and family are living there.

2 minutes ago, jojothai said:

I can understand that in the special circumstances, but do not consider that relevant to what is being discussed.

I have a good friend who worked in the far east for a along time and went back to live in UK with wife and family.
Because of that he was automatically targetted by Inland Revenue to check income. As soon as he went out to do some work in Hong Kong, they were on his tail and required tax payments even though he was non-resident. If i remember correctly there is a rule that he is considered domiciled in the UK if the wife and family are living there.

2 minutes ago, jojothai said:

I can understand that in the special circumstances, but do not consider that relevant to what is being discussed.

I have a good friend who worked in the far east for a along time and went back to live in UK with wife and family.
Because of that he was automatically targetted by Inland Revenue to check income. As soon as he went out to do some work in Hong Kong, they were on his tail and required tax payments even though he was non-resident. If i remember correctly there is a rule that he is considered domiciled in the UK if the wife and family are living there.

2 minutes ago, jojothai said:

I can understand that in the special circumstances, but do not consider that relevant to what is being discussed.

I have a good friend who worked in the far east for a along time and went back to live in UK with wife and family.
Because of that he was automatically targetted by Inland Revenue to check income. As soon as he went out to do some work in Hong Kong, they were on his tail and required tax payments even though he was non-resident. If i remember correctly there is a rule that he is considered domiciled in the UK if the wife and family are living there.

You claimed the tax authorities need evidence. I just showed, and you recalled a friend, that prove they do not need to provide any evidence. It is up to you to clear up your financial status if the tax man demands it. They can't pull a figure out of thin air but they can apply the worst case scenario for the tax they think you should pay.

1 minute ago, alanrchase said:

You claimed the tax authorities need evidence. I just showed, and you recalled a friend, that prove they do not need to provide any evidence. It is up to you to clear up your financial status if the tax man demands it. They can't pull a figure out of thin air but they can apply the worst case scenario for the tax they think you should pay.

No, i did not say that the uk tax authorities do not need to provide evidence from my friend.
They had evidence that he was working outside the country, and followed up finding more information to prosecute him .
Then he had to provide the evidence to prove what he earnt to reduce the fine.

24 minutes ago, jojothai said:

As soon as he went out to do some work in Hong Kong, they were on his tail and required tax payments even though he was non-resident. If i remember correctly there is a rule that he is considered domiciled in the UK if the wife and family are living there.

Residency (or non) for tax and domicile are 2 distinctly separate issues in most cases unless you were a so called non-dom.

Depending when he went he could have applied for split year treatment but only if truly becoming a non resident which would be based on both days spent in the UK and ties - IE family as you mention etc.

But nothing to do with Thailand and the TRD.....

13 minutes ago, jojothai said:

No, i did not say that the uk tax authorities do not need to provide evidence from my friend.
They had evidence that he was working outside the country, and followed up finding more information to prosecute him .
Then he had to provide the evidence to prove what he earnt to reduce the fine.

46 minutes ago, alanrchase said:

With respect, I believe the opposite.
Tax authorities need to have evidence to support their case.
Otherwise they can prosecute anybody and everybody on heresay or disagreeing with what they declare without any evidence. How is that legally possible?

It would seem that the tax authorities didn't have to provide evidence in your friends case as he was able to prove he didn't owe the tax they claimed. They provided no evidence to give me a severe tax code, it was up to me to provide evidence that the code was wrong. The Thai tax authorities provide no evidence that I should be charged 15% withholding tax on my bank interest, it is up to me to provide evidence that I don't.