12 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

the law was written for Thai tax residents, and they have no option of being non tax residents for a certain year.

Thai tax code purposely defines what residence for tax purposes is, as some tax rules differ according to residence status (resident or non-resident). Tax code applies the same to all individuals regardless of nationality.

I don't want to hijack this but i was reading even people from the UK who have sold their home

in the UK need to pay taxes in Thailand on the profit they made on said home.

No need to pay that in the UK but taxable over here.

32 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Indeed it doesn't say that, and IMO the reason for that is that the law was written for Thai tax residents, and they have no option of being non tax residents for a certain year.

Foreigners staying more than 180 days are just a subdivision to that law written to close a loophole for Thai business people.

I'm still waiting for an answer from Sherring, and hope they will reply.

11 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

Thai tax code purposely defines what residence for tax purposes is, as some tax rules differ according to residence status (resident or non-resident). Tax code applies the same to all individuals regardless of nationality.

As Yumthai points out, Thai tax residency law does not discriminate by nationality.

So in fact, Thai citizens who spend less than 180 days in a calendar year in Thailand, are non-residents for Thai tax purposes - for that year, same as anyone else.

1 hour ago, anrcaccount said:

As Yumthai points out, Thai tax residency law does not discriminate by nationality.

So in fact, Thai citizens who spend less than 180 days in a calendar year in Thailand, are non-residents for Thai tax purposes - for that year, same as anyone else.

@Yumthai @motdaeng

I just received an answer from Grant Thornton. Do you accept they are more Thai tax law acknowledged than anyone in this thread?

https://www.grantthornton.co.th/

18 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

please reread the exact wording of your tax inquiry. the response contradicts itself. to me, it rather looks like this person either, did not understand your clearly written request, did a writing mistake or is trying to attract you as a client ...

" ... but you bring foreigner income while you are being a Thai tax Resident into Thailand ..."

@CallumWK : i am surprised that a tax firm would even provide free advice for such a specific case situation. or are you already a client of this firm?

2 minutes ago, motdaeng said:

please reread the exact wording of your tax inquiry. the response contradicts itself. to me, it rather looks like this person either did not understand your clearly written request did a writing mistake or is trying to attract you as a client ...

" ... but you bring foreigner income while you are being a Thai tax Resident into Thailand ..."

OK, why you not say he's WRONG?

He understood my question very well, but you know that since he is a Thai person, he may not manage the English language 100%, and may have made a grammar mistake. Although I'm confident he is very well-informed about Thai tax laws.

Why would he say, income transferred during the years 2024>2026 is subject to income tax in 2027?

And no he didn't say " ... but you bring foreigner income while you are being a Thai tax Resident into Thailand ..."

He said but you bring in the foreign income while you are being a Thai tax resident (2024-2026) into Thailand.

You are clamping at straws now to not acknowledge that your opinion is just that, a wrong opinion.

This was my question to the company, feel free to forward it to another large accounting company in Thailand, and let us know the answer.

Dear, I have a question, which I hope you can answer.

I'm a resident for tax purposes in Thailand for 30 years, and have a Thai tax ID.

In 2027 I intend to stay less than 180 days in Thailand, so in that year I will theoretically not be a tax resident.

If during that year I transfer foreign accessible income, earned during the years 2024>2026, will I be liable for income tax on those transfers in the year 2027.

Obviously the amount I will transfer, will be above the legal threshold on income tax.

2 minutes ago, motdaeng said:

@CallumWK : i am surprised that a tax firm would even provide free advice for such a specific case situation. or are you already a client of this firm?

Are you saying I'm a liar, and the email with the logo - phone number - name and email address is a fake?

7 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Why would he say, income transferred during the years 2024>2026 is subject to income tax in 2027?

You're right about Thais not having the same writing skills & meaning as westerners.

8 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Are you saying I'm a liar, and the email with the logo - phone number - name and email address is a fake?

of course not (sorry if it sounded like that) ...

i was just asking myself because in my former profession, i would not give free answers to a such specific requests from a person i don’t even know ... btw, i am not a lawyer, and i am not thai :-)

1 minute ago, JohnnyBD said:

I'm not saying he meant this, but could it be possible he meant that even though you are not a Thai tax resident in 2027, you would still need to file a tax return in 2027 & pay taxes on any foreign money you brought in when you were a tax resident.

And, you are right about Thais not having the same writing & meaning as westerners.

You can see the message as I sent it to him, and 4 other of the top Thai accounting firms. So far he is the only one who has replied.

Do you think my message could be misunderstood by a tax law expert?

Why not send him a message in your own wording, and even refer to this thread? The email address is in my post, and I'm sure he will reply.

53 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

I just received an answer from Grant Thornton. Do you accept they are more Thai tax law acknowledged than anyone in this thread?

I accept Thai law quotes sourced from the tax code or any case-law, even in Thai language, that precisely state a non-resident is possibly liable for tax if he remits foreign sourced income that has been earned during past years he was tax resident.

The unclear answer you received is either a lawyer interpretation or a misunderstanding. Can he provide a reference from the tax code?

Just now, Yumthai said:

I accept Thai law quotes sourced from the tax code or any case-law, even in Thai language, that precisely state a non-resident is possibly liable for tax if he remits foreign sourced income that has been earned during past years he was tax resident.

The unclear answer you received is either a lawyer interpretation or a misunderstanding. Can he provide a reference from the tax code?

Ask him. He's not a lawyer, Grant Thornton is a multi-national company, and the seventh largest in the world in his profession.

2 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

Ask him. He's not a lawyer, Grant Thornton is a multi-national company, and the seventh largest in the world in his profession.

Well I have no issue understanding Thai tax law, it's yours. In this case, I have no need of unqualified paid middleman either.

3 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

You can see the message as I sent it to him, and 4 other of the top Thai accounting firms. So far he is the only one who has replied.

Do you think my message could be misunderstood by a tax law expert?

Why not send him a message in your own wording, and even refer to this thread? The email address is in my post, and I'm sure he will reply.

9 minutes ago, JohnnyBD said:

You're right about Thais not having the same writing skills & meaning as westerners.

Yes, I see the message you sent now. It's all good. Thanks, but I don't need to email any law firms. I was just curious about the rules. It really doesn't affect me because I'm on a LTR visa, so all my remittances are tax exempt anyway.

I was in the process of deleting the first paragraph in my post while you were replying. Have a good day.

Wife just finished our tax year 2025 online tax returns. That b190k allowance for over 65 yrs is really beneficial.

Here's my take:

So within the March/April 2027 cutoff date for filing tax return for year 2026, you would have been tax resident in 2026, therefore have to do tax return for 2026.

Within March/April 2028 cutoff date for tax year 2027, you would not have been tax resident in 2027, therefore not have to do tax return for 2027.

31 minutes ago, Yumthai said:

Well I have no issue understanding Thai tax law, it's yours. In this case, I have no need of unqualified paid middleman either.

So you claim you are the expert, and the 7th largest company in the world in its field, is an unqualified middleman.

Maybe you should hide your arrogance better

22 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

So you claim you are the expert, and the 7th largest company in the world in its field, is an unqualified middleman.

Maybe you should hide your arrogance better

I claim nothing more than quoting the written law.

Sorry but, to me, the "lawyer" answer you posted does not sound professional in substance and form.

I would hope that the various tax treaties and the RD's own policies would allow the application of tax credits for the foreign income tax paid on prior years' earnings regardless of which country may have had first rights of taxation when the income was earned. Does anyone have any insight?

Intuitively I anticipated that there would be no tax to pay.

I asked Gemini AI and this is the response:

"The "Accumulated Savings" Argument: Income earned in years when you were a resident but brought in during a year you are a non-resident is often treated as "savings" or "accumulated wealth." Since the person remitting it is not a "tax resident" at the time of the transfer, they fall outside the scope of Section 41, Paragraph 2 for that year." [It is referencing the Thai revenue code]

It is clear that the OP's intention is a common and accepted way of avoiding (not evading!) tax.

Part of the confusion by responders here is that it is quite common for countries' tax codes to take into account this system of avoidance. For example, as Dubai influencers are now discovering, His Majesty's Inland Revenue can retrospectively tax you if you return within 5 years from leaving the UK.

3 minutes ago, Gaccha said:

Intuitively I anticipated that there would be no tax to pay.

I asked Gemini AI and this is the response:

"The "Accumulated Savings" Argument: Income earned in years when you were a resident but brought in during a year you are a non-resident is often treated as "savings" or "accumulated wealth." Since the person remitting it is not a "tax resident" at the time of the transfer, they fall outside the scope of Section 41, Paragraph 2 for that year." [It is referencing the Thai revenue code]

It is clear that the OP's intention is a common and accepted way of avoiding (not evading!) tax.

Part of the confusion by responders here is that it is quite common for countries' tax codes to take into account this system of avoidance. For example, as Dubai influencers are now discovering, His Majesty's Inland Revenue can retrospectively tax you if you return within 5 years from leaving the UK.

Yes it would be a loophole, and the below post already made it clear that they will not allow that to happen.

https://aseannow.com/topic/1391112-tax-residency/#findComment-20444091

Otherwise it would be very easy for the Thai super rich, who spend a lot of time at their overseas residences.

They would just let their savings accumulate overseas, then one year they spend most of the year in one of their multiple overseas properties, and send the savings from the last several year over.

Take note, the new tax law was primarily created to avoid the super rich sending their overseas savings over tax free.

1 hour ago, CallumWK said:

that they will not allow that to happen.

You are inferring their intentions from the big boy in the tax office. These tax advisors below, on the contrary, think the tax revenue intentions going forward are the opposite:

Clearly, if the revenue office makes the shocking demand then you have to make a cost/benefit analysis about fighting it. As things stand, the code says no payment is due. In all likelihood, an accountant will chat to them and a settlement will be reached.

11 minutes ago, Gaccha said:

You are inferring their intentions from the big boy in the tax office. These tax advisors below, on the contrary, think the tax revenue intentions going forward are the opposite:

Clearly, if the revenue office makes the shocking demand then you have to make a cost/benefit analysis about fighting it. As things stand, the code says no payment is due. In all likelihood, an accountant will chat to them and a settlement will be reached.

We are 2026 aren't we?

23 minutes ago, Gaccha said:

These tax advisors below, on the contrary, think the tax revenue intentions going forward are the opposite:

12 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

We are 2026 aren't we?

This was a proposal only put forward last year when Peua Thai were calling the shots due to a reduction/ lack of tax revenue at the time but was never taken forward and never heard about again after the political musical chairs started.

@Gaccha maybe find a new tax advisor........

1 hour ago, CallumWK said:

Otherwise it would be very easy for the Thai super rich, who spend a lot of time at their overseas residences.

They would just let their savings accumulate overseas, then one year they spend most of the year in one of their multiple overseas properties, and send the savings from the last several year over.

Take note, the new tax law was primarily created to avoid the super rich sending their overseas savings over tax free.

In which world the super rich pay any tax relative to their income/wealth?

I asked Grant Thornton, who is the 6th largest auditor (not a lawyer) in Thailand, to confirm his previous message, as there were some pensioners on AN who claimed to know better than an auditor, and here is his answer.

2 hours ago, CallumWK said:

I asked Grant Thornton, who is the 6th largest auditor (not a lawyer) in Thailand, to confirm his previous message, as there were some pensioners on AN who claimed to know better than an auditor, and here is his answer.

Now that is a more professionally written reply, unlike the first one you posted. As per his opinion of your specific situation, it certainly looks like you will be required to file a tax return for the assessable foreign income you remit in year 31. Now you have your answer. Good luck.

It's simple - you need to sell the assets in a non resident year.

If you've been accumulating assets and profits through selling or trading them in prior resident years then they will be liable for consideration under strict interpretation of the law - which an auditor will do and they will be very thorough.

Leave for a year sell your houses, stock portfolio, etc and realize all those assets into cash then it can be remitted in following years.

That is the only way to strictly ensure it's non assessable and you better keep all those statements for the non resident year showing the source of income being in a non resident year or you're getting a tax bill.

I assume this is just a hypothetical situation for discussion, but one could easily avoid the Thai tax man in a non resident year by doing the following:

1. Remit foreign income earned in the same year as non resident

2. Remit pre-2024 monies

3. Remit proceeds from sale of assets in non resident year

4. Remit DTA exempted income

If one is staying less than 180 days in Thailand, one shouldn't need to remit as much money anyway.

6 hours ago, CallumWK said:

I asked Grant Thornton, who is the 6th largest auditor (not a lawyer) in Thailand, to confirm his previous message, as there were some pensioners on AN who claimed to know better than an auditor, and here is his answer.

Next time you ask him something and he replies promptly for free, ask the tax code references that support his statement because it's contrary to the written law.

By the way, you seem to be a very important person to have a such famous international company busy director who, promptly and freely, answer and advice twice the same day a potential customer. Oh wait, I didn't see the date... it was April 1st.