Tax Withheld On Interest

[Guderian]

I've got a few deposit accounts here in Thailand, and every time interest is credited to the accounts a 15% withholding tax is deducted. I assume this is similar to the standard 20% tax applied in the UK.

Someone on another forum posted that it is possible, by filling in the right form, to reclaim this tax. I am retired, and have no other sources of income in Thailand other than this small amount of interest, currently less than 100K Baht/year in total.

I asked the poster for details, but he never replied. So does anyone know if this is possible, and how to go about it?

I tried searching for 'reclaim Thai tax bank interest', but no results were found.

Thank you for any help.

[John 1]

Should be simple go to the taxation department and file a tax return you will need the bank document showing tax withheld then every year you will have to file a tax return even if you don't have income because if not they will knock on your door and ask why.

[Guderian]

Should be simple go to the taxation department and file a tax return you will need the bank document showing tax withheld then every year you will have to file a tax return even if you don't have income because if not they will knock on your door and ask why.

Thanks.

The guy who originally said it was possible mentioned that it was a form from the bank he filled in, and by inference I assumed that they dealt with the tax department for you. In certain circumstances (e.g. the R85 or R105 forms being applicable), that's how it would work in the UK.

Has anybody who has retired here, and so doesn't pay Thai tax, actually done this? I know it's not a great deal of money, but getting 15K Baht back in tax would pay for a few nice dinners in these straitened times.

[aurelius]

You can get a receipt reporting interest paid and tax withheld from the bank branch where your account is held after the end of the year. Take your passbook(s). This will be the evidence to submit with the tax return. I haven't done it myself, but have heard several people commenting on doing it.

Annual income in Thailand up to 150,000 Bt is exempt from tax, so if this interest is your only domestic income then there should be some return. The RD website says that its optional whether or not you want to claim it; but it also seems to state that if interest received is over 20,000 then this should be declared.

http://www.rd.go.th/publish/6045.0.html

[endure]

I know someone who does this so if the OP can wait a while I'll get in touch and find out how it works.

[Guderian]

You can get a receipt reporting interest paid and tax withheld from the bank branch where your account is held after the end of the year. Take your passbook(s). This will be the evidence to submit with the tax return. I haven't done it myself, but have heard several people commenting on doing it.

Annual income in Thailand up to 150,000 Bt is exempt from tax, so if this interest is your only domestic income then there should be some return. The RD website says that its optional whether or not you want to claim it; but it also seems to state that if interest received is over 20,000 then this should be declared.

http://www.rd.go.th/publish/6045.0.html

I know someone who does this so if the OP can wait a while I'll get in touch and find out how it works.

Thank you both for your time.

[endure]

PM sent.

[12DrinkMore]

PM sent.

Unless there is some personal sensitive information, there are probably a large number of others around here who would like to know how to do this.

[endure]

This happens in Chiang Mai. The service from your local tax office might be better (or worse):

1. Reclaim of total tax already paid on a Thai Bank account (Fixed accounts only) can be applied for during Jan-March for the previous year. Applications which are submitted after 31 March are subject to some sort of financial deduction.

2. A maximum of 3 back years can be applied for.

3. On request, the applicant's local bank will issue a certified form of tax paid anytime after 1 Jan, for the previous year.

4. This form is taken to the Tax Office (very helpful they are there), with passport and a tax card (I think a tax card is still required but not sure - easily obtainable though), and another form has to be filled in (they'll happily do it for you).

5. After processing, you are given a chit, and a cheque for the full amount of reclaimed tax will then be sent to you by post after about a fortnight (used to be after about 2 months but the procedure has speeded up in recent years).

6. After the first year's application, the applicant will be sent annually a form for the purpose of applying for tax reclaim; this form is sent by post and arrives sometime early January.

7. There tends to be a mass of people going to the tax office for this purpose around the middle of January. From my experience over about 15 years, it's best to delay the application until the middle of February or so.

8. All this assumes that the applicant is living in Thailand issued with a non-immigrant O visa, and usually with an annual extension on the basis of retirement, marriage or a work permit.

[Guderian]

Thank you. That sounds like it applies to me (Non-Imm O with annual extensions based on retirement).

I've had nothing to do with the Thai tax system, so it's all a bit of a mystery to me, I am not sure where to go even. Do they usually speak much English in these places? Perhaps my bank will be able to advise me where to go and how to get a tax card? As I read it, I don't need to do anything until early next year, anyway, so I have plenty of time to check the details.

If I can get the tax for the last 3 years back, that will be more than just a few nice dinners, more like a new motorbike!

Again, thank you for your time posting this.

[12DrinkMore]

Thanks, that is useful.

Here's an example using the

http://www.rd.go.th/publish/6045.0.html

10,000,000 on deposit earning 3.5% accrues interest of 350,000

Bank withholds 52,500 tax at 15%.

Claiming tax back

Single person tax allowance 30,000

Tax free band 150,000

Total 180,000

leaving 170,000 to be taxed at 10% total 17,000, saving 35,500 or one motorcycle!

It all helps!

[Jobo]

And the same "refund" of WHT also applies to dividends earned from SET listed companies - 3 years back too.

Just found this out last week.

WHT on dividends is "only" 10%

[SantiSuk]

For many falang who have not given up their tax residence in their 'home country', reclaiming tax in Thailand could be a phyrric victory as it might just increase the tax payable there.

As a Brit, who has not (yet) 'left the UK for tax purposes' and not elected to claim the 'remittance basis' of taxation in the UK, I would be required to declare the gross interest I have received in my UK tax return. I would be taxed on that at my highest marginal tax rate but would then also report the tax I have suffered in Thailand which serves to reduce total UK tax payable.

I would therefore not bother to reclaim Thai tax only to see my UK tax increase by a similar (or maybe even greater, depending on relative marginal rates of tax between the UK and Thailand) amount. I surmise that my situation is typical of many Brits in their early years in Thailand who still straddle two countries, but for most of us most of our money is still kept in the UK. Some presumably don't have to file tax returns because they never did (having had simple tax affairs) have not informed the UK tax authorities of their change of living style and are hoping to lie low - up to you, but I wouldn't take the risk.

As we all know US citizens are (also) taxed on their worldwide income, so I expect that similar principles apply to them.

[wordchild]

For many falang who have not given up their tax residence in their 'home country', reclaiming tax in Thailand could be a phyrric victory as it might just increase the tax payable there.

As a Brit, who has not (yet) 'left the UK for tax purposes' and not elected to claim the 'remittance basis' of taxation in the UK, I would be required to declare the gross interest I have received in my UK tax return. I would be taxed on that at my highest marginal tax rate but would then also report the tax I have suffered in Thailand which serves to reduce total UK tax payable.

I would therefore not bother to reclaim Thai tax only to see my UK tax increase by a similar (or maybe even greater, depending on relative marginal rates of tax between the UK and Thailand) amount. I surmise that my situation is typical of many Brits in their early years in Thailand who still straddle two countries, but for most of us most of our money is still kept in the UK. Some presumably don't have to file tax returns because they never did (having had simple tax affairs) have not informed the UK tax authorities of their change of living style and are hoping to lie low - up to you, but I wouldn't take the risk.

As we all know US citizens are (also) taxed on their worldwide income, so I expect that similar principles apply to them.

unlike income from some other sources (eg dividends) Uk bank interest is subject to UK tax for a non residents. This is one of the reasons people going non res move funds offshore away from the UK but not into the country in which you will be resident where you may also be subject to tax. eg if moving to Thailand open an a/c in Singapore.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by "remittance basis" but for most UK residents/ non residents the concept is irrelevent as it only applies to a very narrow group of indevduals who are resident in the UK but not ordinarily resident in the UK (usually they are American and work for Goldman Sachs or somesuch). It has no relevance for a UK citizen who is moving offshore.

[wordchild]

For many falang who have not given up their tax residence in their 'home country', reclaiming tax in Thailand could be a phyrric victory as it might just increase the tax payable there.

As a Brit, who has not (yet) 'left the UK for tax purposes' and not elected to claim the 'remittance basis' of taxation in the UK, I would be required to declare the gross interest I have received in my UK tax return. I would be taxed on that at my highest marginal tax rate but would then also report the tax I have suffered in Thailand which serves to reduce total UK tax payable.

I would therefore not bother to reclaim Thai tax only to see my UK tax increase by a similar (or maybe even greater, depending on relative marginal rates of tax between the UK and Thailand) amount. I surmise that my situation is typical of many Brits in their early years in Thailand who still straddle two countries, but for most of us most of our money is still kept in the UK. Some presumably don't have to file tax returns because they never did (having had simple tax affairs) have not informed the UK tax authorities of their change of living style and are hoping to lie low - up to you, but I wouldn't take the risk.

As we all know US citizens are (also) taxed on their worldwide income, so I expect that similar principles apply to them.

unlike income from some other sources (eg dividends) Uk bank interest is subject to UK tax for a non residents. This is one of the reasons people going non res move funds offshore away from the UK but not into the country in which you will be resident where you may also be subject to tax. eg if moving to Thailand open an a/c in Singapore.

I am not entirely sure what you mean by "remittance basis" but for most UK residents/ non residents the concept is irrelevent as it only applies to a very narrow group of indevduals who are resident in the UK but not ordinarily resident in the UK (usually they are American and work for Goldman Sachs or somesuch). It has no relevance for a UK citizen who is moving offshore.

[Guderian]

unlike income from some other sources (eg dividends) Uk bank interest is subject to UK tax for a non residents. This is one of the reasons people going non res move funds offshore away from the UK but not into the country in which you will be resident where you may also be subject to tax. eg if moving to Thailand open an a/c in Singapore.

That's not quite correct. You can fill in form R105 (though most banks do not seem to be aware of this, and instead try to fob you off with the wrong form, R85) if you are non-resident and not ordinarily resident. When I left the UK in 2004 I went around the various banks and building societies where I had accounts and they all gave me the R85 to fill in to receive interest gross. About 3 years later I got a letter from HMRC telling me that this form does not apply to me and so I had to start paying tax on the interest. They did not make a big issue out of it, or try and reclaim the tax that I hadn't paid courtesy of the R85. That was when I learnt about the R105 form, which is the correct form to use. The next time I was back in the UK, I went to Abbey and Barclays (having closed the other accounts in the meantime), and neither of them seemed to know about the R105. I had printed it from the HMRC website, and they said that they would send it to their Head Offices, though they didn't know if it would be acceptable to them. If they wouldn't accept it, I would hear from them directly. They evidently did accept it, as I am still receiving interest tax-free and HMRC seem quite happy. I moved most of my cash offshore in 2004, of course, but I still keep some in the UK for my occasional trips back, and to pay for the upkeep of my property there. There is no need to pay a single penny (or satang) more in tax than you are legally required to, so as it only involves filling in one simple form it is worth doing IMHO.

The above is all subject to the proviso that HMRC accept you are non-resident and not ordinarily resident, of course. Residents cannot use the R105 form. As an aside, the Treasury recently issued a consultation paper on a statutory definition of residence for tax purposes, as the old system is such a complicated and uncertain mess. This looks quite sensible to me, though some things in the current proposal need to be better defined or expanded upon.

If anyone is interested in this, you can find the documents at:

R105

and the Treasury consultation document on a statutory definition of tax residence is here:

Consultation document

[wordchild]

unlike income from some other sources (eg dividends) Uk bank interest is subject to UK tax for a non residents. This is one of the reasons people going non res move funds offshore away from the UK but not into the country in which you will be resident where you may also be subject to tax. eg if moving to Thailand open an a/c in Singapore.

That's not quite correct. You can fill in form R105 (though most banks do not seem to be aware of this, and instead try to fob you off with the wrong form, R85) if you are non-resident and not ordinarily resident. When I left the UK in 2004 I went around the various banks and building societies where I had accounts and they all gave me the R85 to fill in to receive interest gross. About 3 years later I got a letter from HMRC telling me that this form does not apply to me and so I had to start paying tax on the interest. They did not make a big issue out of it, or try and reclaim the tax that I hadn't paid courtesy of the R85. That was when I learnt about the R105 form, which is the correct form to use. The next time I was back in the UK, I went to Abbey and Barclays (having closed the other accounts in the meantime), and neither of them seemed to know about the R105. I had printed it from the HMRC website, and they said that they would send it to their Head Offices, though they didn't know if it would be acceptable to them. If they wouldn't accept it, I would hear from them directly. They evidently did accept it, as I am still receiving interest tax-free and HMRC seem quite happy. I moved most of my cash offshore in 2004, of course, but I still keep some in the UK for my occasional trips back, and to pay for the upkeep of my property there. There is no need to pay a single penny (or satang) more in tax than you are legally required to, so as it only involves filling in one simple form it is worth doing IMHO.

The above is all subject to the proviso that HMRC accept you are non-resident and not ordinarily resident, of course. Residents cannot use the R105 form. As an aside, the Treasury recently issued a consultation paper on a statutory definition of residence for tax purposes, as the old system is such a complicated and uncertain mess. This looks quite sensible to me, though some things in the current proposal need to be better defined or expanded upon.

If anyone is interested in this, you can find the documents at:

R105

and the Treasury consultation document on a statutory definition of tax residence is here:

Consultation document

yes but as you say that does depend on being both non resident and also not ordinarily resident.

i quite agree that the statutory residence consultation looks like a major improvement (if implemented).

for my own interest ;was it easy to get the revenue to accept your status as being not ordinarily resident in particular as you have kept a property there?

[wordchild]

unlike income from some other sources (eg dividends) Uk bank interest is subject to UK tax for a non residents. This is one of the reasons people going non res move funds offshore away from the UK but not into the country in which you will be resident where you may also be subject to tax. eg if moving to Thailand open an a/c in Singapore.

That's not quite correct. You can fill in form R105 (though most banks do not seem to be aware of this, and instead try to fob you off with the wrong form, R85) if you are non-resident and not ordinarily resident. When I left the UK in 2004 I went around the various banks and building societies where I had accounts and they all gave me the R85 to fill in to receive interest gross. About 3 years later I got a letter from HMRC telling me that this form does not apply to me and so I had to start paying tax on the interest. They did not make a big issue out of it, or try and reclaim the tax that I hadn't paid courtesy of the R85. That was when I learnt about the R105 form, which is the correct form to use. The next time I was back in the UK, I went to Abbey and Barclays (having closed the other accounts in the meantime), and neither of them seemed to know about the R105. I had printed it from the HMRC website, and they said that they would send it to their Head Offices, though they didn't know if it would be acceptable to them. If they wouldn't accept it, I would hear from them directly. They evidently did accept it, as I am still receiving interest tax-free and HMRC seem quite happy. I moved most of my cash offshore in 2004, of course, but I still keep some in the UK for my occasional trips back, and to pay for the upkeep of my property there. There is no need to pay a single penny (or satang) more in tax than you are legally required to, so as it only involves filling in one simple form it is worth doing IMHO.

The above is all subject to the proviso that HMRC accept you are non-resident and not ordinarily resident, of course. Residents cannot use the R105 form. As an aside, the Treasury recently issued a consultation paper on a statutory definition of residence for tax purposes, as the old system is such a complicated and uncertain mess. This looks quite sensible to me, though some things in the current proposal need to be better defined or expanded upon.

If anyone is interested in this, you can find the documents at:

R105

and the Treasury consultation document on a statutory definition of tax residence is here:

Consultation document

yes but as you say that does depend on being both non resident and also not ordinarily resident.

i quite agree that the statutory residence consultation looks like a major improvement (if implemented).

for my own interest ;was it easy to get the revenue to accept your status as being not ordinarily resident in particular as you have kept a property there?

sorry on re-reading your post you make it clear you have been out of the UK since 2004 , i missed that on first reading and thought you might have been a more recent non-res

[Guderian]

yes but as you say that does depend on being both non resident and also not ordinarily resident.

i quite agree that the statutory residence consultation looks like a major improvement (if implemented).

for my own interest ;has the revenue ever questioned your status as being not ordinarily resident in particular as you have kept a property there?

No, never. When I first heard that this consultation was on the way (via my niece who is a tax specialist at PWC) I thought they would really be tightening up the rules to drag as many people back into the tax net as possible, so it would finally be time to get rid of the old homestead. It's long been one of the Revenue's favourite attack ploys to argue that you are still maintaining a home in the UK, so you have not really cut your ties. That's why I was surprised (and pleased) to see that the intention of the new statutory definition is to remain revenue-neutral, and keeping a home there is just one (and in my case the only) 'connection'. Using their Excel tool, I am always clearly non-resident for tax purposes under this new system, with no ambiguity. If they do implement this, it will provide much more certainty to both sides. One of the things they need to do, I believe, is to better define what is meant by having a home abroad. That is far too open, and the Revenue could well argue in many cases that you do not actually have a home, e.g. in the case of owning a house as a minority shareholder in a Thai company, or through your Thai spouse, or somebody leasing a place for fixed periods (again, this was one of their favourite tactics to argue that you had not really moved abroad permanently). I also know a few people who live a nomadic life in SE Asia, simply moving from town to town and country to country as the whim takes them. What constitutes a 'home' in their case? The last hotel room they stayed in? I do hope they clarify these things, and also sort out the transitional rules, or anybody who left the UK before April 2012, or whenever this is enacted, will still be somewhat uncertain about their historical tax status.

[wordchild]

yes but as you say that does depend on being both non resident and also not ordinarily resident.

i quite agree that the statutory residence consultation looks like a major improvement (if implemented).

for my own interest ;has the revenue ever questioned your status as being not ordinarily resident in particular as you have kept a property there?

No, never. When I first heard that this consultation was on the way (via my niece who is a tax specialist at PWC) I thought they would really be tightening up the rules to drag as many people back into the tax net as possible, so it would finally be time to get rid of the old homestead. It's long been one of the Revenue's favourite attack ploys to argue that you are still maintaining a home in the UK, so you have not really cut your ties. That's why I was surprised (and pleased) to see that the intention of the new statutory definition is to remain revenue-neutral, and keeping a home there is just one (and in my case the only) 'connection'. Using their Excel tool, I am always clearly non-resident for tax purposes under this new system, with no ambiguity. If they do implement this, it will provide much more certainty to both sides. One of the things they need to do, I believe, is to better define what is meant by having a home abroad. That is far too open, and the Revenue could well argue in many cases that you do not actually have a home, e.g. in the case of owning a house as a minority shareholder in a Thai company, or through your Thai spouse, or somebody leasing a place for fixed periods (again, this was one of their favourite tactics to argue that you had not really moved abroad permanently). I also know a few people who live a nomadic life in SE Asia, simply moving from town to town and country to country as the whim takes them. What constitutes a 'home' in their case? The last hotel room they stayed in? I do hope they clarify these things, and also sort out the transitional rules, or anybody who left the UK before April 2012, or whenever this is enacted, will still be somewhat uncertain about their historical tax status.

thats a good point. i am in a similar situation myself in that i still have a property in the UK. My take is that it is probably always going to be best to have a lease of at least 6 months on any property that i might occupy in Thailand. I suppose for someone who lives in a house owned by their wife/girlfriend or by a Thai company they could have a lease drawn up, with say a nominal rent, just in case the question ever gets asked.

[Guderian]

thats a good point. i am in a similar situation myself in that i still have a property in the UK. My take is that it is probably always going to be best to have a lease of at least 6 months on any property that i might occupy in Thailand. I suppose for someone who lives in a house owned by their wife/girlfriend or by a Thai company they could have a lease drawn up, with say a nominal rent, just in case the question ever gets asked.

Well, I'm no expert on this, but I currently rent a condo and have an indefinite lease, just 2 months notice required from either side to terminate it. My Thai landlady, who has many properties, was more than happy to agree to this arrangement. I believe that it would satisfy HMRC at the moment if they had a query. The safest thing to do with your UK property is probably to let it out, although you will have to pay UK tax on the rental income minus your expenses, of course. I'm starting to think that it may not be a bad idea anyway, just to get someone else to pay the ever-increasing Council Tax. I am going back to the UK less and less, so I can either stay in a hotel, or else crash down with a friend or relative when I am back. I don't much want to sell my place at present, as the value has dropped by over 30% from its peak.

I would suggest that you read and fully digest the consultation document, and if you feel that there are any grey areas, or any improvements that can or should be made, then send your comments to the e-mail address given in Section 8.3. You have until COB on the 9th September to respond. It's well worth the effort, IMHO.

[SantiSuk]

A very useful exchange Wordchild and Guderian - thanks.

Yes, Wordchild, I think that my aside about remittance basis probably was misplaced and not relevant to most retiring Brits; thanks for the correction.

The R105 note was very useful Guderian. I would also want to keep the odd account in the UK if and when I do leave the UK for tax purposes.

I had thought that I would have to give up my place of temporary abode in the UK and use my sister's house for any UK correspondence. I thought that you could not stay in any abode that you rent or own if you want to be non-resident. I currently rent a house from my Aunt and go back to the UK for 10 days after every two months in Thailand. You seem to be suggesting I might be able to continue the rental and continue using it as a 'hotel substitute' and as a correspondence address?

Nice to see you rely on PwC advice Guderian (and even nicer to get it free). I was with that firm for 30 years prior to retiring to and marrying here - corporate finance not tax though.

[Guderian]

A very useful exchange Wordchild and Guderian - thanks.

Yes, Wordchild, I think that my aside about remittance basis probably was misplaced and not relevant to most retiring Brits; thanks for the correction.

The R105 note was very useful Guderian. I would also want to keep the odd account in the UK if and when I do leave the UK for tax purposes.

I'm glad it helped you. As far as I could understand, the banks do not have to accept the R105, and before you cast off from the UK it may be worth checking with yours if they do. They may need to contact their Head Office to find out, so allow some time. If they aren't playing ball, then I can assure you that Barclays accept it, so you could always open an account with them.

[chiangmaibruce]

I'm a little confused by the topic of this thread, and I'm hoping that someone who is more savvy with Thai tax can set me straight. As I understand things, if you are living in Thailand for more than 180 days/year then you are required to lodge a tax return. If you lodge a tax return then any withholding tax paid on declared income would just become a credit against any tax payable.

In the case of Endure's friend living in Chiang Mai (as an an example) that person would seem to be a tax resident, hence why would they need to undertake a separate process to reclaim withholding tax ... and why would the Revenue dept process such an application if the person in question was legally required to lodge a tax return?

On the other hand if you are not a tax resident (& do not lodge Thai tax returns) but do pay Thai withholding tax, why would Revenue Dept agree to refund tax paid? Do they in fact refund tax paid for people in this position or only for tax residents or both?

[SantiSuk]

I'm a little confused by the topic of this thread, and I'm hoping that someone who is more savvy with Thai tax can set me straight. As I understand things, if you are living in Thailand for more than 180 days/year then you are required to lodge a tax return

Yes - if you have taxable income*, which someone with interest income in Thailand would have.

If you lodge a tax return then any withholding tax paid on declared income would just become a credit against any tax payable.

Yes but maybe your total Thai tax payable is less than the tax you have suffered on your interest income (because there are personal allowances/tax credits that effectively say that the first x,000 baht of your taxable income is tax free).

In the case of Endure's friend living in Chiang Mai (as an an example) that person would seem to be a tax resident, hence why would they need to undertake a separate process to reclaim withholding tax ... and why would the Revenue dept process such an application if the person in question was legally required to lodge a tax return?

If the Thai tax system makes an automatic payment to you if you have overpaid tax (like in the UK) than your question is right on point. A reclaim would not be necessary and would probably not be entertained until you had completed a tax return. I do not know whether overpaid tax is returned as a matter of course in Thailand.

On the other hand if you are not a tax resident (& do not lodge Thai tax returns) but do pay Thai withholding tax, why would Revenue Dept agree to refund tax paid? Do they in fact refund tax paid for people in this position or only for tax residents or both?

.

I don't know the answer to this definitively for Thailand, but if it is the same as the UK the taxing authorities do not seek to charge tax on income that is not chargeable to tax for the individual, so either there would be a mechanism to require banks not to withhold tax for such individuals or there would be a tax reclaim procedure. Note that the tax reclaim forms being talked of in this thread (R105 etc) are UK recalims for UK interest suffered and nothing to do with the Thai tax suffered on Thai interest income that the OP started off talking about.

* From all I have read on other forums and websites I have understood that you do not need to register with the taxation authorities and you do not need to submit Thai tax returns just because you live here more than 180 days. Thai taxation authorities are, reportedly, not interested in you unless you have income that is taxable in Thailand. If anyone knows different I would be keen to know what!

[SantiSuk]

My response above was ridiculously contorted. I tried to edit but got locked out. Read this instead:

I'm a little confused by the topic of this thread, and I'm hoping that someone who is more savvy with Thai tax can set me straight. As I understand things, if you are living in Thailand for more than 180 days/year then you are required to lodge a tax return

If that were the case then it would seem to make sense that the Thai taxation authorities would use the tax return as a mechanism to refund any overpaid tax.

From all I have read on other forums and websites I have understood that you do not need to register with the taxation authorities and you do not need to submit Thai tax returns just because you live here more than 180 days. Thai taxation authorities are, reportedly, not interested in you unless you have income that is taxable in Thailand. Maybe this extends further and the Thai tax authorities do not require a tax return if you know that your Thai taxable income would not generate any Thai tax due (because allowance/credits offset the small amounts of interest income). In those circumstances maybe they also allow you to reclaim tax withheldas a separate process.

All surmise I'm afraid. If no-one turns up on here with authoritative answers then those in this situation (myself included) will just have to either (1) stick their head above the parapet and ask their taxation office, or (2) pay for advice or (3) lie low and give up the tax already paid!

[Guderian]

* From all I have read on other forums and websites I have understood that you do not need to register with the taxation authorities and you do not need to submit Thai tax returns just because you live here more than 180 days. Thai taxation authorities are, reportedly, not interested in you unless you have income that is taxable in Thailand. If anyone knows different I would be keen to know what!

That's what I've read and been told. You only have to pay Thai tax on taxable income (over 150K Baht/year?) arising in Thailand, or overseas income remitted to Thailand in the same year that it was earned. So if you have no job in Thailand, and your interest is less than 150K Baht/year, you should be able to claim back the tax. Even if you make more than 150K Baht, I believe that the tax rate for income from 150K to 500 K Baht/year is only 10%, so presumably you could still claim back one-third of the 15% standard withholding tax?

[chiangmaibruce]

OK perhaps my post was confusing ... not surprising given the topic being considered .. plus there is the usual chasm between Thai law and Thai reality to consider ...

A foreigner who lives in Thailand for more than 180 days in a tax year (the calendar year) is considered a Thai resident for tax purposes. A resident is required to file taxes on all income received within Thailand as well as income received from foreign sources brought into Thailand.

A non-resident living in Thailand less than 180 days within a tax year is only required to file a tax return and pay taxes on income received from sources within Thailand.

from http://bangkok.angloinfo.com/countries/thailand/intax.asp

My query is:

1. Who is eligible to to claim back withholding tax, in terms of the above two categories &

2. Whether the process of claiming back withholding tax involves lodging a complete Thai tax return or (where you don't have to or don't wish to lodge a Thai tax return), is there a separate form/process as seems to be implied by Endure's earlier account

[chiangmaibruce]

<bump> It would be great to be able to clarify this issue. Hoping for a thai tax wizard somewhere out there in thaivisa land

[garrfeild]

OK perhaps my post was confusing ... not surprising given the topic being considered .. plus there is the usual chasm between Thai law and Thai reality to consider ...

A foreigner who lives in Thailand for more than 180 days in a tax year (the calendar year) is considered a Thai resident for tax purposes. A resident is required to file taxes on all income received within Thailand as well as income received from foreign sources brought into Thailand.

A non-resident living in Thailand less than 180 days within a tax year is only required to file a tax return and pay taxes on income received from sources within Thailand.

from http://bangkok.angloinfo.com/countries/thailand/intax.asp

My query is:

1. Who is eligible to to claim back withholding tax, in terms of the above two categories &

2. Whether the process of claiming back withholding tax involves lodging a complete Thai tax return or (where you don't have to or don't wish to lodge a Thai tax return), is there a separate form/process as seems to be implied by Endure's earlier account

For UK expats who have properties in the UK, if the property is let out, then you can ask HMRC for Non Resident Landlord status, or the tenant or agent renting the property from or for you would be required to withold the tax at source, meaning you would have to claim back a sizable amount from HMRC.