moving from germany to thailand, online work

[julot]

I have been working online for the past 15 years in Thailand. Some times I even take in Thai clients and pay 15% withholding taxes WHICH I NEVER CLAIM back every year in March. I even have around 4 million Baht coming in per year in my Thai Bank account and often transferred by reputable Thai companies.

At times I work for 2-3 companies as a consultant in Thailand and they pay me all at the same time money in my Thai bank account. Never ever did I had a problem. Their is no way a farang can work for 2-4 companies in Thailand at the same time.

As for tourist visa or 30 days stamps on the airport, I have never done it. My visas are always None B-O.

So are you saying you are doing this without work permit?

[MobileContent]

Just looking for a clean/legal setup so I don't run into any pb,

LOL you don't want to open a Thai company but still work in Thailand without WP? So what's clean & legal about that?

I am a consultant to 3 inbound tour operators in Thailand and it is not possible to work on work permits for them.

Lets say that I work on a WP for a company in Thailand but it would still not be legal to work daily from those 19 offices from the 3 tour operators.

I had a long discussion with both immigration, TAT, the Thai Embassy in both Singapore and Berlin and everyone told me just continue it and pay the 15% width-holding taxes. After all they said you good men to promote Thai inbound tourism. The fact is that those 3 companies bring in a large number of clients to Thailand on a yearly basis and they have been established for over 20-25 years.

I am getting deducted every month between 30 - 85,000 Baht in taxes on my local Thai billings.

[FritsSikkink]

I wasn't aware that Thai authorities use the UNWTO definition of tourism.

I believe that Thai authorities consider a tourist to be a short term visitor that returns home between visits and doesn't live in Thailand. For example:-

Thawatchai Changoern - “He urged tourists who plan on staying in Thailand longer to get a tourist visa, either in their home countries or in neighboring countries such as Laos, Cambodia or Malaysia. But again he noted, this is for tourists and that those wishing to stay long term must get a long term visa.”

http://www.chiangmai-mail.com/458/news.shtml#hd1

Yet they apply no limits to back to back tourist visas at all.

You're using one quote from one person there, yet totally dismiss one another quote from the same news source saying we can work online on tourist visas. Seems you're clutching at straws, making all kinds of assumptions and spin, but when all's said and done you aren't an authority to state anything as fact. The smart conclusion to come to is that the law is currently in a grey area, unless you have some emotional reason to brand digital nomads as illegals.

you are the one spinning, It is NOT allowed to work on a tourists visa and if you stay here longer then 180 days a year you have to pay tax no matter where your money is comming from Edited April 6, 2016 by FritsSikkink

[FritsSikkink]

Just looking for a clean/legal setup so I don't run into any pb,

LOL you don't want to open a Thai company but still work in Thailand without WP? So what's clean & legal about that?

I am a consultant to 3 inbound tour operators in Thailand and it is not possible to work on work permits for them.

Lets say that I work on a WP for a company in Thailand but it would still not be legal to work daily from those 19 offices from the 3 tour operators.

I had a long discussion with both immigration, TAT, the Thai Embassy in both Singapore and Berlin and everyone told me just continue it and pay the 15% width-holding taxes. After all they said you good men to promote Thai inbound tourism. The fact is that those 3 companies bring in a large number of clients to Thailand on a yearly basis and they have been established for over 20-25 years.

I am getting deducted every month between 30 - 85,000 Baht in taxes on my local Thai billings.

you talked to all the wrong offices, try the labour office

[balo]

Same here , I work as a digital nomad and still pay tax to my home country even if I live here. I kept a business address and a bank account in my home country so that means I can bring my laptop anywhere in the world and earning money along the way . I choose to settle down in Thailand because I have friends and relatives here. But I only "work" from my home.

And I do not earn money "in" Thailand. This has been discussed many times before.

Edited April 6, 2016 by balo

[JLCrab]

The current Thai Immigration Act states under Chapter 4 'Temporary Stay in the Kingdom':

Section 37 : An alien having received a temporary entry permit into the Kingdom must comply with the

following :

1. Shall not engage in the occupation or temporary or employment unless authorized by the

Director General. or competent official deputized by the Director General .

So if you were to work on a website for ThaiAirways.com at your home in Thailand and be paid in Thailand you would be engaging in an occupation but if you were to work on a website for BritishAirways.com at your home in Thailand and be paid ex-Thailand you are not engaging in an occupation?

Edited April 6, 2016 by JLCrab

[manarak]

The current Thai Immigration Act states under Chapter 4 'Temporary Stay in the Kingdom':

Section 37 : An alien having received a temporary entry permit into the Kingdom must comply with the

following :

1. Shall not engage in the occupation or temporary or employment unless authorized by the

Director General. or competent official deputized by the Director General .

So if you were to work on a website for ThaiAirways.com at your home in Thailand and be paid in Thailand you would be engaging in an occupation but if you were to work on a website for BritishAirways.com at your home in Thailand and be paid ex-Thailand you are not engaging in an occupation?

that's indeed the way Thai authorities seem to interpret the Law.

Thai law practice seems to apply the principle that if something isn't in Thailand, it doesn't exist.

It is an extreme way to apply territoriality principles, but I have encountered this principle several times in different contexts already.

[manarak]

Same here , I work as a digital nomad and still pay tax to my home country even if I live here. I kept a business address and a bank account in my home country so that means I can bring my laptop anywhere in the world and earning money along the way . I choose to settle down in Thailand because I have friends and relatives here. But I only "work" from my home.

And I do not earn money "in" Thailand. This has been discussed many times before.

yes, you need an address somewhere for your business.

sometimes the home country can provide a friendly enough environment to conduct business, although people living in continental europe often choose to setup an offshore corporation.

[elviajero]

The current Thai Immigration Act states under Chapter 4 'Temporary Stay in the Kingdom':

Section 37 : An alien having received a temporary entry permit into the Kingdom must comply with the

following :

1. Shall not engage in the occupation or temporary or employment unless authorized by the

Director General. or competent official deputized by the Director General .

So if you were to work on a website for ThaiAirways.com at your home in Thailand and be paid in Thailand you would be engaging in an occupation but if you were to work on a website for BritishAirways.com at your home in Thailand and be paid ex-Thailand you are not engaging in an occupation?

that's indeed the way Thai authorities seem to interpret the Law.

Thai law practice seems to apply the principle that if something isn't in Thailand, it doesn't exist.

It is an extreme way to apply territoriality principles, but I have encountered this principle several times in different contexts already.

I believe the authorities interpret the law exactly as written.

There are several reasons why immigration don't enforce the law, but from my personal work/experience and dealings/conversations with immigration and the department of labour, I believe that the authorities do not want thousands of foreigners living in Thailand and operating foreign businesses without the appropriate permission.

How they prevent that from happening is as yet unknown, but for now the tolerance is more about the practicalities of enforcement and due to the visa system allowing for perpetual tourism, rather than the fact that the business is based offshore.

[JLCrab]

The current Thai Immigration Act states under Chapter 4 'Temporary Stay in the Kingdom':

Section 37 : An alien having received a temporary entry permit into the Kingdom must comply with the

following :

1. Shall not engage in the occupation or temporary or employment unless authorized by the

Director General. or competent official deputized by the Director General .

So if you were to work on a website for ThaiAirways.com at your home in Thailand and be paid in Thailand you would be engaging in an occupation but if you were to work on a website for BritishAirways.com at your home in Thailand and be paid ex-Thailand you are not engaging in an occupation?

that's indeed the way Thai authorities seem to interpret the Law.

Thai law practice seems to apply the principle that if something isn't in Thailand, it doesn't exist.

It is an extreme way to apply territoriality principles, but I have encountered this principle several times in different contexts already.

That's fine except YOU are in Thailand.

[manarak]

The current Thai Immigration Act states under Chapter 4 'Temporary Stay in the Kingdom':

Section 37 : An alien having received a temporary entry permit into the Kingdom must comply with the

following :

1. Shall not engage in the occupation or temporary or employment unless authorized by the

Director General. or competent official deputized by the Director General .

So if you were to work on a website for ThaiAirways.com at your home in Thailand and be paid in Thailand you would be engaging in an occupation but if you were to work on a website for BritishAirways.com at your home in Thailand and be paid ex-Thailand you are not engaging in an occupation?

that's indeed the way Thai authorities seem to interpret the Law.

Thai law practice seems to apply the principle that if something isn't in Thailand, it doesn't exist.

It is an extreme way to apply territoriality principles, but I have encountered this principle several times in different contexts already.

That's fine except YOU are in Thailand.

and I have a work permit.

[manarak]

The current Thai Immigration Act states under Chapter 4 'Temporary Stay in the Kingdom':

Section 37 : An alien having received a temporary entry permit into the Kingdom must comply with the

following :

1. Shall not engage in the occupation or temporary or employment unless authorized by the

Director General. or competent official deputized by the Director General .

So if you were to work on a website for ThaiAirways.com at your home in Thailand and be paid in Thailand you would be engaging in an occupation but if you were to work on a website for BritishAirways.com at your home in Thailand and be paid ex-Thailand you are not engaging in an occupation?

that's indeed the way Thai authorities seem to interpret the Law.

Thai law practice seems to apply the principle that if something isn't in Thailand, it doesn't exist.

It is an extreme way to apply territoriality principles, but I have encountered this principle several times in different contexts already.

I believe the authorities interpret the law exactly as written.

There are several reasons why immigration don't enforce the law, but from my personal work/experience and dealings/conversations with immigration and the department of labour, I believe that the authorities do not want thousands of foreigners living in Thailand and operating foreign businesses without the appropriate permission.

How they prevent that from happening is as yet unknown, but for now the tolerance is more about the practicalities of enforcement and due to the visa system allowing for perpetual tourism, rather than the fact that the business is based offshore.

yes, Thai courts stay very close to the written Law. But their extreme way of applying territoriality can make them interpret "occupation" and "employment" as being non-existent under Thai law if said employment and occupation has no other ties to Thailand other than being physically present here, meaning there are no Thai suppliers, no Thai customers, no Thai employer, no Thai employees, no business-related payments over a Thai bank account, etc.

Again, I'm not claiming the above to be the rule, but it is my feeling of how they handle it.

Past declarations by a police chief in Chiang Mai seem to confirm it, several threads discussed that and I gave my opinion there.

[jspill]

yes, Thai courts stay very close to the written Law. But their extreme way of applying territoriality can make them interpret "occupation" and "employment" as being non-existent under Thai law if said employment and occupation has no other ties to Thailand other than being physically present here, meaning there are no Thai suppliers, no Thai customers, no Thai employer, no Thai employees, no business-related payments over a Thai bank account, etc.

Again, I'm not claiming the above to be the rule, but it is my feeling of how they handle it.

Past declarations by a police chief in Chiang Mai seem to confirm it, several threads discussed that and I gave my opinion there.

Indeed there are many anecdotal reports of posters asking immigration if their online work is an issue or not, and been told 'no problem' after confirming nothing was sold in Thailand, Thai customers weren't involved, or that they were paid into their UK bank account.

One such report: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/749038-with-a-thai-elite-visa-can-a-person-work-legally-as-a-digital-nomad/page-7#entry8314920

And as you mention, the Chiang Mai police statement.

It's never been enough to resolve the debate though, detractors will counter that it's the remit of the DOL not IOs, or say the CM news statement was taken out of context, etc. etc. and the threads never end.

Edited April 7, 2016 by jspill

[JLCrab]

The current Thai Immigration Act states under Chapter 4 'Temporary Stay in the Kingdom':

Section 37 : An alien having received a temporary entry permit into the Kingdom must comply with the

following :

1. Shall not engage in the occupation or temporary or employment unless authorized by the

Director General. or competent official deputized by the Director General .

So if you were to work on a website for ThaiAirways.com at your home in Thailand and be paid in Thailand you would be engaging in an occupation but if you were to work on a website for BritishAirways.com at your home in Thailand and be paid ex-Thailand you are not engaging in an occupation?

that's indeed the way Thai authorities seem to interpret the Law.

Thai law practice seems to apply the principle that if something isn't in Thailand, it doesn't exist.

It is an extreme way to apply territoriality principles, but I have encountered this principle several times in different contexts already.

I believe the authorities interpret the law exactly as written.

There are several reasons why immigration don't enforce the law, but from my personal work/experience and dealings/conversations with immigration and the department of labour, I believe that the authorities do not want thousands of foreigners living in Thailand and operating foreign businesses without the appropriate permission.

How they prevent that from happening is as yet unknown, but for now the tolerance is more about the practicalities of enforcement and due to the visa system allowing for perpetual tourism, rather than the fact that the business is based offshore.

yes, Thai courts stay very close to the written Law. But their extreme way of applying territoriality can make them interpret "occupation" and "employment" as being non-existent under Thai law if said employment and occupation has no other ties to Thailand other than being physically present here, meaning there are no Thai suppliers, no Thai customers, no Thai employer, no Thai employees, no business-related payments over a Thai bank account, etc.

Again, I'm not claiming the above to be the rule, but it is my feeling of how they handle it.

Past declarations by a police chief in Chiang Mai seem to confirm it, several threads discussed that and I gave my opinion there.

That's fine but the Immigration Act says occupation OR employment not occupation AND employment.

[JLCrab]

yes, Thai courts stay very close to the written Law. But their extreme way of applying territoriality can make them interpret "occupation" and "employment" as being non-existent under Thai law if said employment and occupation has no other ties to Thailand other than being physically present here, meaning there are no Thai suppliers, no Thai customers, no Thai employer, no Thai employees, no business-related payments over a Thai bank account, etc.

Again, I'm not claiming the above to be the rule, but it is my feeling of how they handle it.

Past declarations by a police chief in Chiang Mai seem to confirm it, several threads discussed that and I gave my opinion there.

Indeed there are many anecdotal reports of posters asking immigration if their online work is an issue or not, and been told 'no problem' after confirming nothing was sold in Thailand, Thai customers weren't involved, or that they were paid into their UK bank account.

One such report: http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/749038-with-a-thai-elite-visa-can-a-person-work-legally-as-a-digital-nomad/page-7#entry8314920

And as you mention, the Chiang Mai police statement.

It's never been enough to resolve the debate though, detractors will counter that it's the remit of the DOL not IOs, or say the CM news statement was taken out of context, etc. etc. and the threads never end.

I just read the language of the Thai Immigration Act that is currently in force. If push came to shove, it would not matter what anyone else said or 'that's the way we always did it or interpreted it' if someone in authority wants to interpret it more closely to how it is actually written.

[elviajero]

that's indeed the way Thai authorities seem to interpret the Law.

Thai law practice seems to apply the principle that if something isn't in Thailand, it doesn't exist.

It is an extreme way to apply territoriality principles, but I have encountered this principle several times in different contexts already.

I believe the authorities interpret the law exactly as written.

There are several reasons why immigration don't enforce the law, but from my personal work/experience and dealings/conversations with immigration and the department of labour, I believe that the authorities do not want thousands of foreigners living in Thailand and operating foreign businesses without the appropriate permission.

How they prevent that from happening is as yet unknown, but for now the tolerance is more about the practicalities of enforcement and due to the visa system allowing for perpetual tourism, rather than the fact that the business is based offshore.

yes, Thai courts stay very close to the written Law. But their extreme way of applying territoriality can make them interpret "occupation" and "employment" as being non-existent under Thai law if said employment and occupation has no other ties to Thailand other than being physically present here, meaning there are no Thai suppliers, no Thai customers, no Thai employer, no Thai employees, no business-related payments over a Thai bank account, etc.

Again, I'm not claiming the above to be the rule, but it is my feeling of how they handle it.

Past declarations by a police chief in Chiang Mai seem to confirm it, several threads discussed that and I gave my opinion there.

It is not just about the legality of the work but also the increasing numbers of foreigners able, through technology, to live here long term using visas meant for short term tourism. The visa system is very straightforward and doesn't give permission for any visitor to work.

The current tolerance of this work isn't in question, and the statements from Chiang Mai confirm that, at least in CM, you'll be left alone. But none of the statements confirm that it's legal or change the law, and IMO throw up more questions than they answer. No immigration division can publicly state that tourists visiting Thailand cannot work online during their stay, so currently, by default, that includes those who live/work here using back to back tourist visas.

Technology and an outdated immigration system has created a way for a certain group of foreigners to stay long term that are, IMO, not wanted, and that immigration can do little/nothing to stop without a change in the law/regulations.

Edited April 7, 2016 by elviajero

[manarak]

That's fine but the Immigration Act says occupation OR employment not occupation AND employment.

you like nitpicking, I know...

my sentence was not meant as legal mumbo jumbo, I was saying that the meanings behind both words "occupation" and "employment" (and not "occupation and employment", note how the quotes are positioned differently) are potentially considered non-existent in Thailand under Thai Law. AND. because both words. not one word OR the other.

Edited April 7, 2016 by manarak

[JLCrab]

That's fine but the Immigration Act says occupation OR employment not occupation AND employment.

you like nitpicking, I know...

my sentence was not meant as legal mumbo jumbo, I was saying that the meanings behind both words "occupation" and "employment" (and not "occupation and employment", note how the quotes are positioned differently) are potentially considered non-existent in Thailand under Thai Law. AND. because both words. not one word OR the other.

And if a judge were to say that an occupation is an occupation whether the work conducted in Thailand is for the benefit of a client in Thailand, for a client in some other country, or for a client on the Moon, that would be consistent with the Section of the Act as written.

Edited April 7, 2016 by JLCrab

[HooHaa]

use offshore company, work from anywhere you want just dont blat it about that you are working.

others here will give you alot of nonsense about the legality, but unless you are very careless you will have no issues.

myself and many others earn our living this way and have for many years.

[JLCrab]

... and I have often said, Immigration and Labour do not give a hoot about what you are doing as long as, at least for those on Tourist visas, MoFA keeps handing them out like Halloween candy.

As for nonsense and legality, I have encountered, for those who want to interpret the law loosely, that one day the shoe may be on the other foot and you may be the one who wants a strict interpretation of a statute as written. What goes around often comes around.

Edited April 7, 2016 by JLCrab

[manarak]

That's fine but the Immigration Act says occupation OR employment not occupation AND employment.

you like nitpicking, I know...

my sentence was not meant as legal mumbo jumbo, I was saying that the meanings behind both words "occupation" and "employment" (and not "occupation and employment", note how the quotes are positioned differently) are potentially considered non-existent in Thailand under Thai Law. AND. because both words. not one word OR the other.

And if a judge were to say that an occupation is an occupation whether the work conducted in Thailand is for the benefit of a client in Thailand, for a client in some other country, or for a client on the Moon, that would be consistent with the Section of the Act as written.

now please integrate jurisprudence and Thai legal doctrine into your demonstration.

[JLCrab]

Why -- I realize all this is subject to the fact that, in Thailand, the Thai version takes precedence. But at least as far as the English goes, it is clear enough without the need for no intigatin'.

[manarak]

Why -- I realize all this is subject to the fact that, in Thailand, the Thai version takes precedence. But at least as far as the English goes, it is clear enough without the need for no intigatin'.

QED.

what you think is clear is still subject to interpretation by the courts.

[JLCrab]

Why -- I realize all this is subject to the fact that, in Thailand, the Thai version takes precedence. But at least as far as the English goes, it is clear enough without the need for no intigatin'.

QED.

what you think is clear is still subject to interpretation by the courts.

Absolutely and I think a Court would say that it is clear that the language of the Act Section makes no distinction as to the geographical location of for whom the occupation is performed if the person actually performing that work is physically in Thailand.

[manarak]

Why -- I realize all this is subject to the fact that, in Thailand, the Thai version takes precedence. But at least as far as the English goes, it is clear enough without the need for no intigatin'.

QED.

what you think is clear is still subject to interpretation by the courts.

Absolutely and I think a Court would say that it is clear that the language of the Act Section makes no distinction as to the geographical location of for whom the occupation is performed if the person actually performing that work is physically in Thailand.

and that's just your assumption of how the court would judge, without any jurisprudence on the matter...

[JLCrab]

Absolutely -- based upon the wording of the Act. If you want to suggest that something is there that isn't there, that's up to you.

[elviajero]

Why -- I realize all this is subject to the fact that, in Thailand, the Thai version takes precedence. But at least as far as the English goes, it is clear enough without the need for no intigatin'.

QED.

what you think is clear is still subject to interpretation by the courts.

Absolutely and I think a Court would say that it is clear that the language of the Act Section makes no distinction as to the geographical location of for whom the occupation is performed if the person actually performing that work is physically in Thailand.

and that's just your assumption of how the court would judge, without any jurisprudence on the matter...

i doubt there would be many 'Digital Nomads' (remote workers) that would be stupid enough to challenge this law at the risk of a year in prison.

[johnatong]

"i doubt there would be many 'Digital Nomads' (remote workers) that would be stupid enough to challenge this law at the risk of a year in prison."

There is at least one, who frequently posts here, who might be delighted to explain Thai Law to a Judge