I am pretty sure most countries (of citizenship) would deem you a resident for tax purposes if you are not a tax resident anywhere else.  They would probably say that since you did not create ties to your new country, you have therefore not cut ties with your old one.

Edited July 19, 20178 yr by bkkcanuck8

Inflammatory post removed.  

7 hours ago, Dan5 said:

Do you really know it is technically illegal or are you just speculating like most people. I really don't think it  is even technically illegal. As a matter of fact a long time ago when I first moved to Thailand I did some consulting work for companies in the USA. Using the internet and phone. I got some legal advice and was told its not a problem as long as the companies I do work for don't have a presence in Thailand.  Seems to me to be the equivalent of doing an online business as long as the online business isn't selling in Thailand.

It comes down to the meaning of "working in Thailand". I guess it is possible to argue that "being in Thailand and working" is different from "working in Thailand". It is unambiguous in the law that "working in Thailand", where "work" is extremely broadly defined, always requires a work permit with a very few narrow exceptions. Most people I have spoken to who are digital nomads agree they are "working in Thailand" but assume there are legal exemptions for people working online. I have never seen a statement from a senior Thai official that supports such a viewpoint.

36 minutes ago, BritTim said:

It comes down to the meaning of "working in Thailand". I guess it is possible to argue that "being in Thailand and working" is different from "working in Thailand". It is unambiguous in the law that "working in Thailand", where "work" is extremely broadly defined, always requires a work permit with a very few narrow exceptions. 

The law, immigration act, refers to occupation and employment. Nothing ambiguous in that. And working doesn't require a "work permit" it requires permission, which would mostly come in the form of a work permit for employees of companies operating in Thailand.

 

• If a "Digital Nomad" or any other remote worker is carrying out their/an occupation in Thailand they need permission, which they won't get.
• Any foreigner wanting to be employed by a Thai based company needs permission and has to comply with the Alien Working Act in order to get it.

It very simple to understand and yet people continue to debate the subject ad nauseam.

The people that try to turn a bar or cafe into their own private work area are annoying.  It ain't a fookin library.  How moronic do you have to be to not have decent internet at your rental?  More like drop shipping victims planning their next visa run than people earning solid money.  The 841 blogs on how to extend your visa exemption at CM Immigration are quite compelling.  I certainly give them my personal information, when ever they ask.  Might be a good place to find out who is serving buckets of cleaning solvents with a straw.

Edited July 19, 20178 yr by KhonKaenKowboy

I suggest you read the Nate posts.  One Thai agency has now officially ruled on what they consider to be work,  filming in Thailand and posting on youtube.   Variants and more precedents likely to follow. 

3 hours ago, elviajero said:

The law, immigration act, refers to occupation and employment. Nothing ambiguous in that. And working doesn't require a "work permit" it requires permission, which would mostly come in the form of a work permit for employees of companies operating in Thailand.

 

• If a "Digital Nomad" or any other remote worker is carrying out their/an occupation in Thailand they need permission, which they won't get.
• Any foreigner wanting to be employed by a Thai based company needs permission and has to comply with the Alien Working Act in order to get it.

It very simple to understand and yet people continue to debate the subject ad nauseam.

Nothing is ambiguous about working in Thailand ... the way it is worded it could cover getting up in the morning to reading email while on vacation.  The statute is written broadly to cover anything and everything -- leaving it up to immigration to interpret and enforce the way they believe it should.  They have made no effort to cover reading emails, and they have taken no effort to have it cover "digital nomads".

Just ignore the rest of my post and only quote one line, I fully explained what a Digital Nomad is.
 
Why are you trying to put words in my mouth? I never questioned the legality of tax residency in Thailand, just tax evasion by DMs.
 
 

Is a "DM" different from a Digital Nomad?

31 minutes ago, gk10002000 said:

I suggest you read the Nate posts.  One Thai agency has now officially ruled on what they consider to be work,  filming in Thailand and posting on youtube.   Variants and more precedents likely to follow. 

Can you quickly summarize it.  I am not going to take my time looking and summarizing.... I know that he entered Thailand first as a Later Day Saints missionary... then came back as a teacher.... I do doubt that technically what was written for his visa would cover his "digital terrorism" of endangering cats and trains... so it all comes down to how/what they consider to enforce.  I am a little surprised that with 60K+ Thais complaining they have not revoked the visa.

I think this topic is close to the end of its lifespan. About 14 pages of back and forth bickering between a few members. Time to end it or it will be closed.
 

Yeah I generally avoid topics about digital nomad work for that exact reason.

What I know: 

• There is no current permit/visa for digital nomad work.  
• They have been considering introducing one.
• Depending on where you officially hold residency you may be required to pay tax to your home country on any amount earned overseas.
• Depending on your countries tax agreement with Thailand you may be eligible to get a Thai tax ID and pay tax here instead.  A work permit is not required for this.

So in summary, the authorities know that there are people living in Thailand doing this kind of work but show very little interest in prosecuting them.  (Nate is a bit of a different case and his example doesn't relate to 99.8% of the work that digital nomads do).

Edited July 20, 20178 yr by akirasan

23 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Can you quickly summarize it.  I am not going to take my time looking and summarizing.... I know that he entered Thailand first as a Later Day Saints missionary... then came back as a teacher.... I do doubt that technically what was written for his visa would cover his "digital terrorism" of endangering cats and trains... so it all comes down to how/what they consider to enforce.  I am a little surprised that with 60K+ Thais complaining they have not revoked the visa.

palms get greased easily if you make lots of cash like Nate also with a public case like his, you have to really make sure you have him violating the laws as to immigration or face backlash, just because 60K want him gone does not mean he broke any laws.

Edited July 20, 20178 yr by tonray

13 minutes ago, tonray said:

palms get greased easily if you make lots of cash like Nate also with a public case like his, you have to really make sure you have him violating the laws as to immigration or face backlash, just because 60K want him gone does not mean he broke any laws.

Pretty well anything and everything is covered by immigration laws as they are written.  If they wanted him gone, it just takes the appropriate (and not necessarily precedent setting) interpretation.... and I am pretty sure he is seen as a corrupting influence on Thai youth.  His religious beliefs -- would probably make greasing the palms -- very difficult.... but then that could be included in legal fees....

Edited July 20, 20178 yr by bkkcanuck8

2 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Pretty well anything and everything is covered by immigration laws as they are written.  If they wanted him gone, it just takes the appropriate (and not necessarily precedent setting) interpretation.... and I am pretty sure he is seen as a corrupting influence on Thai youth.  His religious beliefs -- would probably make greasing the palms -- very difficult.... but then that could be included in legal fees....

Then what is your possible theory as to his remaining in the kingdom ? He does not grease palms, he has broken the laws regarding immigration, and he is hated by Thais for corrupting youth.....and he stays because ?

Just now, tonray said:

Then what is your possible theory as to his remaining in the kingdom ? He does not grease palms, he has broken the laws regarding immigration, and he is hated by Thais for corrupting youth.....and he stays because ?

Maybe his lawyer has included it in his fees and has made the necessary arrangements so Nate does not have to lose face...

2 minutes ago, bkkcanuck8 said:

Maybe his lawyer has included it in his fees and has made the necessary arrangements so Nate does not have to lose face...

I'm gonna guess that this falls under the category of greasing palms then....

1 hour ago, tonray said:

I'm gonna guess that this falls under the category of greasing palms then....

Your greasing palms is some else's "standard legal practice".  Conflict of interest is quite often a foreign concept in many cases, and it could just be considered a consulting fee paid for advice on the side - the fact that it made the officer more lenient at his other job...  happenstance.  You are just a foreigner - so you would not understand these cultural things (I am channelling now) 

 

Nat pays a lawyer for results, how the lawyer gets those results.... is up to the lawyer to navigate Thai law / culture etc. within the norms of how things are done in Thailand.

 

Another example is local staff hired in many countries - require a local police report.  You cannot get a police report without paying the fees and "hiring" consultants to navigate the "process".  It is not "standard fees" and is therefore the embassy will not cover the employee fees... but they cannot hire them without it... and you cannot get it without as you say... greasing palms.... everyone knows it is standard practice.... even the embassy.... 

Edited July 20, 20178 yr by bkkcanuck8

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

I think this topic is close to the end of its lifespan. About 14 pages of back and forth bickering between a few members. Time to end it or it will be closed.
 

 

Now