jayboy

Thanks.I hadn't seen the announcement.Intelligent people will draw their own conclusions on these cobbled together arrangements but no more on the subject as that might be considered "disrespectful".

Agreed, and there is the considerable advantage of the record taking aspect being taken care of.In other words in the unlikely event of a RD dispute/query, bank records could be easily shown.

I wonder whether many , in anticipation of future audits by RD, propose proceeding as I do, namely by having two UK bank accounts - the first (for remitting) covering all investments, cash deposits etc made before 31.12.2023 and the second covering all current income (not for remitting).

This is really low grade material - superficial, often inaccurate and unprofessional.If this is the standard of content Thaiger brings to the new arrangement, one has to ask exactly what value is being added. Still best not to come to a verdict prematurely so let's see whether the output improves.However in the interim those responsible need to buck their ideas up unless there's a willingness to settle for mediocrity or worse. I assume the intention is in the medium term to monetize the forum as well (one would hope) to provide a community service.I can assure those responsible that to maximize the commercial potential, it's necessary to take the audience seriously and assume its intelligence.This kind of third rate output simply won't do.

Not at all clear what is hospital statement and what is reporter's comment.

There do seem to be penalties for not filing a return if no tax is due, though the quoted fines are very modest.Did anyone ever dispute this? A cynic might argue that if the individual is confident of his ground that no tax is due and has evidence to prove it - it might be a cost effective way of proceeding - in the highly unlikely event of ever being challenged. The more pertinent question however for many of us is whether a return needs to be filed if there is no assessable income, In other words if an individual only remits funds from a pre-2024 source.

Ridiculous article and mostly irrelevant comments.There is no journey to a new citizenship just a matter of filling in a form which required insertion of country of usual residence. Harry will always be British and a member of the royal family, a son of a king and only brother of a future king.Furthermore his character and disposition is exactly what one would expect from an officer class aristocrat. Like quite a few upper crust Englishmen a cold perhaps wounded heart has been melted by a vivacious American woman.Harry will always be English.Neither Harry nor Meghan have always be sensible or self aware but personally I give them a lot of slack.I hope they prosper in America and reconcile with William/Kate soon.Nothing is served by venomous royal experts on one side or the horrible Sussex Squad on the other.

Pattaya?

Last time was about two years ago at shop in Bumrungrad when I brought a new cuff. I should do it more often. But I also have two machines which I alternate to make sure readings are consistent.

Dentists problematic on this issue.Staff often inexperienced in measuring, cuffs often wrong size, machines often not calibrated regularly.And the usual white coat syndrome. I measure my own BP at home and show the app.That usually satisfies.

You are right but as in immigration matters (the eternal "should I use a lawyer" argument for example) it depends on a number of factors. 1.How enjoyable/productive do you find interconnecting with Thai bureaucrats? For some it is a weird turn on. 2.In my previous career did I have some expertise (e.g accounting/tax) which makes that interconnection a smooth process? 3.How much do I value my time? 4.Am I well enough off not to care about expense of delegating an inherently boring task? 5.Can I completely trust the organization/person I delegate to? 6.What is my boredom threshold? You can immediately see that everyone will be different.One man might find a fun filled session with the RD an exciting way to spend a morning.Another would rather stab himself in then head with a fork or have a more pressing engagement tidying his sock drawer.I will probably follow your example and do it myself.Point 5 is the key consideration in my case.

I'm sorry but I have no first hand knowledge, though I have spoken to a contact.I had noticed on googling that NT status is said by some sources to be related to the UK having a DTA with the country of residence in question.My contact however said that HMRC can give NT status to overseas pensioners (via UK pension provider) if all the conditions are filled, regardless of where the overseas petitioner lives.Basically you have to have had the greater part of your career overseas and not returned to the UK on retirement.You also have to apply at the time of your retirement.My contact said the HMRC were not particularly helpful, almost as if there was an institutional bias not to agree NT status.

Not necessarily.I know of two cases here in Thailand and one in Singapore where the UK tax authority HMRC has agreed NT status so that no tax is withheld from the pension paid in the UK. There are some hoops to jump through to get NT status but the main one is that the pension holder must have spent most of his career abroad, particularly the last twenty years or so of it.I believe visits to the UK have to be minimized so the NT status is not endangered.

Frankly this is a new consideration for me, and on reflection not difficult to deal with.I could go into more detail. The remark about angels/pins was not personal.It was made about all of us wrestling with fairly minor issues when with a little patience all will be revealed in the next few months.

I don't recall saying that or possibly I didn't make clear enough the point (my only point really) about the distinction between assessable and non assessable income remittances and the requirement for filing a return.On the face of it the former definitely requires a return to be filed and the latter (probably) doesn't.I think we should be careful not to be too prescriptive here because the position could easily change - as I have several times observed.

I think it's fine but I wonder whether it's necessary to have any of the added highlighted text at this stage.It's a commendable attempt to provide clarity but not really possible at this stage without a lot of subjectivity.I'm sure it will be mostly clear in a few months. Sometimes this discussion reminds me of that of medieval scholars debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.

It is currently believed so but that could change.

On the basis of current evidence I believe it to be true. Yet in my opinion it would not be an unreasonable thing for the RD to request - so it needs to be monitored.

Yes, but perhaps It's still worth pointing out for clarity's sake that those resident expatriates who do not remit assessable income don't need to file returns ( this is consistent with RD and PWC advice). They will presumably bank their current income in their home country and remit to Thailand only from investments made prior to 2024.

Many years ago an experienced foreign businessman advised me that one should never use a Thailand based personal investment advisor.My subsequent experience supports this view.The vast majority are opportunist and inexperienced and without suitable qualifications or background, primarily motivated by commissions.They are generally an unappealing bunch, the sort of shyster who used to sell time share opportunities.There are perhaps 2-3 firms/individuals based in Bangkok rather more respectable (typically Chamber of Commerce members and financially literate). Personally I would not touch them either: their superficial plausibility, knowledge of the jargon and minor public school (or Oirish) affability in some ways make them more dangerous to the naive investor. Best to stick to offshore advisors.There's a prominent UK firm with a Singapore office that's okay.There might be others but UK has the widest range.

This surprises me a little because the RD requirement is not complex.Taxpayers with assessable income are required to file returns even though (in their opinion) there is no tax to pay.

Haven't seen the PWC quotes mentioned but have read the latest PWC tax publication for Thailand (maybe the same,I haven't checked) It is very specific, see relevant part quoted below. "Tax administration Thailand applies a self-assessment system in collecting taxes. Taxpayers are required to declare their tax liabilities in the prescribed tax returns and pay the tax due at the time of filing. The following individuals are required to file income tax returns for income earned in the preceding tax year irrespective of whether there is any tax due: • A person who has no spouse and earns income of more than Baht 60,000 • A person who has no spouse and earns income under category (1) (salaries and wages) of more than Baht 120,000 • A person who has a spouse and earns income of more than Baht 120,000 • A person who has a spouse and earns income under category (1) (salaries and wages) of more than Baht 220,000." It specifies the individuals who need to declare their tax liabilities "irrespective of whether there is any tax due." All refer to income earned in the preceding tax year (I assume that means 2024). Doesn't it follow that those for example didn't remit any funds in 2024 and even those who only remitted pre-2024 exempted funds don't need to submit a return? Frankly I think this particular tax return discussion is a bit silly.There aren't "opposing teams" just a common wish to improve understanding - and there are no rights or wrongs at this stage.What we are required to do - prospective filers and non filers - will emerge by the end of the year.

From the RD document you refer to, foreigners seem obliged to apply for a TIN rather than a PIN.

Just because one knows what one's TIN number will be isn't surely sufficient.It actually needs to be registered and associated with your name at the Tax Department - or so I would think.

Is that the general consensus? There will be many tax residents who have no assessable income.In other words they made substantial remittances to Thailand before 31.12.24 from funds acquired before that date.This presumably would also apply to funds remitted during 2024 if clear these were earned before 31.12.24.In the latter case one would need to provide proof if required. Hard to say whether a tax return required in such circumstances.Not a big deal but would RD be interested in a nil return? Would they even accept one? Best advice is probably to wait and see over the next few months and if necessary obtain a TIN later in the year.