Thailand tax situation

[Topcat]

I'm considering heading back to Thailand on an education visa and then the year after, ongoing, marriage visa. Neither of these visas give permission to work, but I would be tax resident (staying 180+ days a year). I run a US LLC that sells non-tangible goods online, and I also earn from crypto staking rewards. I don't believe the Thai gov would know about these activities unless I told them.

My question: If you're living in Thailand permanently, especially on a marriage visa with NO permission to work, the Thai gov can still safely assume you're supporting yourself and your Thai wife financially, somehow. In practice are they asking foreigners on marriage visas where their money is coming from? Yearly Thai marriage visa requires proof of funds, so that would open up opportunity for them to ask. But are they actually asking in practice or can I just keep running my online business and doing crypto stuff and keeping quiet about it like people did in the past? On tourist or ed visa, I doubt they'd ever ask, but on visas that suggest permanency like marriage visa or elite visa, I can imagine questions could be asked. Just wondering whether that's actually happening in practice?

Cheers,
TC

 

[Marketint]

Until now, you were left alone as long as you did not serve Thai customers. I don’t know how the future will be. CRS start now so I don’t know how this will change. And now you pay tax over all the money you sent into Thailand.

I think it’s nexts years still no problem but it’s better to hire a offshore director for your company and be just shareholder.

 

[wellington]

Until now, you were left alone as long as you did not serve Thai customers. I don’t know how the future will be. CRS start now so I don’t know how this will change. And now you pay tax over all the money you sent into Thailand.

I think it’s nexts years still no problem but it’s better to hire an offshore director for your company and be just shareholder.

As it stands you can still own a offshore company and the company isn’t brought onshore into Thailand unless it
Does business in Thailand for tax purposes.

Reference remittance tax as income this is true unless you can provide evidence this money was earned before 2023-2024 and then you are grandfathered in if currently resident.

 

[Mercury]

In practice are they asking foreigners on marriage visas where their money is coming from?

No. They just want to see 400K THB have been seasoned in your Thai bank account for 2 months prior 1 year extension of stay application. No need the money comes from abroad, could even come from your Thai partner.

 

[JackAlabama]

I'm considering heading back to Thailand on an education visa and then the year after, ongoing, marriage visa. Neither of these visas give permission to work, but I would be tax resident (staying 180+ days a year). I run a US LLC that sells non-tangible goods online, and I also earn from crypto staking rewards. I don't believe the Thai gov would know about these activities unless I told them.

My question: If you're living in Thailand permanently, especially on a marriage visa with NO permission to work, the Thai gov can still safely assume you're supporting yourself and your Thai wife financially, somehow. In practice are they asking foreigners on marriage visas where their money is coming from? Yearly Thai marriage visa requires proof of funds, so that would open up opportunity for them to ask. But are they actually asking in practice or can I just keep running my online business and doing crypto stuff and keeping quiet about it like people did in the past? On tourist or ed visa, I doubt they'd ever ask, but on visas that suggest permanency like marriage visa or elite visa, I can imagine questions could be asked.

No these visa types do not suggest permanency at all.

Just wondering whether that's actually happening in practice?

Cheers,
TC

 

[wellington]

No these visa types do not suggest permanency at all.

Visa doesn’t entail permanency for tax reasons, on elite our visas are tourist but still have taxes.

 

[Topcat]

on elite our visas are tourist but still have taxes.

So are you saying that elite visa holders who are staying in Thailand 180+ days of the year are running offshore businesses that have no link to Thailand (no local customers nor suppliers) - no link to Thailand other than the company owner living in Thailand and operating the business from his laptop there - and in this situation paying income tax in Thailand? Or did I interpret you wrongly?

and the company isn’t brought onshore into Thailand unless it
Does business in Thailand for tax purposes.

Does running the company from your laptop in Thailand, with no Thai customers, no Thai suppliers, no Thai bank account, nothing except the owner is physically living there running the company online...does that count as "doing business in Thailand for tax purposes"?

No. They just want to see 400K THB have been seasoned in your Thai bank account for 2 months prior 1 year extension of stay application. No need the money comes from abroad, could even come from your Thai partner.

In the past I always sent money to my Thai girlfriend's bank acc and then withdrew cash from that and used her debit card online. Thus it meant I wasn't bringing any money into Thailand at all thus no tax there (at the time based on the Thai tax system that they've since changed the rules). I wondered if this was creating a tax obligation for her though, but she said gift payments from a foreign partner aren't taxable for her. I have always wondered whether that's true or not though?

 

[wellington]

Not going to answer your specific question but give a general overview based on my discussions and experience.

Years ago my company was making a large investment into Thailand - it was via a BOI and specific to a non-revenue based business division solely for research - if the numbers are correct from memory it was about ~10m$ ear-marked for Thailand in its initial outlay.

We naturally were in concert with the government who we began talking to at the UN (some technology event), in one of the side chats that commonly occur there and they sold us on the idea of BOI.

Roughly a year + after establishing the division and bringing in heaps of hardware, recruiting from the best universities and also working with I believe three universities who sent interns in rotations.

The Government Revenue department approached and had a “private” chat with our accounting and advised us to adjust the financial flows from “investment” to “revenues” so technically we’d be making revenues from the overseas parent company, then they could charge tax - minimal tax they said - it wasn’t so much a conversation but a violent nudge.

At that point it was deemed unpractical because we were already paying a premium compared to divisions in South Africa, and India, as well as developer units in China, Ukraine, Pakistan and elsewhere, but at the same time we were in the middle of a very extensive project research wise.

I, who didn’t work at that division and also wasn’t a director of that company had a investor visa attached to the company - the BOI was done via the lawyers and the government and I believe I was briefly a director for about a week in its early setup whilst signing over day-to-day control to a local 'actual' director recruited for the division.

This of-course world therefore impact me personally as i still had the visa and all that came with it, at the same time we had to look at the economic costs of operations, the Thai methods for doing things, and this new found pressure point.

The company was wound down gradually and staff were paid off - this was no cheap exercise we found as by this point two + years had passed - the staff then migrated either into the state surveillance apparatus (recruited) - you now experience (think immigration + big brother) taking the know how they learned from us for state use, rather than private (us) to state, or into academia.

Then when the company was due to be closed, we were hit with a VAT bill for all the equipment the company had “bought” with the “investment/revenue” from 'day one' which had to be paid off - bare in mind under investment it should have been a write off but under the revenue it was treated as an asset of the company based on its revenues and re-deployed so had to be paid - it was based on liquidating assets of the company - code, hardware etc at a massive premium to any potential resale value - (the final f**k you from the revenue department).

That gives you an indication of how to take the next step in this statement - for we were not dealing with lemons but initially an ambassador of Thailand to the UN (and their team) back then, and then BOI leadership after and the head of revenue for the Region.

Now the next part…

I am still a director of the overseas company mainly non-managing director but passive - it’s day to day is either automated or managed by others.

From its early years some 70+ staff in the STEM field so you can imagine the outlays, to today where most roles are automated by multi-agents or agents coding agents etc

So when these new rules came in having been fucked previously with the visa emigrated to elite I immediately addressed the concerns with the revenue department who assured me the following

- director/investor/shareholder is not bringing the company onshore by residing in Thailand over 180 days and as long as there are no touch points with Thailand for revenues/income

- director/investor/shareholder is not liable in Thailand for % of corporate revenues as resident of Thailand over 180 days unless above has encroachments.

- director/investor/shareholder has no tax unless they remit dividends, income etc into Thailand earned after 2023 tax year

- director/investor/shareholder will have grandfathered rights if funds earned before 2023 to remit income after 2024 tax year starts as long as savings

The rest is all very public.

But based on the initial blurb above take it as a pinch of salt

 

[Topcat]

- director/investor/shareholder is not bringing the company onshore by residing in Thailand over 180 days and as long as there are no touch points with Thailand for revenues/income

All very interesting. Thank you for taking the time on that. It is looking like my online business which has no relation to Thailand at all other than my (potential) residence there for over 180 days a year, can continue to fly under the radar and be overlooked like in the past. And then when the day comes that they start chasing up foreigners with such businesses, then it's time for a rethink. But for now it looks like flying under the radar is okay and just keep an eye on the situation.

As for crypto gains, for me these also have no link to Thailand. Bought from foreign (non-Thai) bank account and foreign exchanges, and will be sold back to same foreign exchanges and then banks. It looks like these too can continue to fly under the radar. The Thai authorities most likely wouldn't have a way of knowing about them unless I told them. But there is still the possibility of them one day asking..."You're here in Thailand on marriage visas with no permission to work, but your proof of funds shows us that you're making money here anyway...where's the money coming from?" For now they don't ask, seems clear. But the potential is there I guess. It's a situation to keep an eye on for sure.

For now I'm out of Thailand and gonna try to keep it under 180 days this year if I sell my crypto and thus get a very large capital gain. Don't want to take any chances on potentially having to hand them 35% on a 7-8 figure gain.

 

[churumbelo]

Does running the company from your laptop in Thailand, with no Thai customers, no Thai suppliers, no Thai bank account, nothing except the owner is physically living there running the company online...does that count as "doing business in Thailand for tax purposes"?

Yes, in theory it is a permanent establishment. But that's not something new. It was already like that before.

 

[drpreobrazhensky]

Is this a loophole that would work for avoiding the remittance tax?

- Send yourself crypto
- cash it out at one of the local crypto exchanges in BKK / Phuket / Chiang Mai
- deposit cash into thai bank

 

[JackAlabama]

Is this a loophole that would work for avoiding the remittance tax?

- Send yourself crypto
- cash it out at one of the local crypto exchanges in BKK / Phuket / Chiang Mai
- deposit cash into thai bank

how did you get cash into your own local bank again? - thats the point they will use to hang you.

Not going to answer your specific question but give a general overview based on my discussions and experience.

Years ago my company was making a large investment into Thailand - it was via a BOI and specific to a non-revenue based business division solely for research - if the numbers are correct from memory it was about ~10m$ ear-marked for Thailand in its initial outlay.

We naturally were in concert with the government who we began talking to at the UN (some technology event), in one of the side chats that commonly occur there and they sold us on the idea of BOI.

Roughly a year + after establishing the division and bringing in heaps of hardware, recruiting from the best universities and also working with I believe three universities who sent interns in rotations.

The Government Revenue department approached and had a “private” chat with our accounting and advised us to adjust the financial flows from “investment” to “revenues” so technically we’d be making revenues from the overseas parent company, then they could charge tax - minimal tax they said - it wasn’t so much a conversation but a violent nudge.

At that point it was deemed unpractical because we were already paying a premium compared to divisions in South Africa, and India, as well as developer units in China, Ukraine, Pakistan and elsewhere, but at the same time we were in the middle of a very extensive project research wise.

I, who didn’t work at that division and also wasn’t a director of that company had a investor visa attached to the company - the BOI was done via the lawyers and the government and I believe I was briefly a director for about a week in its early setup whilst signing over day-to-day control to a local 'actual' director recruited for the division.

This of-course world therefore impact me personally as i still had the visa and all that came with it, at the same time we had to look at the economic costs of operations, the Thai methods for doing things, and this new found pressure point.

The company was wound down gradually and staff were paid off - this was no cheap exercise we found as by this point two + years had passed - the staff then migrated either into the state surveillance apparatus (recruited) - you now experience (think immigration + big brother) taking the know how they learned from us for state use, rather than private (us) to state, or into academia.

Then when the company was due to be closed, we were hit with a VAT bill for all the equipment the company had “bought” with the “investment/revenue” from 'day one' which had to be paid off - bare in mind under investment it should have been a write off but under the revenue it was treated as an asset of the company based on its revenues and re-deployed so had to be paid - it was based on liquidating assets of the company - code, hardware etc at a massive premium to any potential resale value - (the final f**k you from the revenue department).

That gives you an indication of how to take the next step in this statement - for we were not dealing with lemons but initially an ambassador of Thailand to the UN (and their team) back then, and then BOI leadership after and the head of revenue for the Region.

damn thats a crazy story.

Now the next part…

I am still a director of the overseas company mainly non-managing director but passive - it’s day to day is either automated or managed by others.

From its early years some 70+ staff in the STEM field so you can imagine the outlays, to today where most roles are automated by multi-agents or agents coding agents etc

So when these new rules came in having been fucked previously with the visa emigrated to elite I immediately addressed the concerns with the revenue department who assured me the following

- director/investor/shareholder is not bringing the company onshore by residing in Thailand over 180 days and as long as there are no touch points with Thailand for revenues/income

- director/investor/shareholder is not liable in Thailand for % of corporate revenues as resident of Thailand over 180 days unless above has encroachments.

- director/investor/shareholder has no tax unless they remit dividends, income etc into Thailand earned after 2023 tax year

- director/investor/shareholder will have grandfathered rights if funds earned before 2023 to remit income after 2024 tax year starts as long as savings

The rest is all very public.

But based on the initial blurb above take it as a pinch of salt

 

[scooterguy]

how did you get cash into your own local bank again? - thats the point they will use to hang you.

He sold crypto. Capital gains was like 500 baht, so no tax due.

I think the loophole is interesting. No need to deposit the money into the bank either, just keep it as cash.

Eventually Thailand will need standard worldwide tax, because a remittance system is open to all sorts of loopholes.

Also, the tax on remittance is only on money earned while you were a resident of Thailand. So, let's say that during 2024 you travel around and only spend 5 months in Thailand, in 2025 and 2026 you can bring into Thailand as much as you want from 2024, completely tax-free.

 

[Buttout]

then the year after, ongoing, marriage visa. Neither of these visas give permission to work

Btw, a non-o visa based on marriage DOES allow the holder to work in Thailand. On this visa you would only need a work permit to be arranged by an employer if you wanted to work. The employer wouldn't need to arrange a new B visa.

 

[drpreobrazhensky]

how did you get cash into your own local bank again? - thats the point they will use to hang you.

The remittance law is for money coming in from abroad.

It seems to be the case that if you deposit cash into a bank from within the country, nobody really asks questions about where it came from.

Generally speaking the people here have neither the resources nor inclination to do any Western-level meddling, i.e. ascertaining source of funds on random foreigners for relatively small amounts.

I could be wrong though so if somebody knows something different please share.

I think the loophole is interesting. No need to deposit the money into the bank either, just keep it as cash.

That's true.

And it would make the loophole pretty airtight at least for now.

While they do ask for ID at the crypto exchanges to claim your cash, it's just a formality as there's no record of the transaction nor any recording of any type.

They'll probably close that loophole eventually.

But honestly, after scanning to pay for literally everything for years (except of course in government offices and in the banks!) carrying and dealing with cash feels stone age.

 

[wellington]

It seems to be the case that if you deposit cash into a bank from within the country, nobody really asks questions about where it came from.

Transactions under 250k correct but auto SAR filing to AMOL for more than that.

Likewise inbound transactions sub 50k

AMOL likewise share data with revenue department

Used to be 2.5m

RE <- 5m
Auto - NA
Marine - NA

Gold 200

Note typically Thais distrust banks (Asian financial crisis) so banks were unusually frictionless up until around COVID when QR came in, basically allows the Gov to view bankers finances without a court order as it’s stored outside the bank, then there were all these scammers from China, Vietnam and gambling etc

And even Thais scamming Thais using fb marketplace etc

Since then banking has become a pain in the a*s.

For example - right now I have a loan repayment being repaid - as the person is out of the country - he can only transfer 50,000 THB a day out of his bank account until he does a face scan and increase to 200,000 / 2m in the bank when he next visits.

Likewise depositing funds you could deposit up to 100k or even 300k now 25k via CDMs which is fricking dangerous (think SMEs)

Withdrawals are like limited with some banks to a set amount I think 150,000 with Bangkok Bank, whereas before withdrawing 500k at the ATM was the norm.

You used to be able to just walk in and withdraw millions - now you need to get an appointment.

It’s actually opening up underground banking or pushing Thais out of the banking system and firmly into Gold etc

 

[Mercury]

While they do ask for ID at the crypto exchanges to claim your cash, it's just a formality as there's no record of the transaction nor any recording of any type.

In fact, all legal crypto exchanges and money changers keep track record of IDs (online KYC docs or photocopy of ID card/passport).
The only real potential issue in Thailand remains the same: audits and law enforcement. For now, it's close to none.

 

[scooterguy]

But honestly, after scanning to pay for literally everything for years (except of course in government offices and in the banks!) carrying and dealing with cash feels stone age.

Not paying 55% tax is also stone age in the most developed countries of the world. Beware of certain advances and what you wish for...

 

[wellington]

Not paying 55% tax is also stone age in the most developed countries of the world. Beware of certain advances and what you wish for...

Cash is important because it’s “physical” - we’ve all witnessed 2m people debanked in the UK or UK citizens but non-residents.

Likewise EU de-banking British Residents.

That results in essentially seizures/freezes and a long process to obtain funds (usually in cheque - that can’t be cashed without a domestic bank).

We’ve seen the weaponization of the banking system and seizure of state balances and now potentially the forfeiture of state assets and distribution, but not just the state - wealthy individuals - that in some cases merely have influence but not enough influence - Chelsea’s old owner for example.

We’ve all seen de platforming and de banking for people that don’t go along with centralized ideologies

Digital was great but now if it’s non-custodial or physical it is at risk of the same outcome.

The old saying - they came for them and I said nothing, they came for those and I said nothing, then they came for me… and no one was there to say anything.

We are on the cusp of the point of no return on Orwellian’sm

 

[scooterguy]

Cash is important because it’s “physical” - we’ve all witnessed 2m people debanked in the UK or UK citizens but non-residents.

Likewise EU de-banking British Residents.

That results in essentially seizures/freezes and a long process to obtain funds (usually in cheque - that can’t be cashed without a domestic bank).

We’ve seen the weaponization of the banking system and seizure of state balances and now potentially the forfeiture of state assets and distribution, but not just the state - wealthy individuals - that in some cases merely have influence but not enough influence - Chelsea’s old owner for example.

We’ve all seen de platforming and de banking for people that don’t go along with centralized ideologies

Digital was great but now if it’s non-custodial or physical it is at risk of the same outcome.

The old saying - they came for them and I said nothing, they came for those and I said nothing, then they came for me… and no one was there to say anything.

We are on the cusp of the point of no return on Orwellian’sm

Yeah digital payments are great but I try to use cash as well, help delay its eventual demise.

Governments and banks with full control are never a good thing, no matter how benign a government may seem at a particular point in time. Things can change, dictatorships can happen...

At least we have crypto now which has been the solution in some of the most corrupt countries of the world.