In the e-mail sent to me on 27 June 2017, the tax authorities informed me that the imposition of a 'remittance base' as referred to in Article 27 of the treaty between the Netherlands and Thailand is 'legally incorrect' and that the tax authorities no longer apply this criterion. handles.
I am informed that 'it can be removed on written request'. The 'remittance base' is part of my four questions to the tax authorities.
I have read here that a number of people reading and writing here with an income from the Netherlands have had that system imposed on them. They can write a letter to 'Heerlen' and request a revision. Only when the decision has been revised in this sense can the pension provider take it into account and the pension can be paid to a bank account outside Thailand as desired.
Although I am prohibited from 'posting' the e-mail addressed to me in a blog, I consider this part of the e-mail to be of such importance to people living in Thailand with Dutch income that I am abbreviating part of the message here.
The other content of the e-mail containing the most important element, whether or not to submit a document from the Thai tax authorities, is being studied. I will keep that e-mail with me until I have been able to consult with colleagues and a lawyer.
Can the tax authorities then prohibit the publication of e-mails, apart from, for example, the name of the sender?
I can imagine something like this with settlements, that you agree that it will remain “between us”.
But not with general information.
Ruud, I will go after that with a lawyer. My questions were about 'policy' and that should be public.
If it concerns a specific taxpayer, an agreement, a ruling, secrecy is normal.
But 'text' can be copyrighted. That is why I am reticent and mainly choose my own words in this article. I will certainly not divulge my name and e-mail if asked so emphatically.
The case is with a fellow adviser and a lawyer. So please wait for the other topics.
That is good news because it means that you can simply have your money flows / income deposited into a bank account in the Netherlands and can therefore decide for yourself when you transfer it to Thailand, for example if the baht exchange rate is favourable.
Dear Erik,
Thank you for your information. I recommend for more.
No they can't. Of course they are always allowed to ask questions, but they are not allowed to impose it in the sense of a prohibition unless there is personal information that can cause damage if it is made public. So you can share the contents of that letter, but without mentioning the name, telephone number or other personal details of the official involved. Whether or not you share your own personal information is entirely up to you and certainly not at the discretion of a tax official.
Thank you Erik and with this you have taken the next step towards the fact that only the residential principle requirement of the agreement remains!
Aad, that is too much credit because I have not done more than ask the Service.
But what remains is the question whether the Service has - or would have - approached the people involved in Thailand with 'change of opinion' and 'apologies for this' and 'we will solve this for you'. I've asked a few people about this and they haven't heard anything from the Service.
Eric, thank you.
You have already helped me once and thanks to your knowledge and perseverance, more Dutch people will now be happy with this first result.
I received approval after objecting to the provision of supporting documents from the Thai tax authorities.
Most importantly, refer to Thai law. Anyone who is in Thailand for more than 180 days is a “Taxable Person” under Thai law.
(Recently the law article in question appeared here in this blog).
“Subject to tax”. That's all the treaty requires.
And with that, the Tax and Customs Administration rightly tacked. And I received the exemption as it should be.
Joop, was this correspondence before or after 1-1-2017?
Erik, I explained that the treaty is about “in which treaty country you are subject to tax” and that according to the treaty you are then “resident of that state” in that country.
Enclosed copies of the Thai law and my passport and told them that they can see from the “In and Out Stamps” that I am in Thailand for more than 180 days per calendar year.
And then I am “subject to tax” in Thailand according to Thai law.
That's all the treaty requires.
As mentioned, approval followed.
Erik,
Good message. Do you also know why it is “legally incorrect”? Has the Tax and Customs Administration also given a motivation and is it a provisional position that they are working on to get back the remittance base they want?
Rembrandt,
The Supreme Court has ruled in a ruling (from memory: in 1977) that 'remittance base' may not be imposed if an income component in the treaty is allocated EXCLUSIVELY for taxation to the country of residence. The paying country must then withdraw. Or you should arrange this in the treaty, as Norway has done, and perhaps other countries.
The method that Norway has arranged with Thailand can be found in the tax file in this blog, questions 6 to 9. Norway only has to provide a reduction or refund of tax if you demonstrate with a letter from the Thai Service which part of the Norwegian pension you have declared in Thailand.
This provision is not included in the treaty between NL and TH. NL was in consultation with TH about the existing ancient treaty from 1975 when the coup came and now the matter has come to a standstill.
Dear Erik,
Thank you for your very helpful message. It is a shame that the tax authorities try to impose secrecy on you, while they are not authorized to do so in such a case. The tax authorities often try to apply that “joke” and it would be good if they got a firm slap on the wrist for this.
Now to break down the completely misplaced wall of requiring that you can demonstrate that you pay tax in Thailand and then we are back in the old situation where we want to be.
Kind regards, Joost (tax specialist)
PS: I would not count on the tax authorities to approach those involved on their own with their “improved” insight and those people should not expect an apology either.
Dear Erik,
Also from this place: thank you for your efforts. So far nothing has been heard from Heerlen about this. And that is why I certainly intend to take the initiative to adjust my decision myself. “Unfortunately” the extra costs of this tax balloon turn out to be lower than I initially expected, because otherwise I would have even filed a claim for damages.
Well, I seem to remember that in a previous contribution you issued a future expectation about the NL-TH tax relationship. If I'm interpreting it correctly (correct me if I'm wrong), then your expectation was that this remittance is only about a rearguard action and that we will go to a Norwegian model in the future.
Now I read from your answers above that the negotiations on a new treaty have been at a standstill since 2014 because of the coup. What does this mean for the completion of the new treaty? Suppose we have an elected government in TH next year, when might we have to deal with a new tax treaty?
Richard J, I too do not know what the future holds and a new treaty in which ALL pensions are allocated to the paying country for taxation is also possible. Also seems easier for the tax authorities to check.
I don't know when the countries will sit 'at the table' and how long that will take, but bureaucratic mills don't turn that fast, as you know.
So why don't we all pay taxes in Thailand soon? So that Thailand has a reason to stick to the internationally accepted country of residence principle?