Category: Legal Updates

on by

Corporate Income Tax Exemption for Investment in Large Commercial Electric Vehicles in Thailand

On 9 September 2025, the Royal Gazette published the Royal Decree issued under the Revenue Code regarding the Corporate Income Tax Exemption for Income (No. 798) B.E. 2568 (2025) (“Royal Decree No. 798”), introducing a new corporate income tax (“CIT”) incentive to encourage investment in large commercial electric vehicles (“Large EVs”).

This incentive forms part of Thailand’s broader policy to accelerate the transition to zero-emission transportation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the commercial transport sector, and strengthen the domestic electric vehicle ecosystem. The incentive took effect on 10 September 2025.

Under this scheme, companies and juristic partnerships (“Eligible Taxpayers”) may claim additional CIT deductions (in addition to normal depreciation) for investments in qualifying Large EVs, subject to compliance with all statutory, technical, and procedural requirements.

Key Legal Framework

The incentive is implemented under the following key regulations:

  • Royal Decree No. 798, which establishes the overall framework for the tax incentive; and
  • Notification of the Director-General of the Revenue Department on Income Tax (No. 464) B.E. 2568 (2025) (“Notification of the Director-General No. 464”), which prescribes detailed eligibility conditions, deduction rates, and procedural requirements.

The principal eligibility requirements and applicable tax benefits under these regulations are summarized below.

Eligibility Requirements for the CIT Incentive

Eligible Taxpayers may claim additional CIT deductions for investments in Large EVs only where all of the following conditions are satisfied.

1. Qualifying Investment Period

The investment must be incurred during the period from 27 March 2025 to 31 December 2025.

2. Qualifying Large EVs

The investment must relate to Large EVs that meet all of the following requirements.

(a) Vehicle Type

  • Electric passenger vehicles, duly registered under the Motor Vehicle Act B.E. 2522 (1979) (“Motor Vehicle Act”), and operated for passenger transport in accordance with the standards prescribed under the Land Transport Act B.E. 2522 (1979) (“Land Transport Act”), including:
    • standard 1 (special air-conditioned buses),
    • standard 2 (air-conditioned buses),
    • standard 3 (non-air-conditioned buses),
    • standard 4 (double-decker buses),
    • standard 6 (semi-trailer buses), and
    • standard 7 (special-purpose passenger buses).
  • Electric trucks, duly registered under the Motor Vehicle Act, and operated for the transport of animals or goods in accordance with the characteristics prescribed under the Land Transport Act, including:
    • type 1 (pickup trucks),
    • type 2 (van trucks),
    • type 3 (tanker trucks),
    • type 4 (hazardous material trucks),
    • type 5 (special-purpose trucks), and
    • type 9 (tractor trucks).

(b) Asset Conditions

  • The vehicles must be new and unused;
  • Eligible for depreciation or amortization for tax purposes; and
  • Acquired and ready for use by 31 December 2025.

(c) No Overlapping Tax Incentives

  • The vehicles must not receive tax benefits under other laws; and
  • Must not be used in businesses that enjoy CIT exemptions under the Investment Promotion Act B.E. 2520 (1977), the Competitiveness Enhancement for Targeted Industries Act B.E.2560 (2017), or the Eastern Economic Corridor Act B.E. 2561 (2018).

Applicable CIT Deduction Rate

Where all of the above eligibility requirements are met, Eligible Taxpayers may claim additional CIT deductions calculated as follows:

  • 100% of the actual cost for Large EVs manufactured or assembled in Thailand, or
  • 50% of the actual cost for imported Large EVs.

Key Benefits and Limitations

Benefits

  • Meaningful tax savings, particularly for domestically manufactured or assembled Large EVs;
  • Reduced after-tax investment costs, improving project feasibility and capital efficiency; and
  • Alignment with ESG and sustainability objectives, which are increasingly important in corporate decision-making.

Limitations

  • A limited investment window, requiring timely procurement and deployment;
  • Strict eligibility and documentation requirements, with potential tax clawback risks; and
  • Incompatibility with other CIT incentive regimes, limiting flexibility for BOI-promoted or EEC-based businesses.

Conclusion

The Large EV CIT incentive is a targeted tax measure introduced to support Thailand’s transition to zero-emission commercial transportation while encouraging investment in large commercial electric vehicles. Under Royal Decree No. 798 and Notification of the Director-General No. 464, Eligible Taxpayers may claim additional CIT deductions for investments in qualifying Large EVs made within the prescribed investment period, subject to compliance with all eligibility and procedural requirements.

The incentive provides enhanced deductions of up to 100% of the investment cost for domestically manufactured or assembled Large EVs and 50% for imported vehicles. However, the benefit is subject to strict conditions, including vehicle type and usage requirements, asset characteristics, the prohibition of overlapping tax incentives, and compliance with documentation obligations. Accordingly, careful planning and coordination among tax, legal, and operational teams are essential to secure the incentive and avoid potential tax adjustments.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Legal Update: Recent Revisions to the United States–Thailand Joint Statement on Reciprocal Trade

The Joint Statement on the Framework for the United States–Thailand Agreement on Reciprocal Trade (the “Joint Statement“) has been revised in certain non-material respects, as proposed by the Ministry of Commerce of Thailand. Such revisions were made pursuant to authority previously granted by the Cabinet and do not alter the core principles approved at the policy level.

Cabinet Approval and Delegated Authority

The Cabinet of Thailand (the “Cabinet“) initially approved the Joint Statement on 1 August 2025 (B.E. 2568). Concurrently, the Cabinet delegated authority to the Ministry of Commerce to make revisions to non-essential provisions of the Joint Statement, provided that such revisions remain consistent with the principles approved by the Cabinet. The Ministry of Commerce was further required to subsequently report such revisions to the Cabinet, together with the rationale for and benefits arising from them.

Modifications Proposed by the United States

Following further discussions, the United States proposed several revisions to both the substance and wording of the Joint Statement to more accurately reflect prevailing factual circumstances and the current status of implementation. The key modifications are summarized below:

  • The reciprocal trade tariff, which had not previously been specified, was fixed at a rate of 19 percent.
  • The Joint Statement was revised to include a reference to Annex III of Executive Order No. 14346, dated 5 September 2025 (B.E. 2568), entitled “Potential Tariff Adjustments for Aligned Partners.” This annex addresses the identification of categories of goods that may be eligible for tariff exemptions for trading partners that successfully conclude negotiations with the United States. The inclusion of this reference enhances legal clarity, as the original text did not expressly refer to the relevant executive order.
  • Provisions relating to rules of origin were removed. This issue remains under consideration by the United States, and no definitive policy or implementation framework has yet been finalized.
  • Certain wording in the Joint Statement was refined to more accurately reflect the status and progression of negotiations between Thailand and the United States.

Thailand’s Representation and Formalization of the Joint Statement

The Prime Minister of Thailand appointed the Deputy Prime Minister as the representative of the Thai Government to engage in discussions with the United States regarding the Joint Statement through a conference meeting. During these discussions, Thailand formally confirmed the revised Joint Statement.

Subsequently, the United States publicly released the Joint Statement on the White House website during the 47th ASEAN Summit held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on 26 October 2025, which was attended by the President of the United States.

Consideration by the Ministry of Commerce

The Ministry of Commerce concluded that the revisions proposed by the United States constituted non-material adjustments to the Joint Statement. Such revisions were intended to enhance clarity and ensure consistency with prevailing factual circumstances and international practice and did not conflict with the principles previously approved by the Cabinet.

Key Takeaways

Thailand is expected to derive substantial benefits from the reduction of the reciprocal tariff from 36 percent to 19 percent, particularly in light of Thailand’s export value to the United States, which exceeds USD 56 billion.

The reciprocal tariff rate was fixed at 19 percent, a level broadly comparable to those applied to other ASEAN countries.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Strengthening Control over Illegal Foreign Employment in Thailand

Current Situation

Thailand continues to face significant challenges related to illegal migration and the unauthorized employment of foreign nationals. A substantial number of foreign nationals are estimated to have entered or remained in the Kingdom without valid immigration status or lawful work authorization, particularly in border areas. This situation raises serious concerns regarding national security, labor market integrity, and the protection of Thai workers’ rights.

In response, the Thai Government has reaffirmed its commitment to strict enforcement against illegal foreign employment. Relevant security agencies have been instructed to coordinate closely with provincial employment offices, especially in border provinces, to enhance surveillance, inspections, and preventive measures. Authorities have also been directed to conduct rigorous workplace inspections to ensure full compliance with applicable labor laws.

Legal Framework Governing Foreign Employment in Thailand

Under Thai law, foreign nationals must hold a valid work permit and perform only the work expressly authorized under that permit. Any violation of these requirements exposes both foreign workers and employers to significant legal penalties.

Liability of Foreign Workers

A foreign national who works in Thailand without a valid work permit, or who performs work beyond the permitted scope, is subject to:

  • A fine of THB 5,000 to THB 50,000;
  • Deportation to the country of origin; and
  • A two-year prohibition on applying for a new work permit from the date of punishment.

Liability of Employers and Business Owners

Employers or business owners who employ foreign nationals without a valid work permit, or permit foreign workers to perform work outside the permitted scope, shall be subject to:

  • A fine of THB 10,000 to THB 100,000 per foreign worker.

Enhanced Penalties for Repeat Offenses

In the event of repeat violations by employers, enhanced penalties apply, including:

  • Imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; or
  • A fine of THB 50,000 to THB 200,000 per foreign worker; or
  • Both imprisonment and fine; and
  • A three-year prohibition on employing foreign workers.

Potential Impacts

Increased Legal Exposure for Foreign Nationals: Stricter inspections are likely to result in increased enforcement actions, including fines, deportation, and a two-year prohibition on obtaining a new work permit.

Heightened Compliance Obligations for Employers: Employers face greater legal and financial exposure, as fines are imposed on a per-worker basis, and repeat offenses may result in imprisonment, increased fines, and a three-year ban on employing foreign nationals.

Market and Workforce Implications: Industries that rely heavily on migrant labor may experience short-term labor shortages and higher compliance-related costs.

Strengthened Regulatory Enforcement and National Security: Enhanced coordination between security agencies and employment authorities is expected to improve enforcement efficiency, deter illegal employment, and promote standardized employment practices aimed at protecting Thai workers’ rights.

Conclusion

These measures are expected to strengthen the prevention and suppression of illegal foreign employment and promote greater legal compliance among employers. In the short term, businesses that rely heavily on foreign labor may face operational challenges, including labor shortages and increased compliance costs. In the long term, however, these measures are intended to enhance the protection of Thai workers’ rights and establish standardized employment practices consistent with internationally recognized labor standards.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

White Collar Crime: Systematic Manipulation and Fraud in the Stock Case

A coordinated group of 42 individuals executed a sophisticated scheme to manipulate trading in shares of a listed company, causing significant losses to brokerage firms and eroding confidence in Thailand’s capital market. The Civil Court adjudicated the civil aspects under case numbers black F.11/2566 and red F.121/2568, concluding that the conduct amounted to joint fraud, operation as an unlawful association (analogous to a criminal syndicate), and market manipulation contrary to the Securities and Exchange Act B.E. 2535.

The group was structured into three subgroups: planners who devised the strategy, supporters who submitted buy orders via automated trading programs (BOT), and account holders who supplied login credentials (username and password) in exchange for a share of profits, typically allocated on a 70:30 basis. To obscure their involvement and circumvent regulatory reporting thresholds, the perpetrators employed Non-Voting Depository Receipts (NVDR)—a mechanism that allows foreign investors to hold economic exposure to Thai listed shares without direct ownership or voting rights—and dispersed orders simultaneously across multiple brokerage firms.

A decisive piece of evidence was the discovery that, despite the dispersal, all buy orders originated from the same IP address, demonstrating centralized control from a single computer or location. This technical linkage, combined with traceable financial flows showing profit-sharing transfers, established the concerted nature of the enterprise.

The scheme culminated on November 10, 2022, with the placement of At-The-Open (ATO) buy orders at 2.90 baht per share for approximately 1.532 billion shares, representing a value of more than 4.4 billion baht—over ten times the average daily trading volume in the preceding 30 days. These transactions utilized cash accounts, which permit settlement two business days later (T+2). When payment became due, the perpetrators deliberately defaulted, obliging the brokerage firms, acting as intermediaries, to cover the obligations to the clearing house in accordance with Stock Exchange of Thailand rules. The resulting aggregate loss to the brokerages reached approximately 4.5 billion baht.

The Anti-Money Laundering Office froze 36 related asset items valued at approximately 5.34 billion baht (including accrued interest) to prevent dissipation during legal proceedings.

The Civil Court divided the proceedings into three main categories:

•  Fraud: The court ordered restitution or compensation to 10–11 affected brokerage firms totaling approximately 4.5 billion baht and directed the forfeiture of approximately 1.5 billion shares to the state.

•  Unlawful association: Additional restitution of around 129 million baht to the brokerage firms.

•  Market manipulation: Civil penalties of approximately 226 million baht, payable to the state.

Separate criminal prosecutions remain ongoing, with indictments issued against multiple defendants and further investigative actions continuing as of early 2026.

Key Takeaways:

•  Deliberate exploitation of automated trading systems, deferred settlement rules, NVDR structures, and multi-brokerage order dispersal can inflict severe systemic damage on securities markets.

•  Unified technical indicators—such as a common IP address—and linked financial transactions remain essential in proving conspiracy notwithstanding attempts at concealment.

•  Effective inter-agency collaboration among investigative authorities, anti-money laundering offices, and market regulators is critical for asset preservation, victim compensation, and deterrence.

•  The incident underscores the necessity of heightened surveillance over high-volume automated orders, cross-brokerage patterns, proxy account usage, and NVDR transactions to protect market integrity and sustain investor confidence.

Related Article: White-Collar Crime: A Comprehensive Analysis of Characteristics, Investigation Techniques, and the Critical Role of Computer Forensics – The Legal Co., Ltd.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

U.S. Multinationals and the OECD Pillar Two Framework: The Side-by-Side Safe Harbor

For decades, large multinational enterprises (MNEs) have minimized their global tax burden by allocating profits to subsidiaries in low-tax jurisdictions—commonly referred to as tax havens—despite conducting their principal operations and maintaining headquarters elsewhere. This practice has posed significant challenges for both source and market jurisdictions seeking to effectively tax profits generated within their borders.

To address this issue, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) introduced the global minimum tax under Pillar Two as part of the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) 2.0 project. Pillar Two is designed to ensure that large MNEs are subject to a minimum effective tax rate of 15% in each jurisdiction where they operate. To date, more than 140 jurisdictions have committed in principle to adopt and implement this framework.

Recent developments demonstrate, however, that Pillar Two does not apply uniformly across all multinational groups. Following the January 5, 2026, OECD administrative guidance, multinational enterprises headquartered in the United States are now largely exempt from certain Pillar Two enforcement mechanisms through the Side-by-Side (SbS) Safe Harbor, significantly narrowing the scope and effectiveness of the global minimum tax.

Overview of the Pillar Two Framework

Under Pillar Two, when a subsidiary is subject to an effective tax rate below 15% in its operating jurisdiction, and that jurisdiction has not implemented a Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Tax (QDMTT), an additional “top-up tax” may be imposed by the jurisdiction of the Ultimate Parent Entity (UPE). The purpose of this top-up tax is to increase the overall effective tax rate on the subsidiary’s profits to the 15% minimum threshold.

Illustrative Example:

If a subsidiary located in Country A is taxed at an effective rate of 5%, the remaining 10% differential may be collected as a top-up tax by the jurisdiction in which the UPE is located, bringing the total effective rate to 15%.

The two primary mechanisms for collecting top-up taxes under Pillar Two are:

  1. Income Inclusion Rule (IIR): Allows the parent jurisdiction to impose top-up tax on low-taxed foreign income.
  2. Undertaxed Profits Rule (UTPR): Serves as a backstop mechanism, allowing other jurisdictions to collect top-up tax if the IIR is not applied. 

The U.S. Side-by-Side Safe Harbor

Although Pillar Two was designed as a globally coordinated tax framework, its implementation has diverged significantly in practice. On January 5, 2026, the OECD released administrative guidance establishing a Side-by-Side Safe Harbor, under which jurisdictions implementing Pillar Two will not impose IIR or UTPR top-up taxes on multinational groups headquartered in the United States.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury has articulated the rationale for this outcome based on several key policy considerations:

  1. Tax Sovereignty: The United States asserts its primary right to tax the worldwide income of U.S.-headquartered companies under its domestic tax system, including existing Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income (GILTI) provisions.
  2. Existing Domestic Minimum Tax Framework: The U.S. maintains that its current tax regime—including GILTI and domestic corporate taxation—already addresses the base erosion and profit-shifting concerns targeted by Pillar Two.
  3. Preservation of Tax Incentives: The safe harbor protects critical U.S. tax incentives, including research and development credits, which are viewed as essential for fostering domestic investment and innovation.

Scope of the Exemption

Under the SbS Safe Harbor, U.S.-headquartered MNE groups may elect to deem their top-up tax to be zero under both the IIR and UTPR across all worldwide operations, including foreign subsidiaries, joint ventures, and stateless entities. This election is available for fiscal years beginning on or after January 1, 2026.

Important Limitation: The SbS Safe Harbor does not exempt U.S. multinationals from Qualified Domestic Minimum Top-up Taxes (QDMTTs) imposed by foreign jurisdictions. Countries that have implemented QDMTTs retain the authority to collect minimum taxes on profits earned by U.S. companies within their borders.

As of the date of this analysis, the United States is the only jurisdiction formally recognized by the OECD as having a “Qualified SbS Regime” meeting the eligibility criteria set forth in the administrative guidance.

Implications of the Side-by-Side Safe Harbor

The establishment of the SbS Safe Harbor exempting U.S.-headquartered multinational groups from certain Pillar Two enforcement mechanisms gives rise to several significant implications:

1. Differential Application of the Global Minimum Tax

While Pillar Two remains in force across participating jurisdictions, it no longer applies uniformly to all multinational groups. The framework now operates on a bifurcated basis, with different rules applying to U.S.-parented versus non-U.S.-parented MNEs.

2. Limited Exposure for U.S.-Headquartered MNEs

U.S. multinationals are not subject to IIR or UTPR top-up taxes under Pillar Two, even where their effective tax rate in foreign jurisdictions falls below 15%. However, they remain subject to QDMTTs in jurisdictions that have enacted such measures.

3. Reduced Revenue Impact and Effectiveness

Given that a substantial number of the world’s largest MNEs are headquartered in the United States, the SbS Safe Harbor materially narrows the scope and potential revenue yield of the global minimum tax. The practical effectiveness of Pillar Two is consequently diminished relative to its original design.

4. Potential Competitive Imbalances

Non-U.S. multinational groups remain subject to the full application of Pillar Two, while U.S.-parented groups benefit from broad exemption from IIR and UTPR mechanisms. This asymmetry may create unequal competitive conditions in international markets and could influence investment and corporate structuring decisions.

5. Ongoing Monitoring and Review

The OECD has committed to conducting a comprehensive stocktake of the SbS system by 2029 to assess its impact on competitive balance, base erosion risks, and the broader integrity of the Pillar Two framework. This review may result in future modifications to the Side-by-Side arrangement.

Conclusion

The Pillar Two framework was conceived as a globally coordinated mechanism to establish a minimum effective tax rate of 15% and to curtail profit shifting to low-tax jurisdictions. The January 2026 administrative guidance introducing the Side-by-Side Safe Harbor demonstrates, however, that the framework is not applied consistently across all multinational groups in practice.

The exemption of U.S.-headquartered multinational enterprises from IIR and UTPR enforcement significantly limits the scope, revenue potential, and uniformity of the global minimum tax. As implemented, Pillar Two now functions as a partial rather than comprehensive mechanism of international tax coordination. While non-U.S. multinational groups remain exposed to potential top-up taxation under both the IIR and UTPR, U.S.-based groups continue to be governed primarily by U.S. domestic tax rules, resulting in differential treatment and potential competitive asymmetries in the international tax landscape.

The long-term implications of this bifurcated structure remain uncertain and will be subject to ongoing evaluation and potential adjustment as the OECD’s monitoring process unfolds through 2029.

Related Article: Advancing Thailand’s Legal and Regulatory Reform under the OECD Framework – The Legal Co., Ltd.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s New Import Duty Framework for Low-Value Goods: A Policy Shift Toward Competitive Neutrality

On 4 December 2025, the Thai Customs Department issued Customs Notification No. 219/2568 (2025), introducing significant reforms to Thailand’s import duty regime for low-value goods (LVGs). This measure eliminates the long-standing import duty exemption for LVGs as part of a broader policy initiative to address competitive imbalances between imported and domestically supplied goods and to restore tax neutrality in the Thai market. The Notification took effect on 1 January 2026 and remains in force until superseded by subsequent regulation.

Legal Background: Evolution of Import Duty Rules for LVGs

Historically, LVGs were exempt from import duty under Customs Notification No. 191/2561 (2018), which granted duty-free treatment for imported goods with a customs value not exceeding THB 1,500. This exemption was originally designed to reduce administrative burdens associated with customs clearance of small-value shipments.

However, the rapid expansion of cross-border e-commerce has resulted in LVGs being imported into Thailand on a substantial commercial scale, often in direct competition with domestically supplied goods. Over time, the exemption increasingly deviated from its original administrative rationale and raised concerns regarding fair competition and unequal tax treatment.

This measure was expressly temporary and applied only until 31 December 2024, after which the exemption regime reverted to the framework established under Notification No. 191/2561 (2018).

To establish a more sustainable policy framework, the Customs Department subsequently issued Customs Notification No. 219/2568 (2025), which formally repealed Customs Notification No. 191/2561 (2018). Consequently, the previous import duty exemption for LVGs has been fully revoked and is no longer in effect.

Current Import Duty Framework for LVGs

Under Customs Notification No. 219/2568 (2025), the following provisions now apply:

  • Imported goods with a customs value of less than THB 1 remain exempt from import duty.
  • Imported goods with a customs value of THB 1 or more are subject to import duty in accordance with the applicable tariff classification under Thailand’s customs tariff schedule.

Anticipated Benefits

  • Enhanced competitive equity: Domestic businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), benefit from more equitable market conditions, as imported goods are now subject to import duty treatment comparable to locally supplied goods.
  • Improved tax neutrality: The revised framework reduces disparities in tax treatment between imported and domestically supplied goods, promoting a more level playing field.
  • Strengthened customs enforcement: These changes enhance customs oversight of large-scale commercial imports previously classified as low-value shipments, improving revenue collection and trade compliance.

Potential Challenges

  • Increased costs for cross-border sellers and consumers: Goods previously imported duty-free may now incur import duties, resulting in higher overall costs for end consumers and cross-border merchants.
  • Enhanced compliance obligations: Overseas sellers and e-commerce platforms face additional customs formalities and documentation requirements, potentially increasing operational complexity.
  • Administrative burden: The shift may require significant adjustments to existing logistics and compliance infrastructure.
  • Practical and Operational Implications
  • Pricing adjustments: Importers, logistics providers, and e-commerce platforms should revise their pricing structures to reflect increased exposure to import duties and maintain competitive positioning.
  • Process and system updates: Customs declarations, tariff classifications, and internal compliance systems require comprehensive review and updates to ensure alignment with the new regulatory framework.
  • Transitional considerations: Market participants may experience temporary operational adjustments and should implement appropriate change management procedures to facilitate smooth adaptation to the new regime.

Future Policy Considerations

In addition to the revised import duty framework, the Customs Department has indicated interest in simplifying the import duty structure for LVGs through the application of a single, uniform duty rate rather than multiple rates determined by product tariff classification. From a policy perspective, preliminary discussions suggest that collecting import duties on LVGs at an average rate of approximately 10% may be insufficient to achieve meaningful competitive balance. A higher rate—potentially in the range of 30%—has been discussed as more likely to establish parity between domestic and foreign businesses.

However, under the current caretaker government, the Customs Department lacks the authority to issue emergency decrees to amend the customs tariff schedule. Consequently, any modifications to duty rates or tariff structures will require legislative action following the formation of a new government.

Conclusion

The new import duty framework for low-value goods represents Thailand’s strategic policy response to the rapid growth of cross-border e-commerce and reflects a clear commitment to competitive fairness and tax neutrality. While these changes may result in increased costs and compliance obligations for certain overseas sellers and importers, they also strengthen customs enforcement capabilities and create more equitable conditions for domestic businesses.

Businesses engaged in importing goods into Thailand should conduct comprehensive reviews of their pricing strategies, customs classifications, and logistics and compliance processes to ensure ongoing adherence to the new regulatory framework. Early preparation and proactive adaptation will be essential to maintaining operational efficiency and market competitiveness under the revised regime.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand Issues Key Top-Up Tax Guidance: Exchange Rates, Exempt Entities, and Special Cases

Thailand enacted the Emergency Decree on Top-Up Tax B.E. 2567 (2024) (the “Emergency Decree“), which applies to large multinational enterprises (MNEs) whose total consolidated revenue, as reported in the consolidated financial statements of the ultimate parent entity (UPE), equals or exceeds EUR 750 million (or the Thai Baht equivalent). This legislation subjects in-scope MNEs to a top-up tax at a 15% global minimum tax rate for accounting periods commencing on or after 1 January B.E. 2568 (2025).

To support the implementation of the Emergency Decree with clarity and ensure practical enforceability, the Director-General of the Revenue Department issued three items of secondary legislation (the “Notifications“). These Notifications were issued on 24 December B.E. 2568 (2025) and published in the Royal Gazette on 13 January B.E. 2569 (2026). The Notifications apply for purposes of determining top-up tax liability for accounting periods commencing on or after 1 January B.E. 2568 (2025).

Key Provisions of the Secondary Legislation

1. Notification of the Director-General of the Revenue Department on Top-Up Tax (No. 6): Exchange Rate Conversion Standards

The top-up tax calculation is based on the financial information of MNE groups, which generally conduct operations using foreign currencies as their principal currencies. Consequently, establishing clear and standardized exchange rate rules is essential for accurate top-up tax computation.

This Notification prescribes exchange rate criteria for converting foreign currency amounts into Thai Baht under the Emergency Decree, ensuring consistency and uniformity in top-up tax calculations. The key provisions include:

Conversion for Tax Calculation Purposes

When the law prescribes criteria or conditions requiring consideration of figures from financial statements or calculation of top-up tax for an entity or group of entities stated in foreign currency, and such amounts must be converted to Thai Baht for a particular accounting period, the conversion shall utilize the average rate between the buying rate and selling rate for the month of December preceding that accounting period, as calculated by the Bank of Thailand.

Payment and Refund of Top-Up Tax

Regardless of which foreign currency is used as the principal currency in the operations of an entity or its group entities, any payment or refund of top-up tax in Thailand shall be made exclusively in Thai Baht. The conversion shall be calculated using the average rate between the buying rate and selling rate of commercial banks, as calculated by the Bank of Thailand on the last business day preceding either the date of tax payment or the date on which the competent authority approves the tax refund, unless otherwise exempted.

2. Notification of the Director-General of the Revenue Department on Top-Up Tax (No. 7): Excluded Entity Characteristics

Pursuant to Section 26 of the Emergency Decree, constituent entities (CEs) located in Thailand that are members of an MNE group whose total consolidated revenue, as reported in the consolidated financial statements of the UPE, equals or exceeds EUR 750 million (or the Thai Baht equivalent) for at least two accounting periods within the four accounting periods prior to the current accounting period, are subject to top-up tax.

However, Section 27 provides that certain categories of CEs are exempt from being treated as CEs subject to top-up tax. These exemptions apply to:

  1. Government agencies
  2. International organizations
  3. Non-profit organizations
  4. Pension funds
  5. Investment funds that are UPEs
  6. Real estate investment vehicles that are UPEs
  7. Other entities as may be prescribed by Royal Decree

To prevent overly broad interpretation of these exemptions, this Notification clearly and specifically prescribes the characteristics and qualifications of each entity type that does not constitute a CE, thereby establishing which entities fall outside the scope of top-up tax liability.

3. Notification of the Director-General of the Revenue Department on Top-Up Tax (No. 8): Special Calculation Rules for Entities with Specific Characteristics

This Notification prescribes specific criteria, procedures, and conditions for determining top-up tax liability applicable to CEs with the following characteristics:

  1. Constituent entities in which the UPE holds a minority interest
  2. Stateless constituent entities
  3. Investment entities, including insurance investment entities with liabilities arising from insurance contracts or life insurance annuity contracts

These entities possess legal forms, organizational structures, complex ownership structures, or operational modes that are distinct from other CEs, rendering the general rules under the Emergency Decree inappropriate for direct application. Accordingly, this Notification clearly prescribes specific methodologies and conditions for determining:

  • The scope of income
  • The aggregation of income
  • The allocation of profits or losses
  • Calculation methodologies

These provisions ensure that top-up tax collection is conducted accurately and fairly, properly reflecting the effective tax rate (ETR).

Separate Calculation Requirement

The calculation of ETR and top-up tax for CEs with these specific characteristics shall be conducted separately from other CEs within the MNE group. Furthermore, in certain cases, items and amounts included in the computation of ETR and top-up tax for entities with specific characteristics shall not be included in the computation of ETR and top-up tax for other CEs within the MNE group.

Legal Status and Hierarchy

These Notifications are issued pursuant to the authority granted under the Emergency Decree. They establish criteria and procedures for practical enforcement and support the implementation of the Emergency Decree. The Notifications apply consistently with the Emergency Decree, provided they do not conflict with other existing or future secondary legislation, such as Royal Decrees or Ministerial Regulations, which may be issued to prescribe further details in accordance with standards established by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Accordingly, stakeholders must continuously monitor further developments.

Key Considerations for Stakeholders

1. Application of Prescribed Exchange Rates

MNEs subject to top-up tax must apply the exchange rates prescribed under the relevant Notification when converting foreign currency amounts into Thai Baht to ensure uniform standards for tax computation. The amount of tax payable may vary based on prescribed exchange rates. However, such enterprises are afforded sufficient time to ascertain applicable criteria in advance of the accounting period commencement.

2. Documentation Requirements for Specific Constituent Entities

Constituent entities in which the UPE holds a minority interest, entities with complex ownership structures, stateless constituent entities, and investment entities whose ETR may not accurately reflect actual tax burdens must prepare comprehensive and detailed supporting documentation. Such information should include, but is not limited to:

  • Investment income details
  • Ownership and control structures
  • Asset management arrangements
  • Relevant financial statements

This documentation should support the assessment of whether top-up tax computation should be performed according to general rules or whether the application of specific rules, methodologies, or conditions prescribed by the relevant Notification is required.

Conclusion

The Emergency Decree has been designed to align with the OECD Global Anti-Base Erosion Rules. These Notifications are essential to demonstrate Thailand’s commitment to implementing top-up tax in accordance with OECD-prescribed standards while safeguarding Thailand’s rights and interests in top-up tax collection. Therefore, these Notifications should be considered and applied in conjunction with the Emergency Decree to enable CEs subject to top-up tax to calculate their obligations accurately and minimize interpretative gaps that could otherwise be exploited to avoid top-up tax liability.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s Proposed VAT Increase: Legal and Policy Overview

Thailand is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of its long-term fiscal policy in response to rising public expenditure, persistent budget deficits, and the imperative to secure sustainable government revenue. For fiscal year B.E. 2569 (2026), the Ministry of Finance is preparing a broader tax structure reform plan to be submitted to the incoming government. A key element under consideration is a potential adjustment to the Value Added Tax (VAT) rate.

Background of Thailand’s VAT System

Thailand’s current VAT framework originated as an economic relief measure. In B.E. 2542 (1999), the government issued the Royal Decree Issued under the Revenue Code on the Reduction of the Value Added Tax Rate (No. 353) B.E. 2542 (1999), reducing the VAT rate from the statutory rate of 10% to 7% (comprising 6.3% VAT and 0.7% local tax). This measure was introduced during the Asian financial crisis, commonly referred to in Thailand as the “Tom Yum Kung” crisis.

Although originally intended as a temporary measure, the reduced VAT rate of 7% has been continuously extended through successive Royal Decrees for more than two decades and has remained a core feature of Thailand’s VAT system.

In recent years, the Ministry of Finance has expressed concern that the continued application of the reduced VAT rate may prove inadequate to meet Thailand’s future fiscal obligations, including expenditures related to infrastructure development, social welfare programs, and public debt servicing. Additionally, Thailand’s VAT rate remains comparatively low relative to those of many other jurisdictions.

The Ministry of Finance’s Proposed VAT Plan

Based on current policy discussions, the Ministry of Finance is considering a phased adjustment of the VAT rate rather than an immediate increase. The indicative timeline under consideration includes:

  • An increase in the VAT rate from 7% to 8.5% by 2028; and
  • A further increase to 10% by 2030.

Support Measures for Vulnerable Groups

To mitigate the potential social impact of a VAT increase, the Ministry of Finance has indicated that a portion of the additional revenue would be allocated to support vulnerable groups and alleviate cost-of-living pressures. By way of illustration, if VAT revenue were to increase by THB 100 billion, approximately THB 20 billion could be allocated to supplementary benefits under the State Welfare Card scheme, with the remaining amount applied to other cost-of-living support measures. These initiatives are intended to cushion the impact on low-income households in the event that a VAT adjustment is implemented.

Impacted Stakeholders and Economic Sectors

Any adjustment to Thailand’s VAT rate would have wide-ranging implications across multiple stakeholder groups and economic sectors.

Consumers – VAT is a consumption tax that is generally passed on to end consumers through higher prices for goods and services. Households, particularly low-income and fixed-income groups, are likely to experience the immediate impact through increased living costs. While certain essential goods and services may be zero-rated or exempt, they could still be indirectly affected through higher input costs.

Businesses and Operators – VAT-registered businesses would face higher output VAT obligations, which may affect pricing strategies, cash flow management, and compliance costs. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), in particular, may experience greater pressure if competitive constraints prevent them from fully passing on increased VAT to customers. Certain sectors, such as retail, hospitality, logistics, and consumer services, are expected to be more sensitive to VAT changes due to price elasticity and consumer behavior.

Government and Public Finance – For the government, a VAT increase would strengthen revenue collection and reduce reliance on borrowing. According to policy discussions led by the Ministry of Finance, any adjustment would be accompanied by targeted support measures for vulnerable groups to mitigate social impacts and maintain economic stability.

Current Status

At present, no legislative amendment or binding decision has been enacted. The VAT rate remains at 7% under the Royal Decree Issued under the Revenue Code on the Reduction of the Value Added Tax Rate (No. 799) B.E. 2568 (2025), which extends the reduced VAT rate until 30 September B.E. 2569 (2026). Any adjustment to the VAT rate will be conditional upon prevailing economic conditions. Accordingly, all impacted stakeholders and economic sectors should closely monitor ongoing developments to ensure timely awareness and compliance with any changes.

Conclusion

Thailand’s potential VAT reform reflects broader efforts to strengthen fiscal sustainability and secure long-term public revenue. While the reduced VAT rate remains in force and no legislative amendment has yet been enacted, policy discussions indicate a possible phased increase over the medium to long term. Any adjustment will depend on economic conditions and is likely to be implemented alongside mitigating measures to address social and economic impacts. In this context, businesses, taxpayers, and other affected sectors should closely monitor regulatory developments and assess potential implications for pricing, compliance obligations, and overall cost structures should the proposed reform proceed.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Bank of Thailand Proposes Stricter Documentation Requirements for Inbound Foreign Exchange Transactions

In addition to the proposed increase in the foreign income repatriation threshold under the Bank of Thailand’s relaxations to foreign exchange regulations (as outlined in our previous article, Proposed Relaxations to Foreign Exchange Regulations), the Bank of Thailand (“BOT”) has proposed measures to strengthen regulatory oversight of inbound foreign exchange transactions. These measures aim to mitigate appreciation pressure on the Thai Baht, enhance transaction transparency, and prevent the inflow of funds inconsistent with their declared sources or otherwise undesirable.

The BOT has launched a public consultation on the Draft Notification on Rules and Procedures for Foreign Exchange Transactions (Draft Rules on Verification of Inbound Foreign Exchange Transactions). The consultation period runs from 30 December 2025 to 16 January 2026, with feedback informing the final regulatory framework.

Current Regulatory Framework

Under existing rules:

  • Foreign currency may be brought into Thailand without amount limitation for conversion into Thai Baht or deposit into a foreign currency deposit (“FCD”) account.
  • Transaction participants are required only to declare the source of funds.
  • No supporting documentary evidence is currently required.

Rationale for the Draft Rules

The proposed amendments are intended to:

  • Enhance scrutiny of inbound foreign exchange transactions and align inbound controls with outbound foreign exchange rules, under which purchases or transfers of foreign currency of USD 200,000 or more (or equivalent) are subject to documentary verification unless Know Your Business (“KYB”) procedures have been applied.
  • Increase transparency in foreign exchange transactions.
  • Prevent misrepresentation of fund sources and the use of inbound transactions for non-genuine or undesirable purposes.
  • Mitigate appreciation pressure on the Thai Baht by moderating demand arising from inbound foreign exchange transactions through enhanced verification and documentation requirements.

Key Features of the Draft Rules

While inbound foreign exchange transactions remain unrestricted in terms of amount, the Draft Rules propose stricter documentary verification requirements, differentiated by the type of licensed service provider.

1. Transactions Conducted Through Commercial Banks

A. Transactions of USD 200,000 or More (or equivalent)

Commercial banks are required to verify supporting documents corresponding to the declared source of funds on a transaction-by-transaction basis.

Exception: Documentary verification may be waived for routine transactions of business customers that are well known to the bank and subject to ongoing KYB and Customer Due Diligence (“CDD”) processes.

B. Certain High-Risk Inbound Transactions

For inbound transactions that may be used for non-business-related purposes or where the source of funds is unclear, commercial banks would be required to obtain supporting documentation on a transaction-by-transaction basis, even if the customer has already undergone KYC/KYB procedures. Such transactions include, but are not limited to:

  • Proceeds from the sale of real estate
  • Proceeds from the sale of digital assets
  • Capital inflows other than direct investment or securities investment
  • Other income sources that cannot be clearly identified

C. Digital Asset-Related Proceeds

Where foreign currency is derived from the sale of digital assets, banks must additionally obtain documents evidencing either:

  • The source of the digital assets, or
  • The source of funds used to acquire such digital assets.

2. Transactions Conducted Through Non-Bank Operators

A. Transactions of USD 200,000 or More (or equivalent)

Non-bank operators would be required to verify supporting documents corresponding to the declared source of funds for every transaction, without exception.

B. Digital Asset-Related Proceeds

Supporting documents evidencing the source of the digital assets or the funds used to acquire such assets must be obtained in all cases.

C. Inbound Cash Transactions Exceeding USD 15,000 (or equivalent)

Non-bank operators must obtain the customs declaration evidencing that the cash was declared to Thai Customs authorities upon entry into Thailand.

Potential Impacts

  • High-value transaction participants and business operators not subject to ongoing KYB processes, or whose transactions fall within categories requiring enhanced scrutiny, may face increased compliance burdens, particularly in preparing and submitting supporting documentation.
  • Commercial banks and non-bank operators will bear additional compliance and operational responsibilities in verifying documents and ensuring adherence to the enhanced regulatory standards.

Conclusion

The Draft Rules represent a clear move toward stricter verification of inbound foreign exchange transactions, particularly for high-value transfers and funds derived from digital assets or non-traditional sources. Although inbound transactions remain unrestricted in amount, documentation requirements will increase significantly. Market participants should review their transaction structures and supporting documentation in advance to ensure readiness once the rules are finalized.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles

on by

Thailand’s Top-up Tax Regime: Aligning Domestic Law with OECD Global Minimum Tax Standards

Overview of Thailand’s Top-up Tax Regime

Following the enactment of the Emergency Decree on Top-up Tax, B.E. 2567 (2024) (the “Emergency Decree“), Thailand has established a global minimum tax regime aligned with international tax reform initiatives. The Emergency Decree applies to large multinational enterprise groups (MNEs) with consolidated financial statement revenues of at least EUR 750 million (or the Thai Baht equivalent).

Under the Emergency Decree, in-scope MNEs are subject to a 15% global minimum effective tax rate on their profits through the imposition of a top-up tax. This mechanism ensures that profits are taxed at a minimum level, regardless of the jurisdiction in which they are earned. The Emergency Decree took effect for accounting periods commencing on or after 1 January B.E. 2568 (2025), marking a significant development in Thailand’s international tax framework and its alignment with the global minimum tax standards endorsed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

Draft Secondary Legislation

On 30 December B.E. 2568 (2025), the Cabinet approved in principle four draft items of secondary legislation (the “Draft Secondary Legislation“) issued pursuant to the Emergency Decree. The Draft Secondary Legislation sets out detailed rules governing the determination of multinational enterprise groups subject to the top-up tax and the adjustment of income, expenses, and covered taxes for calculating the top-up tax.

The Draft Secondary Legislation has been developed with reference to the Global Anti-Base Erosion (GloBE) Model Rules, the related Commentary, and the Administrative Guidance issued by the OECD. The four draft items of secondary legislation are as follows:

  1. Draft Royal Decree prescribing the criteria for determining the applicability of the top-up tax to multinational enterprise groups that have undergone organizational restructuring, B.E. ….;
  2. Draft Royal Decree prescribing entities that are not regarded as constituent entities, B.E. ….;
  3. Draft Ministerial Regulation No. .. (B.E. ….), issued pursuant to the Emergency Decree, concerning the allocation of residual top-up tax received by Thailand to constituent entities located in Thailand; and
  4. Draft Ministerial Regulation No. .. (B.E. ….), issued pursuant to the Emergency Decree, concerning adjustments to income, expenses, and covered taxes for calculating the top-up tax.

Applicable Stakeholders to the Emergency Decree and Draft Secondary Legislation

Scope of Application

The Emergency Decree, together with the Draft Secondary Legislation, applies to all constituent entities (CEs) located in Thailand that are members of an MNE group whose ultimate parent entity has consolidated revenues equal to or exceeding EUR 750 million (or the Thai Baht equivalent) in at least two of the four preceding fiscal years.

Organizational Restructuring

MNEs should plan in advance for organizational restructuring activities, including mergers and acquisitions, demergers, and intra-group transfers of assets, as such restructuring arrangements cannot be used to circumvent the top-up tax.

Investment Promotion Incentives

MNEs that have received investment promotion incentives from the Thailand Board of Investment (BOI) are exempt from corporate income tax (CIT); however, such incentives do not exempt them from the top-up tax. Where the effective tax rate falls below 15%, the relevant MNEs are required to pay top-up tax to reach the global minimum effective tax rate.

Tax Planning Requirements

Advance tax planning is essential. Where an MNE has CEs in Thailand, the effective tax rate of each CE should be carefully assessed. Even where the effective tax rate (ETR) exceeds 15% and no top-up tax is payable, GloBE information reporting obligations continue to apply. To ensure compliance with the OECD GloBE Rules, MNEs are advised to consult financial and tax advisors to maintain accurate accounting and tax information.

Reporting and Filing Obligations

All CEs in Thailand are required to electronically submit the following documents to the Thai Revenue Department within 15 months from the end of the relevant accounting period in which the top-up tax is assessed:

  • Notification reporting information relating to the MNE group, details of the constituent entity, and the jurisdiction in which it is located;
  • The GloBE Information Return; and
  • The top-up tax return, together with the payment of the corresponding tax.

Next Steps

The Draft Secondary Legislation issued pursuant to the Emergency Decree is currently undergoing the process for publication in the Royal Gazette. Once officially published, it will become enforceable as secondary legislation, marking the next stage in the implementation of Thailand’s top-up tax regime.

Conclusion

The Emergency Decree and the Draft Secondary Legislation ensure that Thailand’s top-up tax framework is fully aligned with the practices adopted by members of the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS). This approach is expected to significantly reduce base erosion and profit shifting by MNEs at both domestic and international levels while curbing competitive disparities in corporate income taxation. Moreover, it is anticipated to promote sustainable investment in Thailand, balancing fiscal sustainability with a competitive investment environment.

Related Article: Advancing Thailand’s Legal and Regulatory Reform under the OECD Framework – The Legal Co., Ltd.

Author: Panisa Suwanmatajarn, Managing Partner.

Other Articles