Thailand

1115. Thailand can legally issue the following type of rulings within the scope of the transparency framework: preferential regimes.1

1116. For Thailand, past rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued either: (i) on or after 1 January 2016 but before 1 April 2018; or (ii) on or after 1 January 2014 but before 1 January 2016, provided they were still in effect as at 1 January 2016.

1117. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Thailand’s undertakings to identify past rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Thailand’s undertakings in this regard remain unchanged, and therefore continue to meet the minimum standard.

1118. For Thailand, future rulings are any tax rulings within scope that are issued on or after 1 April 2018.

1119. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Thailand’s undertakings to identify past rulings and all potential exchange jurisdictions were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. However, during the year in review, Thailand found that the database for future rulings issued in 2019 and 2020 might be incomplete due to a technical issue when migrating data from paper into the database. As Thailand is still taking action on this issue and in order to ensure that similar issues are not encountered in future, Thailand is recommended to strengthen its information gathering process identifying all future rulings within the scope of the transparency framework.

1120. In the prior years’ peer review reports, it was determined that Thailand’s review and supervision mechanism was sufficient to meet the minimum standard. As noted above, during the year in review, Thailand identified a technical issue with the database for future rulings issued in 2019 and 2020. As part of the efforts to strengthen the information gathering process, Thailand is therefore recommended to strengthen its review and supervision mechanism to ensure that the information gathering process is working effectively.

1121. Thailand has met all of the ToR for the information gathering process except for identifying all future rulings within the scope of the transparency framework (ToR I.A.1.2). Thailand is recommended to strengthen its information gathering process identifying all future rulings within the scope of the transparency framework and its review and supervision mechanism to ensure that the information gathering process is working effectively.

1122. In the prior year peer review report, it was determined that Thailand did not have the necessary domestic legal basis to exchange information spontaneously. Thailand notes that there is a legal impediment that prevents the spontaneous exchange of information on rulings as contemplated in the Action 5 minimum standard. In particular, Section 10 of the Revenue Code protects taxpayers’ information from disclosure to any other persons unless there is a power to do so under the law. As tax rulings concern the information of taxpayers, Thailand is prohibited to exchange them to treaty partners without requests.

1123. Thailand is in the process of implementing a new legal provision with respect to exchange of information to address this issue. This will involve an amendment to Section 10 of the Revenue Code. This Exchange of Information Bill is currently undergoing the legislative process and is expected to enter into force by 2021. Thailand is recommended to finalise the amendments to put the domestic legal basis in place to commence exchanges as soon as possible.

1124. Thailand has international agreements permitting spontaneous exchange of information, including bilateral agreements in force with 61 jurisdictions.2 Thailand signed the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol (OECD/Council of Europe, 2011[4]) (“the Convention”). Thailand is encouraged to continue its efforts to ratify the Convention and expand its international exchange of information instruments to be able to exchange information on rulings. It is noted, however, that jurisdictions are assessed on their compliance with the transparency framework in respect of the exchange of information network in effect for the year of the particular annual review.

1125. In the prior year peer review report, it was determined that Thailand’s process for the completion and exchange of templates were sufficient to meet the minimum standard. Although Thailand could not legally exchange the information, Thailand is preparing the templates to be in a position to complete the exchanges as soon as the legal basis is in force. However, Thailand notes that although the appropriate process for the completion and exchange of templates has been implemented, in practice, the Revenue Department lacked the appropriate resources to be able to complete all templates in accordance with the timelines under the transparency framework. Therefore, Thailand is recommended to ensure that all information on past and future rulings is exchanged as soon as possible after the legal basis is in force.

1126. For the year in review, the timeliness of exchanges is as follows:

1127. Thailand is recommended to finalise the amendments to put the domestic legal basis in place to commence exchanges and to ensure that all information on past and future rulings is exchanged as soon as possible (ToR II.B.1 and II.B.6).

1128. As there was no information on rulings exchanged by Thailand for the year in review, no statistics can be reported.

1129. Thailand offers an intellectual property regime (IP regime)3 that is not subject to the transparency requirements under the Action 5 Report (OECD, 2015[1]), because:

  • New entrants benefitting from the grandfathered IP regime: as this is a new IP regime rather than a grandfathered IP regime, transparency on new entrants is not relevant.

  • Third category of IP assets: not applicable as the regime does not allow the third category of IP assets to qualify for the benefits.

  • Taxpayers making use of the option to treat the nexus ratio as a rebuttable presumption: not applicable as the regime does not allow the nexus ratio to be treated as a rebuttable presumption.

References

[3] OECD (2021), BEPS Action 5 on Harmful Tax Practices - Terms of Reference and Methodology for the Conduct of the Peer Reviews of the Action 5 Transparency Framework, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/beps-action-5-harmful-tax-practices-peer-review-transparency-framework.pdf.

[1] OECD (2015), Countering Harmful Tax Practices More Effectively, Taking into Account Transparency and Substance, Action 5 - 2015 Final Report, OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Project, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264241190-en.

[2] OECD (ed.) (2017b), Harmful Tax Practices - 2017 Progress Report on Preferential Regimes, OECD Publishing, Paris, http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264283954-en.

[4] OECD/Council of Europe (2011), The Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters: Amended by the 2010 Protocol, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264115606-en.

Notes

← 1. With respect to the following preferential regimes: 1) International headquarters and treasury centre, 2) International trading centre and 3) International business centre.

← 2. Participating jurisdictions to the Convention are available here: www.oecd.org/tax/exchange-of-tax-information/convention-on-mutual-administrative-assistance-in-tax-matters.htm. Thailand also has bilateral agreements with Armenia, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hong Kong (China), Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Mauritius, Myanmar, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Russia, Seychelles, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei, Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States, Uzbekistan and Viet Nam.

← 3. International business centre.

Metadata, Legal and Rights

This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Extracts from publications may be subject to additional disclaimers, which are set out in the complete version of the publication, available at the link provided.

© OECD 2021

The use of this work, whether digital or print, is governed by the Terms and Conditions to be found at http://www.oecd.org/termsandconditions.