You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

July 7, 2020

Thailand Moves to Apply VAT to Foreign Digital Services

TP News

The rise of global digital economies has introduced uncertainties and exposed many loopholes in our existing tax system, with the most significant issues being the difficulties in collecting tax from those conducting digital activities without a physical presence in a jurisdiction. Thailand has long considered reforming its traditional tax system to better cover the digital economy and digital transactions, believing that foreign companies engaged in the same transactions in Thailand as local companies should also pay tax to the country. This includes value added tax (VAT) on the provision of digital services.

At present, consumers in Thailand are already required to pay VAT when purchasing digital services from abroad. However, the mechanism to impose the VAT requires consumers to file a self-assessment VAT form, regardless of whether the consumer is a Thai VAT registrant or not. This results in a loophole in VAT collection since most consumers are individuals who are not aware of these VAT requirements. The Revenue Department (RD) of Thailand therefore plans to shift the VAT compliance duty to offshore service providers providing those digital services.

On June 10, 2020, the cabinet approved a proposed draft amendment to the Revenue Code, which is the main law governing VAT taxation. The draft bill revises VAT collection on foreign digital services by requiring foreign electronic service providers to register for VAT if they earn income from providing more than 1.8 million baht (approximately USD 57,900) worth of digital services to users in Thailand each year. The VAT registration and subsequent payments will be done online through the RD website. According to the draft bill, this will be a “pay-only” system, meaning that a foreign supplier will have to pay VAT (at the current rate of 7%) on digital services provided to non-VAT registrant consumers without offsetting an input tax. The foreign supplier will also be prohibited from issuing tax invoices to consumers. There is also a requirement for electronic platform operators to pay VAT on behalf of the service providers that provide digital services through the platform.

The proposed act applies to digital transactions including social media, hotel booking, and streaming media, while payment-processing systems appear to be outside the scope. This is expected to have significant impact on tech giants like Amazon, Apple, Google, Facebook, Netflix, and other large businesses that provide online goods or services, such as e-books, movies, music, and gaming.

The proposed draft still awaits parliamentary approval, after which it will have to be published in the Government Gazette and will finally take effect when the prescribed grace period (probably 180 days after publication) has lapsed.

In a related move, on June 3, 2020, Thailand signed the OECD’s Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. This will assist Thailand in collecting data on Thai-sourced revenue derived by foreign suppliers that do not have a presence in Thailand. It will also assist Thailand with VAT collection from non-compliant foreign suppliers by requiring countries that have adopted the convention to cooperate (upon request) in tax collection matters. Before entering into force for the country, Thailand must ratify the convention and will have to enact several necessary domestic laws, including a law on automatic exchange of information (now being drafted).

Foreign suppliers have raised concerns about the increased cost and complexity of compliance. For example, foreign suppliers will need to decide whether to absorb the additional 7% VAT as an operating cost or pass the charge on to consumers. Foreign suppliers may also need to revise their business models to involve more local VAT registrant distributors instead of interacting directly with non-VAT registrant consumers in order to avoid having to comply with the new VAT requirements.

The United States has recently announced investigations into foreign digital service taxes in the view that such tax regimes are burdensome and discriminatory against US-based tech firms and businesses. France, for example, which was one of the first countries to tax digital services, was threatened by the United States with higher tariffs, until France capitulated by deciding to postpone payment collection until 2021.

However, the planned VAT on digital services in Thailand has a significant difference from the digital services tax regimes adopted by some EU countries, which have aimed to impose “income tax” on digital service providers despite the fact that they had no clearly defined permanent establishment (PE) in the taxing country. These digital tax regimes negated the benefits of double taxation conventions on income tax by allowing source countries to impose income tax on foreign businesses without considering their PE. The VAT on digital services in Thailand, on the other hand, imposes a tax on consumption that is theoretically payable by consumers. It does not tax the income of foreign suppliers that do not have a PE in Thailand.

The new law, rather, will require foreign suppliers to assist the RD in VAT collection by requiring them to register for and pay VAT on digital service consumption. The foreign suppliers that are subject to the law will be able to design their own system for complying with the VAT collection, whether that entails charging VAT to consumers, absorbing the costs, or changing business models in some other way.

 

This article was first published by TP News on July 1, 2020, and is reproduced here with thanks.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one