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

June 11, 2025

Amended Law Empowers Thailand’s Tax Court to Hear Criminal Tax Cases

Subscribe to Updates

Thailand’s tax dispute resolution framework has undergone a significant transformation with the enactment of the Act Establishing the Tax Court and the Procedure for Tax Cases (No. 3) B.E. 2568. Published in the Government Gazette on May 27, 2025, the amended act will come into force on November 24, 2025, which is 180 days after its publication. The amended act marks a pivotal shift in the jurisdiction and procedures of the Tax Court, most notably by empowering it to adjudicate certain criminal tax cases for the first time.

Background and Rationale

The Tax Court was originally established in 1985 as a specialized forum to handle complex tax disputes, including those related to revenue, customs, and excise taxes. The creation of the Tax Court recognized the need for judicial expertise in tax law, given its technical and specialized nature. The latest amendment is designed to address procedural inefficiencies, modernize court processes, and align Thailand’s tax litigation system with international standards. The reform demonstrates Thailand’s commitment to enhancing the efficiency, transparency, and fairness of its tax dispute resolution mechanisms.

Key Amendments and Provisions

Six of the key changes in the amendment are highlighted below.

  • Expansion of jurisdiction to criminal tax cases. The most significant change is the extension of the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to include criminal offenses under the Revenue Code, customs law, excise tax law, and other tax-related laws that may be specified by royal decree. New sections in the act explicitly grant the Tax Court authority to hear and decide criminal tax cases, so individuals and entities accused of criminal tax evasion or other tax-related crimes will now have their cases heard by judges with specialized tax expertise. The law also clarifies the Tax Court’s jurisdiction when a single act constitutes multiple offenses (some tax-related, some not) or when there are multiple related offenses. Cases that fall under the jurisdiction of the Juvenile and Family Court remain excluded from the Tax Court’s criminal jurisdiction.
  • Revised definition of “tax case.” The definition of a “tax case” has been streamlined to mean any case under the jurisdiction of the Tax Court, reflecting the court’s new authority to hear criminal matters.
  • Adaptation of procedural laws. The procedural framework for the Tax Court has been updated to accommodate criminal cases. Where the act or its regulations do not provide specific procedures, the Civil Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code, or the law on the establishment and procedure of khwaeng-level courts will apply as appropriate. This ensures that the Tax Court can effectively manage both civil and criminal tax cases using established legal standards.
  • Appeals process. Amendments to the appeals process clarify that appeals in criminal tax cases will follow the Criminal Procedure Code, while civil tax cases will continue under the Civil Procedure Code.
  • Procedure for nonappearance in noncriminal cases. For noncriminal tax cases, if a party is notified of a hearing but fails to appear, it is their responsibility to ascertain the next hearing date. Failure to do so will be deemed as having been informed of the proceedings.
  • Transitional provisions for pending criminal cases. Criminal tax cases already pending in other courts before the effective date of the amended act will continue in those courts until final judgment, ensuring continuity and preventing disruption of ongoing proceedings.

Procedural Regulations

To supplement the act, which lacks detailed procedural rules for conducting tax cases and managing evidence, the chief judge of the Central Tax Court (currently the only operational tax court in Thailand) will issue specific regulations. These regulations, requiring the approval of the chief justice of the Supreme Court, will define court procedures and the criteria for evidence admissibility and evaluation. According to information from the Central Tax Court, these regulations are currently being drafted and are undergoing internal discussion and debate.

Outlook

The primary objective of this legislative update is to consolidate the adjudication of criminal tax offenses within the specialized Tax Court system. By doing so, Thailand aims to leverage the expertise of tax judges for both civil and criminal tax disputes, promoting consistency, efficiency, and fairness in tax litigation. The other amendments are designed to ensure procedural coherence and a smooth transition to the new system.

With the enactment of this law, Thailand’s Tax Court will soon serve as the central forum for both civil and criminal tax cases, marking a significant step forward in the country’s legal and judicial landscape for tax matters. This reform is expected to enhance the quality and effectiveness of tax dispute resolution, benefiting taxpayers, legal practitioners, and the broader business community.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Tax

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 25, 2023
Michael Ramirez, a counsel in Tilleke & Gibbins’ dispute resolution department, has contributed an article to a series on contractual terms in Asia from the Asian Business Law Institute. Previous articles in the series have looked at administrative and tax requirements and contract breach and remedy under Thai law. The article gives an overview of how extracontractual liabilities are treated under Thai law. It addresses issues related to contract negotiations, no-reliance clauses, entire agreement clauses, and concurrent liability. ABLI, which is based in Singapore, conducts legal research and dissemination in order to provide knowledge, guidance, and recommendations surrounding development of legal systems in Asia. The full article on extracontractual liabilities is available as a PDF through the button below.
Read More
August 23, 2023
Introduction The idea of the metaverse rose to prominence in the public discourse in 2021, most notably when Facebook renamed itself Meta and announced a new focus on launching a virtual, immersive world. The initial excitement around the metaverse has since faded, with worsening economic conditions having a particularly acute effect on companies in the technology sector. When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg announced in March 2023 that artificial intelligence (AI) was the company’s “single largest investment,” many took this as a sign of the company shifting focus away from the metaverse. However, there remains significant interest in the metaverse from both businesses and consumers. Zuckerberg himself reaffirmed Meta’s focus on the metaverse, highlighting how developments in AI will improve virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) technology. Meanwhile, Roblox, a metaverse gaming platform, announced that in Q1 2023, its number of daily active users had increased to 66 million. Most recently, the announcement by Apple of its new ‘Vision Pro’ AR headset is reported to have renewed interest in the metaverse among developers. A particular area of interest in the developing metaverse is digital fashion and retail. In its Metaverse Fashion Trends Report 2022, Roblox found that nearly three in four users aged 14 to 24 spend money on digital fashion items. Roblox itself has partnered with fashion brands Burberry, Gucci, Tommy Hilfiger, and others, to offer experiences and items for use on the platform. In March 2023, Decentraland, a metaverse platform with a decentralized governance structure, hosted the Metaverse Fashion Week, featuring brands such as Adidas, Coach, and DKNY. As businesses continue to invest and look for opportunities to expand into the metaverse, whether through traditional e-commerce or more innovative digital asset offerings, it is important that they consider the ways in which new and existing laws apply
Read More
August 3, 2023
Tilleke & Gibbins’ insurance specialists in Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, and Thailand have contributed to the Law and Jurisdiction in Insurance and Reinsurance Contracts – Asia Pacific guide produced by RPC. The guide addresses how governing law, jurisdiction, and arbitration clauses are used in insurance and reinsurance contracts. For each jurisdiction in the Asia Pacific region, the guide addresses the following topics: Governing law; Arbitration; Mediation; and Limitations and time bars on claims. The Law and Jurisdiction in Insurance and Reinsurance Contracts – Asia Pacific guide is available below.
Read More
July 11, 2023
Can computer programs resolve legal disputes? For decades, the answer from much of the legal community has been no. However, developments in artificial intelligence (AI), and in particular natural language processing and machine learning, have led to renewed discussions of this possibility. Increasingly, tools are being developed to assist parties with litigation outcome prediction and judges with litigation outcome determination. However, while some argue that the use of AI in legal disputes can reduce the length of proceedings, cut costs, and improve access to justice, others raise concerns that “black box” AI systems could reduce transparency, entrench bias, and harm the development of the law. Litigation Outcome Prediction The use of computers to predict the outcome of legal cases is not new. As early as the 1980s, researchers developed outcome prediction tools, often in the form of decision-tree algorithms. However, developments in AI have allowed the creation of more sophisticated prediction models. In 2017, a model built by Katz et al. predicted US Supreme Court decisions with an accuracy of 70.2%, while in 2019, a model built by Medvedeva et al. predicted decisions of the European Court of Human Rights with an accuracy of 75%. In various studies, AI tools have been able to predict case outcomes more accurately than expert lawyers. Companies such as Solomonic and Lex Machina, owned by LexisNexis, now provide commercial litigation prediction and analytics tools. Outcome prediction tools can be used by parties and their legal representatives to craft arguments and facilitate settlement negotiations, or by third-party litigation financers to assess the risk of providing funding. More broadly, outcome prediction may be used by the likes of insurance companies to help calculate claim payouts. However, those using such tools must take care to ensure that they do not breach any professional or legal obligations.
Read More