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

August 20, 2024

New Enforcement Procedures for Myanmar’s Tax Administration Law

Subscribe to Updates

Following the enactment of the Tax Administration Law (TAL), Myanmar’s Ministry of Planning and Finance has issued Notification No. 44/2024, which outlines directives and procedures for addressing violations of tax law provisions. These procedures, which came into force on June 13, 2024, primarily focus on three key areas: tax evasion, impeding tax administration, and failure to preserve secrecy.

The notification primarily aims to address tax evasion, impeding tax administration, and failure to preserve secrecy, classifying these offenses as either subject to arrest without warrant or not. Notably, tax evasion is classified as an offense subject to arrest without warrant, while impeding tax administration and failure to preserve secrecy are not. The notification also prescribed the forms for notifying taxpayers before taking any action.

Tax Evasion

Tax evasion refers to a taxpayer who willfully evades the assessment, payment, or collection of tax. Penalties for such offenses include fines of MMK 250,000 (approx. USD 120) or 100% of the evaded tax (whichever is greater), imprisonment for up to seven years, or both.

The enforcement process for tax evasion requires the chief officer of the township revenue department or an officer in charge (the tax authority) to assess the relevant documents and information provided by the taxpayer. If a taxpayer is found to be evading tax, the tax authority must send a notice in the prescribed form for verification within 15 days. Taxpayers may apply for a one-time extension of 15 days to submit requested documents and make disclosures. If the taxpayer cannot fulfill the requirements as instructed, the tax authority will seek approval from the director general of the Internal Revenue Department (IRD) for criminal proceedings as cognizable offences.

Impeding Tax Administration and Failure to Preserve Secrecy

Impeding tax administration refers to obstruction or attempted obstruction of taxation staff or officers from carrying out their duties. Such a person is guilty of an offense and is subject to a fine of MMK 250,000 (approx. USD 120), imprisonment for up to one year, or both.

The enforcement process for these offenses is similar to that for tax evasion. The tax authority will send a notice to the taxpayer regarding the impeding tax administration matters. If the taxpayer cannot fulfill the requirements within the specified time, the tax authority may extend the deadline once, provided certain criteria are met. If the taxpayer still cannot fulfill the requirements, the tax authority will seek approval from the director general of the IRD for criminal proceedings as noncognizable offenses.

Liable Parties in Civil and Criminal Proceedings

For civil lawsuits under the TAL, similar procedures by tax authorities are applicable. In these civil and criminal proceedings, taxpayers liable are:

  • Corporate Taxpayers
    • The company itself
    • For nonliquidated companies that have ceased operations: chairperson, managing director, members of the board of directors, general manager, or operator managing the company on its behalf
    • For liquidated companies: The shareholders of the company before company liquidation or shareholders at the time the cause of action arose while the company liquidated
  • Partnerships: Members of the partnership
  • Trusts: Trustees
  • Group Businesses (other than a company or partnership): Person responsible for the accounts on behalf of the group business
  • Citizens or Foreigners Living Abroad: The manager or person liable for the business in Myanmar
  • Representatives: All representatives if the taxpayer has two or more representatives
  • Deceased Taxpayers or Indebted Companies (if the indebted company’s property is seized): The administrator, agent, or trustee of the taxpayer’s property, or the person who continues or closes the business subject to tax
  • Mortgagees: In case of a business operation subject to tax for which mortgaged land or other assets are used

Key Takeaways

Businesses operating in Myanmar should take proactive steps to ensure compliance with the Tax Administration Law. Important actions include maintaining accurate and up-to-date financial records, implementing effective internal controls to prevent tax evasion, and ensuring all staff involved in tax matters are well informed about these new regulations. Companies should also be prepared to respond promptly to any notices from tax authorities and consider seeking professional legal and tax advice to navigate these complex requirements effectively. By staying informed and compliant, businesses can mitigate the risk of severe penalties and maintain good standing with Myanmar’s tax authorities.

Related Professionals

Practices

Dispute Resolution and Litigation

Tax

Location

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 20, 2026
As part of its membership in Lex Mundi, Tilleke & Gibbins has released the latest edition of its Guide to Doing Business in Thailand, providing an overview of the legal, regulatory, and commercial considerations for companies establishing or expanding operations in Thailand. The 2026 edition offers practical insight into the country’s business environment, investment framework, and operational requirements. The guide covers a wide range of topics relevant to foreign and domestic investors, including: Investment incentives and promotion schemes Financial facilities and banking regulations Exchange controls and money transfers Import and export regulations Business structures and incorporation options Requirements for establishing a business Operational and compliance considerations Business cessation and insolvency procedures Employment and labor laws Taxation Immigration and visa requirements Prepared by Tilleke & Gibbins lawyers across multiple practice areas, the publication outlines key aspects of doing business in Thailand, including foreign investment restrictions, regulatory compliance obligations, corporate structures, employment requirements, and recent legal and economic developments affecting investors. The publication forms part of Lex Mundi’s Country Guides series, a global collection of jurisdiction-specific reference materials prepared by member firms around the world. Together, these guides help companies evaluate opportunities, compare regulatory environments, and plan international business activities across multiple markets. The full Guide to Doing Business in Thailand 2026 is available through the button below.
Read More
August 19, 2026
Arbitration clauses and national court jurisdiction have long existed in a delicate equilibrium, and nowhere is that equilibrium tested more often than in the drafting of multitier dispute resolution clauses. Such clauses—requiring negotiation before arbitration—are ubiquitous in international construction contracts, and they frequently employ permissive vocabulary at the arbitration tier. The formulation “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration” is intended to signal that either side is entitled to initiate proceedings. Yet it is periodically seized upon by claimants who prefer national courts, on the theory that “may” preserves a parallel right to litigate. Each apex-court pronouncement on this question is therefore significant for drafting practice and forum predictability. In 2019, the Thai Supreme Court delivered Thailand’s clearest answer to date (Judgment No. 3427/2562). Reversing an appellate court decision, the Supreme Court held that permissive wording at the point of commencement does not dilute the parties’ antecedent agreement to withdraw their disputes from the courts—doing so in regard to an International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) arbitration clause seated in Singapore, a configuration typical of foreign-invested projects in Thailand. This article examines the court’s reasoning, situates the decision within comparative jurisprudence, and draws out its practical lessons for parties and drafters operating in the Thai market. Background of the Dispute The dispute arose from a subcontract for civil engineering and architectural works concluded on September 25, 2014. Clause 19 of the subcontract governed dispute resolution. Clause 19.1 required the parties, at the request of either, to seek to resolve any dispute “in connection with, arising out of, or relating to” the subcontract through mutual consultation within sixty days of written notice. According to clause 19.2.1, if the dispute could not be resolved within that period, “either party may submit the dispute to arbitration,” to be conducted under the ICC
Read More
August 18, 2026
Securing a favorable judgment is often only the midpoint of a dispute. For businesses and investors, the more important commercial question is whether that judgment can be converted into actual recovery. In Thailand, this typically requires the judgment creditor to enforce the judgment through the Legal Execution Department by seizing, attaching, auctioning, or otherwise executing against the judgment debtor’s assets. Thailand’s schedule of these enforcement fees was last revised by an amendment to the Civil Procedure Code that took effect in September 2025. The Civil Procedure Code Amendment Act (No. 33) B.E. 2568 (2025) updated the schedule of execution officer fees listed in table 5 of the Civil Procedure Code. While the amendment did not eliminate the costs associated with enforcement, it lowered several key execution officer fees and abolished certain fees that previously applied even where enforcement did not ultimately result in the sale or disposition of assets. The reform is intended to reduce the financial burden associated with judgment enforcement and remove unnecessary obstacles to settlement once enforcement proceedings have commenced. As a result, it has practical implications not only for judgment creditors seeking to maximize recovery, but also for debtors considering settlement after enforcement has begun and for businesses and investors assessing litigation and credit risk in Thailand. Key Changes The amendment introduced several changes to the execution officer fee structure. First, where seized or attached assets are sold by public auction or otherwise disposed of, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 3% to 2% of the sale or disposition proceeds. This fee remains separate from announcement costs and other out-of-pocket expenses incurred during the enforcement process. Second, where seized or attached funds are paid to a judgment creditor, the execution officer fee has been reduced from 2% to 1% of the amount recovered.
Read More
August 11, 2026
Cambodia’s Ministry of Justice has launched a new platform on its official website to publish notices of forced sales issued by each municipal and provincial court of first instance. The platform’s stated purpose is to inform the public and facilitate greater participation in forced-sale auctions conducted in connection with court-ordered enforcement proceedings. How the Platform Works The platform publishes forced-sale notices from courts of first instance across Cambodia’s municipalities and provinces and includes a link where the public can view properties currently subject to forced sale. To participate in a forced-sale auction, individuals can download Khmer-language bidding application forms through links provided on the platform. The form typically requires the applicant’s name, sex, year of birth, identity card number and issue date, and address, together with details identifying the immovable property (including its ownership certificate number), the relevant enforcement case number and date, and the reference to the public auction or tender announcement issued by the court. Completed application forms must be submitted directly to the specific municipal or provincial court that issued the forced sale. For further inquiries about a particular forced sale, interested parties should likewise contact the relevant municipal or provincial court. Forced Sale of Immovable Property in Cambodia The publication of these notices relates to the forced sale procedure for immovable property under Cambodia’s Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). Unlike property seizure by a court, a forced sale is a compulsory execution proceeding—a subsequent enforcement step that arises only after an underlying dispute has been adjudicated and a debtor fails to pay the debt or outstanding amount due under a final and binding judgment or other enforceable title of execution. For the purposes of this procedure, the term “immovable property” under the CPC refers to land, registered buildings, jointly held shares of such property, registered
Read More