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​ 

September 17, 2025
Thailand’s Ministry of Finance has introduced a five-year personal income tax exemption on capital gains from the disposal of cryptocurrency or digital tokens. The Ministerial Regulation No. 399, published in the Government Gazette on September 5, 2025, offers the personal income tax exemption for transfers occurring between January 1, 2025, and December 31, 2029. The ministerial regulation was enacted to promote Thailand as a global financial center and digital asset business hub while encouraging increased domestic investment in digital assets. Key Conditions The exemption, which covers capital gains from cryptocurrency and digital token disposals during the specified five-year period, applies only to individuals. Companies that trade in digital assets are not eligible for this tax exemption. With the tax holiday set to expire in 2029 (unless extended), individual traders should plan ahead for postexemption taxation to ensure full compliance with Thailand’s personal income tax requirements. Proper documentation of digital asset transactions during the exemption period will be essential for future tax compliance. For more details on this tax exemption, or on any aspect of Thailand’s tax law and regulations, please contact Saravut Krailadsiri at [email protected] or Papavarin Sarawongsuth at [email protected].
Read More
September 10, 2025
Under Thai law, authorized directors stand as a company’s mind and will and, as such, may incur personal criminal liability for acts or omissions committed in the course of company business. When allegations surface, directors must be prepared for the practical reality that, before guilt or innocence is ever adjudicated, they could be deprived of liberty unless bail release is promptly achieved through the competent legal authority. When Bail Can Be Granted Two procedural moments trigger the need to consider bail. The first arises during the investigative phase, when a claim is lodged against a director with the competent law enforcement authorities. Upon receipt of a complaint, the assigned inquiry officer summons the director for questioning, compiles evidence, and ultimately forwards a prosecution or nonprosecution recommendation to the public prosecutor. Although the public prosecutor retains ultimate discretion to indict an accused director, the police or prosecutor may conclude that pretrial detention is necessary and may therefore apply to the court for an order to hold the director in court custody. The second moment occurs after a criminal case is filed directly with the court. This occurs once a court accepts a criminal case filed by a prosecutor against a director or, alternatively, when the court accepts a case filed by an individual for trial. For cases filed by individuals, the plaintiff presents prima facie evidence at the preliminary hearing, and the court will accept the complaint if it finds sufficient grounds, thereby conferring upon the director the status of a criminal defendant. Upon acceptance of the criminal case, the court then has the inherent authority to order custody pending trial unless the defendant secures bail release. Procedural Considerations Experienced litigants typically prepare bail security in advance and submit a bail petition at the earliest possible time. While there are
Read More
September 4, 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Superior People’s Court in Hanoi overturned a non-use cancellation decision by the Intellectual Property Office of Vietnam, a rare and impactful occurrence. In a ruling that may help clarify the enforcement of Vietnam’s IP Law, the court held that valid trademark use can be established through commercial arrangements where the brand owner maintains actual control over the use of the mark, and is not confined to relationships governed by a so-called “formal license agreement. Background: Cross-Border Use, Local Challenge A Singapore company owns a well-known brand of consumer products that has gained recognition across Southeast Asia. In recent years, the brand has been targeted by several unauthorized trademark filings in Vietnam. In one such instance, a local Vietnamese trading company—previously linked to the production and export of counterfeit goods to neighboring countries—filed a non-use cancellation against the Singapore company’s mark and sought to register it under its own name. If the cancellation had been upheld, it would have enabled a complete hijacking of the brand. The IP holder operates in Vietnam through a structured cross-border supply chain. Under an agreement between two related foreign entities, one of which managed regional operations, production orders were placed through a designated Vietnamese company. While the Vietnamese manufacturer was not a party to the agreement, its role in using the mark was recognized and governed by internal and commercial documentation. The Vietnamese manufacturer lawfully obtained the necessary permits, regulatory approvals, and customs clearances for producing the goods in Vietnam. These activities were supported by banking records and internal communications, evidencing active, continuous use of the mark in Vietnam. However, the IP Office concluded that this use did not meet the statutory criteria because the Vietnamese manufacturer did not have a direct license agreement with the brand owner, as
Read More
July 23, 2025
In cross-border disputes, a recurring concern for claimants is whether they can protect respondents’ assets located in jurisdictions other than the seat of arbitration. This article explores whether Thai courts can issue interim measures, such as freezing orders, under Section 16 of the Thai Arbitration Act (2002) to support an arbitration seated outside of Thailand. Requesting Interim Measures Section 16 provides that a party to an arbitration agreement may request that the court impose interim measures, either before or during arbitral proceedings. If the court determines that it would have been able to impose such measures had the proceedings been conducted in court, it may proceed as requested. Notably, Section 16 does not limit its application to arbitrations seated in Thailand. It simply refers to “a party to an arbitration agreement,” which arguably includes both domestic and international arbitrations. Further, it allows for applications even before arbitration is commenced, provided that the arbitration is initiated within thirty days from the issuance of the order (or other period the court prescribes). A Hypothetical Scenario Consider the following scenario: Company A, incorporated in the Netherlands, and Company B, incorporated in the Cayman Islands, have entered into a contract containing a clause requiring arbitration at the Singapore International Arbitration Center (SIAC). A dispute arises, and Company A commences arbitration at SIAC. Company B holds significant assets in Thailand, such as bank accounts or real estate. Concerned that Company B might dispose of its assets before an award is rendered, Company A applies to the Thai court seeking a freezing order over those assets. Can the Thai court issue such an interim measure? The answer is not straightforward. Thai law is silent regarding whether Section 16 applies to arbitrations seated outside Thailand, leaving the door open for argument. Some academic sources suggest that
Read More