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​ 

April 23, 2026
Vietnam has progressively positioned blockchain as a strategic technology within its broader digital transformation agenda over the past decade. From early policy orientations to more recent legislative developments, the regulatory approach has gradually shifted from high-level recognition to more concrete legal integration. Against this backdrop, a new draft decree regulating activities relating to product and goods identification, authentication, and traceability (the “Draft Decree”) marks a notable turning point. Rather than merely referencing blockchain as a policy priority, the Draft Decree incorporates blockchain directly into a nationwide regulatory system, positioning it as part of the underlying infrastructure for data governance and public administration in relation to the management, verification, and traceability of product-related data. Evolution of Vietnam’s Blockchain Legal Framework: The Draft Decree in Context Vietnam’s blockchain legal framework has developed in several distinct phases. The first phase, beginning around 2019, was characterized by high-level policy recognition in several resolutions of the Party Central Committee. Particularly, blockchain was identified as part of the broader category of digital technologies critical to industrial modernization and participation in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. These resolutions did not regulate blockchain directly, but established its strategic importance at the national level. The second phase (2023 to 2025) saw the introduction of national strategies and technology policies that more explicitly recognized blockchain as a priority technology. Those policies collectively signaled a clear policy commitment to developing blockchain infrastructure and applications. However, these instruments remained largely at a policy-level and did not establish binding regulatory frameworks. The third phase (from 2025) involves the gradual integration of blockchain into sectoral legislation. Laws such as the Law on Digital Technology Industry (2025), the Law on Personal Data Protection (2025), and the Law on Science, Technology, and Innovation (2025) have introduced concepts such as digital assets, crypto assets, and even specific
April 21, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) has launched a public consultation period on a draft notification setting out criteria for data subject access requests (DSARs). The draft notification addresses practical uncertainties in handling DSARs by introducing standardized procedural requirements for data controllers. The consultation period runs from April 16 to May 15, 2026. The notification will enter into force 30 days from the date of its publication in the Government Gazette. Key Features of the Draft Notification The draft notification covers the following key areas: Scope of information subject to access. Data controllers must enable data subjects to access at least the following upon request: (1) personal data collected directly from them; (2) personal data obtained from other sources; and (3) the source of personal data obtained from other sources without consent. Information required under section 23 of the PDPA and information that must be recorded pursuant to section 39 of the PDPA—such as the categories of personal data collected and purposes of processing—must also be made available. Submission channels and formal requirements. Data controllers must provide at least in-person and postal channels for DSARs, while electronic or other channels are optional. Requests may be made either directly by the data subject or through an authorized representative, and must be signed and include sufficient identifying information, a preferred response method, and DSAR details. Identity verification documents (and proof of authority if the request is through a representative) are required, and additional documentation may be requested for verification or communication purposes. Data controllers may use different verification methods for DSARs submitted via electronic or other channels, provided this does not create undue obstacles to the exercise of data subject rights. Verification and response timelines. Data controllers must complete preliminary verification within seven business days of receiving a request. If a
April 10, 2026
Thailand has introduced new regulatory guidance requiring digital platform operators to adopt structured, transparent, and fair fee practices. On March 16, 2026, the Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) published Announcement No. DPS 2/2569, titled “Guidelines for Transparency and Fairness in Digital Platform Service Fee Determination,” issued under the Royal Decree on Digital Platform Service Business Operations B.E. 2565 (2022). The guidelines establish a framework governing how digital platform operators should set, disclose, and adjust fees charged to users and related service providers such as logistics and payment providers. Although framed as best-practice guidance rather than legally binding rules with explicit penalties, the guidelines carry regulatory weight under the royal decree and represent a significant step toward structured governance of digital platform fee practices in Thailand. The guidelines establish various transparency principles and divide fees into two distinct categories—compulsory and additional—with specific governance principles for each. Transparency Principles The guidelines recommend that digital platform operators adopt several transparency measures to ensure that users can fully understand the costs of using a platform. Fee catalog. All fees should be consolidated into a single, accessible location, which should include the fee name, definition, scope of covered services, calculation methodology, rate, billing period, and calculation examples. Minimum service disclosure. Operators should disclose the minimum service that users can expect, such as baseline visibility, product listing capabilities, access to transaction data, and back-end dashboard access. Price structure disclosure. Operators should disclose the categories of costs underlying their fees, such as system maintenance, cybersecurity, and operational costs. While exact cost figures need not be made public, operators should be able to provide numerical data to regulators upon request. Clear fee formulas. Fee calculations should be simple and easy to understand—for example, percentage of net sales, cost per order, or cost per product listing. Operators should
April 10, 2026
As digital commerce continues to reshape consumer behavior in Thailand, the Office of the Consumer Protection Board (OCPB) has been taking steps to review and update key regulations for online platforms. The OCPB has had a particular focus on addressing the risks posed by e-marketplace businesses—from misleading product information to fraudulent online transactions. Some of the regulator’s current legislative efforts related to Thailand’s labeling regulations as well as potential changes to the country’s law on direct sales and marketing. Proposed Changes to Consumer Protection Labeling Regulations On February 24, 2026, the OCPB convened a public hearing to review the Notification of the Committee on Labels re: Specification of Goods as Controlled Label Goods B.E. 2565 (2022) and its annex issued under the Consumer Protection Act. The closed-door session, which started the OPCD’s process of seeking feedback on the proposed changes, brought together representatives from government agencies, business operators, and consumer groups. The OCPB explained that its review of the labeling regulations aims to address regulatory gaps arising from evolving commercial practices, particularly the expansion of e-commerce and cross-border transactions. Authorities highlighted recurring issues involving product information that is unclear, incomplete, or potentially misleading in digital sales channels. The proposed revisions are intended to improve consumers’ access to accurate and complete product information, ensure that label disclosures remain relevant amid the growth of e-commerce, and strengthen protections against deceptive or misleading digital advertising. The review is being undertaken pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979). As part of the initiative, the OCPB signaled a potential update to the categories of “controlled label products” as well as enhanced disclosure obligations for business operators, with the broader aim of promoting greater transparency, reinforcing operator accountability, and aligning Thailand’s labeling framework with current market conditions. The OCPB secretary general emphasized that