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​ 

July 27, 2026
A new decree on penalties for violations related to the crypto asset market creates compliance risks for offshore crypto asset exchanges in Vietnam that do not hold, and practically cannot obtain, a Vietnamese license, and for Vietnamese users who continue to transact on those platforms. Decree No. 284/2026/ND-CP (Decree 284), issued by the government of Vietnam on July 16, 2026, formally establishes an administrative penalty framework for violations related to crypto assets and the crypto asset market. The decree takes effect on September 1, 2026, and will remain in force for the duration of the five-year pilot program under Resolution No. 05/2025/NQ-CP, which is scheduled to end in September 2030. Direct Penalties on Vietnamese Users The most immediate commercial risk to offshore platforms is that their Vietnamese users now face direct personal liability for using their exchanges. Vietnamese users who trade crypto assets outside of a Ministry of Finance-licensed service provider face fines of up to VND 50 million (approximately USD 1,900). Vietnamese users trading in crypto assets that are offered or issued to foreign users face higher penalties of up to VND 100 million (approximately USD 3,800). It is expected that Vietnamese users will be more willing to migrate away from offshore platforms now that there is a risk of real enforcement against them. Penalties on Unlicensed Service Providers Violations of providing crypto asset services or advertising crypto-related services without a license face fines of up to VND 200 million (approximately USD 7,700). Operating a crypto asset trading market without proper authorization falls within the same highest penalty bands. Organizations that violate issuance, provision, or disclosure rules may face fines of up to VND 200 million. Although the maximum administrative fine per violation is capped at VND 200 million for organizations and VND 100 million for individuals, these
July 21, 2026
Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDES) published a notification establishing an expedited court-ordered takedown mechanism for online content in cases of “urgent necessity.” The notification, which was issued on July 17, 2026, under the Computer Crime Act B.E. 2550 (2007), as amended, took effect the following day. It significantly expands the categories of content subject to rapid government-initiated removal. Content Categories Subject to Takedown The notification defines “urgent necessity” (section 20, paragraph 5, of the Computer Crime Act) as circumstances where any delay in suppressing computer data may impact national security, religion, the monarchy, good morals, social culture, or public order. In this regard, it establishes four broad categories of content: Computer Crime Act offenses. National security offenses. IP and other criminal offenses, where it is contrary to public order or good morals and a competent officer has requested its suppression. Content contrary to public order or good morals, a broad residual category encompassing 14 subcategories approved by the Computer Data Screening Committee. The fourth category is the most expansive. Its 14 subcategories include: Content defaming, mocking, satirizing, or devaluing the monarchy. Online gambling advertising or facilitation. Offering illegal firearms for sale. Offering baraku (hookah) products or e-cigarettes for sale. Offering cannabis inflorescences or processed cannabis products for sale. Advertising or soliciting prostitution. Content inciting violence, hatred, or social division. Unauthorized overseas employment advertising. Offering boiled kratom juice for sale. Online sale or advertising of alcoholic beverages. Content satirizing or degrading Buddhism. Money lending at interest rates exceeding legally prescribed limits. Advertising or disseminating information about surrogacy services. Forgery of documents, cards, or official documents. Enforcement Procedure In cases of urgent necessity, a competent official assigned by the MDES permanent secretary must file a petition with supporting evidence to the court with jurisdiction, requesting an order to
July 20, 2026
On July 16, 2026, Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a notification in the Government Gazette establishing detailed rules governing data subjects’ right of access under section 30 of the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA). The notification will take effect 60 days after publication—mid-September 2026—giving data controllers a limited window to bring their processes into compliance. Scope The notification covers requests to access or obtain copies of personal data and requests for disclosure of the source of data collected without consent. Data subjects may exercise their rights directly or through authorized representatives. Key Requirements Important requirements set by the notification include the following: Required request channels. Controllers must provide at least two request channels: direct submission at the business location and registered mail. Electronic channels are optional but, if offered, may also be used for fulfilling requests. Request contents. Requests must be in writing or in electronic form and include the data subject’s name, the preferred access method, details of the data requested, and the requester’s signature. Controllers may request additional identifying information as needed. Identity and authority verification. Controllers may require official identity documents for verification. Authorized representatives must provide authorization documents and identity documents for both the data subject and the representative. Alternative verification methods (e.g., digital authentication) are permitted if they do not unreasonably obstruct data subjects’ rights. Review and response timelines. Controllers must review requests within 15 days. If the request is incomplete, the controller must notify the requester and allow at least 15 days to correct deficiencies. If not corrected, the request may be treated as abandoned. Once verified, controllers must fulfill requests within 30 days, extendable by another 30 days for large-volume or complex requests with notice to the requester. Methods for providing access or copies. Controllers may fulfill
July 16, 2026
Thailand’s Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) published a series of draft guidance documents for public consultation on July 7, 2026. Issued under the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA), the drafts address a range of compliance issues and offer insight into the regulator’s current enforcement priorities. This article examines two of those drafts: one on lawful bases for processing personal data, and another on marketing and direct marketing. Together, they reflect the Office of the PDPC’s evolving expectations on lawful-basis selection, accountability, and the use of personal data in marketing. Organizations operating in Thailand should assess the practical implications now, before the guidance is finalized. Lawful Bases: A Structured Selection Process The draft guidance on lawful bases introduces a systematic five-step process for selecting an appropriate lawful basis for each processing activity. Organizations are expected to: Identify the processing activity involved. Assess the appropriate lawful basis. Evaluate whether the data is necessary for the processing. Conduct a legitimate interest assessment (LIA) where applicable. Ensure transparency through privacy notices. The guidance provides practical explanations and examples for each lawful basis under section 24 of the PDPA—including archiving, research, statistics, vital interests, contractual necessity, legal obligation, public task, legitimate interests, and consent—as well as the bases applicable to sensitive personal data under section 26. The aim is to promote more consistent and accurate lawful-basis selection across public- and private-sector organizations. A recurring theme throughout the guidance is that organizations should select the lawful basis that most accurately reflects the actual purpose and circumstances of the processing activity. The guidance cautions against treating consent as a default or catch-all basis where another lawful basis is more appropriate. For processing based on legitimate interests, organizations should conduct and document an LIA. Processing involving sensitive personal data may require