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​ 

June 23, 2026
On May 26, 2026, Thailand’s Department of Land Transport (DLT) published for public consultation a draft amendment to the Ministerial Regulation on Electronic Ride-Hailing Vehicles that would, for the first time, allow juristic persons (legal entities) to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars—a right that currently belongs exclusively to natural persons, limited to one person per one vehicle. If finalized in its current form, the regulation would significantly expand the supply side of Thailand’s ride-hailing market by enabling corporate fleet operators to enter the space. The public comment period is open through June 24, 2026. Key Principles Under the Draft Regulation Under the proposed amendment, juristic persons that maintain a fleet of at least 50 vehicles will be permitted to register vehicles as electronic ride-hailing cars. This represents a fundamental shift from the current framework, which restricts registration to individual natural persons on a one-person-one-car basis. Vehicle Specifications Corporate-owned ride-hailing vehicles must meet the following requirements: Be brand new from the factory, or no more than two years old from first registration with no more than 20,000 km of use. Not be a vehicle that has been reconstructed or repaired after involvement in a serious accident affecting safety—a standard consistent with public transport vehicles (RorYor. 6). Be classified as small, medium, or large in accordance with ministerial or director-general specifications. The vehicles may be equipped with safety devices such as interior or exterior cameras (video/photo recording) and can retain the original factory color of the vehicle body (no mandatory color change is required). License Plates Corporate ride-hailing vehicles will use license plates of the same size, characteristics, and color as those for private passenger vehicles not exceeding seven seats (RorYor. 1), rather than public transport plates. Potential Impact The government has stated that the regulation is intended to: Promote
June 23, 2026
On May 14, 2026, Thailand published a ministerial regulation in the Government Gazette to prescribe measures for prevention and suppression of technology crimes. The regulation creates a comprehensive procedural framework for returning money and digital assets to victims of technology crimes. It will take effect 90 days after publication (in mid-August 2026), giving affected entities a limited window to prepare. Mandatory Reporting Obligations for Financial Institutions When a deposit account, e-money account, or digital asset wallet is frozen in connection with a technology crime, the relevant financial institution or business operator must report transaction data to the Anti-Money Laundering Office (AMLO) via AMLO’s designated electronic system. Required data elements include account numbers (sender and receiver), names, identification or passport numbers, legal entity registration numbers, phone numbers, remaining balance, damage amount, transaction reference numbers, and the bank case ID. Institutions that already share data through the information-sharing system under the emergency decree are deemed to have satisfied this reporting obligation, creating an incentive for platform participation. When the Royal Thai Police or the Department of Special Investigation seize or freeze assets related to technology crimes, they must provide AMLO with investigation reports, complaint evidence, money-trail data, and account statements. Notification and Claims Process Once the AMLO secretary-general approves verified reports of a technology crime, the account information of persons connected to the crime will be published in the Government Gazette, triggering a 90-day window for victims to file claims and for related persons to file objections. Officers will also publish details on AMLO’s electronic media and send registered mail to identified victims, which will be deemed received after 7 days domestically or 15 days internationally. Victims have 90 days from the date the crime is published in the Government Gazette to file claims through AMLO’s electronic system. Claims must include
June 15, 2026
The surge in AI development has led to a desperate demand for large, high-quality training data. However, real-world data can be expensive to collect, difficult to access, and often subject to strict privacy and regulatory constraints. Synthetic data, which consists of artificially generated records that replicate the statistical properties of real-world data without reproducing specific individuals’ information, provides an appealing solution by generating artificial datasets at scale without relying on identifiable personal information. It combines speed, cost efficiency, and regulatory compliance, making it a sensible alternative for organizations seeking to reduce risks while maintaining data utility. When properly anonymized, synthetic datasets may fall outside the scope of laws such as the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), reducing compliance burdens while still supporting high-quality model training. However, relying on synthetic data without rigorous legal due diligence could be a strategic mistake. It replaces one set of known risks (scraping, direct privacy liability) with a new set of complex liabilities. The narrative that synthetic data is a “silver bullet” for privacy and IP compliance is dangerous and could be misleading. While synthetic data addresses data scarcity, it also introduces new legal uncertainties. Legal counsel should anticipate downstream risks arising from compromised data sources. Models trained on unlawfully obtained data may need to be decommissioned, even if their outputs appear lawful. What is synthetic data? Synthetic data refers to artificially generated information created using AI techniques such as deep learning and generative models. Instead of copying real records, it reproduces the statistical patterns and relationships found in the original dataset. Synthetic data generally falls into three categories: Fully synthetic data – Entirely new data points generated from learned patterns. The model studies the structure of the original data and produces records that resemble real-world
June 11, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) has released a revised draft Electronic Transactions Act (ETA) for public hearing from May 12, 2026, to June 15, 2026. This is not merely an amendment to certain provisions of the current ETA, but a comprehensive redrafting of the entire act. The revised draft ETA introduces several significant changes from the current framework, with practical implications for businesses operating in Thailand. Unified Coverage of Public and Private Sectors The current law segregates government transactions into a separate chapter with distinct rules. The draft ETA eliminates this division, defining “transaction” to encompass civil and commercial juristic acts as well as administrative procedures, administrative contracts, and other acts of government agencies. Enhanced E-Signature Definition The definition of “electronic signature” is broadened to expressly include biometric data and refocused on identifying the signatory and demonstrating intent regarding the content of the electronic data. Shift in Burden of Proof When a party challenges the reliability of electronic data created using a “trusted electronic method” or a method prescribed by the ETDA, the burden of proof and the cost of proving unreliability shifts to the challenger. Introduction of New Digital Method Concepts The draft ETA introduces several new digital method concepts that are not currently recognized under the existing ETA framework. These include: Electronic timestamping (e-timestamp) Electronic registered delivery Electronic company seals Electronic stamp duty compliance Electronic identity authentication and verification Electronic transferable records (electronic bills of lading, promissory notes, and similar negotiable instruments) Recognition of Automated Systems and Electronic Contracting The draft ETA expressly recognizes the legal validity and enforceability of contracts formed through automated systems, including contracts concluded entirely between automated systems or between an automated system and a person. A party may not deny the binding effect of such contracts solely because no human review