According to KPMG, the Thai Cabinet issued an amendment to the current broad definition of work, so that it reads as following:

 

An engagement of any occupation, with or without employer, but excluding business operation of a licensee under the foreign business law

 

Here's the source: https://home.kpmg.com/th/en/home/insights/2018/09/thailand-tax-updates-13september2018.html

 

If the change legally goes through, operating a foreign business from Thailand would be officially legal, and not considered work. This would finally put an end to this subject, guilty of heated debate for many years.

 

Any thoughts? 

There has been several articles in the news about the change.

But no info yet about how it will be done since there has been nothing posted about the ministerial orders that will define them yet.

19 hours ago, andux said:

excluding business operation of a licensee under the foreign business law

This may be a translation issue, but I assume "the foreign business law" is a Thai law concerning foreign businesses?  I would like to know more about the specifics of this law, in order to see what would and would not be covered.

39 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

This may be a translation issue, but I assume "the foreign business law" is a Thai law concerning foreign businesses?  I would like to know more about the specifics of this law, in order to see what would and would not be covered.

Read the foreign business act here. http://thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw0107a.pdf

I cannot imagine how operating a business in Thailand that does not involve extracting money from the Thai economy, could be anything but a WIN/WIN situation for all concerned. Only bureaucracy could muddle the implications of this.

2 hours ago, KhunFred said:

I cannot imagine how operating a business in Thailand that does not involve extracting money from the Thai economy, could be anything but a WIN/WIN situation for all concerned. Only bureaucracy could muddle the implications of this.

it is win/win, however they will eventually, if they haven't already, realize that there are a lot people here bringing in a lot of money from businesses overseas. they will find a way to start making those people pay tax and most that i know would be happy to do so if they were given some kind of permission to stay in order to do so 100% legally.

could change, give it a decade or so

But doing gardening in your own backyard or fixing a broken pipe would still be technically illegal. By this definition.

On 9/20/2018 at 5:51 PM, andux said:

An engagement of any occupation, with or without employer, ...

 

40 minutes ago, scoutman360 said:

But doing gardening in your own backyard or fixing a broken pipe would still be technically illegal. By this definition.

An "occupation" generally involves doing work for someone else or for a business (even if you own the business).

For example, there are professionals who wash and style people's hair and trim and paint fingernails, but taking care of your own hair and nails would not qualify as engaging in an occupation.

8 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

 

An "occupation" generally involves doing work for someone else or for a business (even if you own the business).

For example, there are professionals who wash and style people's hair and trim and paint fingernails, but taking care of your own hair and nails would not qualify as engaging in an occupation. 

Agreed. But I didn't see that written in the legal definition of work.

5 hours ago, KhunFred said:

I cannot imagine how operating a business in Thailand that does not involve extracting money from the Thai economy, could be anything but a WIN/WIN situation for all concerned. Only bureaucracy could muddle the implications of this.

The only people having issues with that are some salty, jealous TV members

3 hours ago, scoutman360 said:

Agreed. But I didn't see that written in the legal definition of work.

It would be the definition of "occupation" which would determine the answer - but I do not know how well my definition translates from the Thai version of the law.  I may be making the common farang-error of applying "common sense," which is sometimes not a pertinent-consideration in such matters.

8 hours ago, JackThompson said:

It would be the definition of "occupation" which would determine the answer - but I do not know how well my definition translates from the Thai version of the law.  I may be making the common farang-error of applying "common sense," which is sometimes not a pertinent-consideration in such matters.

I haven't noticed a lot of common sense in "farang countries" recently either