sanguan Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Thaksin must be the only person I know in Thailand that must pay tax on share sales. I trade share all the time, but on one else in Thailand have to pay tax on share transection. Looks at the number. If you transfer 738million baht of shares, you have to pay 546 million Baht in Tax. Assume you get the share at no cost. Do you have to pay a tax of 74% on the capital gain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Thaksin must be the only person I know in Thailand that must pay tax on share sales. I trade share all the time, but on one else in Thailand have to pay tax on share transection.Looks at the number. If you transfer 738million baht of shares, you have to pay 546 million Baht in Tax. Assume you get the share at no cost. Do you have to pay a tax of 74% on the capital gain? Read the whole tread before posting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimjim1968 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 And I think this gives reason to take Man City away from Thaksin. I was utterly disgusted at Britain to let a man under criminal investigation buy an English Football Club, but then England is a safe haven for lots of scum like him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dougieboy Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Thread started to separate different cases posted in thread:http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thaksin-Face...ts-t137657.html Thaksin May Face More Arrest Warrants ============================================================================= BREAKING NEWS Potjaman Shinawatra Guilty 10.47am : The Criminal Court on Thursday found Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra guilty of intentionally avoiding a tax payment of Bt546 million for the transfer of 4.5 million shares of the Shinawatra Computer and Communications' shares worth Bt738 million. Also found guilty in the historic trial are Pojaman's brother Bannaphot Damapong and her personal secretary Kanchana Honghern. The court sentenced Pojaman and Bannaphot each to 3 years in jail. - The Nation This may go some way to toward tackling the huge problem of corruption which strangleholds Thailand, maybe they will lock up her husband next Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriracha john Posted July 31, 2008 Author Share Posted July 31, 2008 546 Million in taxes on 738 million worth of stock? Are tax rates really that high here? No, Post #101 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumnien Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Thaksin must be the only person I know in Thailand that must pay tax on share sales. I trade share all the time, but on one else in Thailand have to pay tax on share transection.Looks at the number. If you transfer 738million baht of shares, you have to pay 546 million Baht in Tax. Assume you get the share at no cost. Do you have to pay a tax of 74% on the capital gain? Spare parts for Grippen fighters are not cheap, my friend! But, alas, they are now assured in Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man River Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Does anyone remember the details? On Nov. 7, 1997, Banapot received 4.5 millions shares in Shinawatra Computer & Communications (later known as SHIN) worth THB 738 million from the Shinawatra's maid Duangta as a wedding gift from Pojamon. I don't have a date when Duangta supposedly received the shares, but Pojamon paid her with an account payee check (which was redeposited in Pojamon's account) before declaring that she (Pojamon) owned the shares and was then giving them to Banapot as a wedding gift (two years after his wedding). Hence, the maid owned the shares, Pojamon paid the maid for the shares and gave them to her brother in law as a wedding gift two years after his wedding, and then the maid gave the money she received from Pojamon back to Pojamon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roygsd Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Thread started to separate different cases posted in thread:http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Thaksin-Face...ts-t137657.html Thaksin May Face More Arrest Warrants ============================================================================= BREAKING NEWS Potjaman Shinawatra Guilty 10.47am : The Criminal Court on Thursday found Khunying Pojaman Shinawatra guilty of intentionally avoiding a tax payment of Bt546 million for the transfer of 4.5 million shares of the Shinawatra Computer and Communications' shares worth Bt738 million. Also found guilty in the historic trial are Pojaman's brother Bannaphot Damapong and her personal secretary Kanchana Honghern. The court sentenced Pojaman and Bannaphot each to 3 years in jail. - The Nation NO mention of having to repay the stolen tax plus the interest is would have acrued to date then? No mention of the sentances being extended if the money is not repaid? ONly in LOS!! Roy gsd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roygsd Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 So now I can say publicly of Potjaman "you're a liar, a thief and a complete disgrace as a human being". Only is you dont wnt to be sued and shot,( not necassarily in that order). As I understand it the slander laws in LOS prevents a person from damaging the reputation of people even when wha yoyu say is the truth. At best you will go to jail. roy gsd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonGato Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 I bet the secretary will be the only one to see the jail whatsoever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blaze Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) Does anyone remember the details? On Nov. 7, 1997, Banapot received 4.5 millions shares in Shinawatra Computer & Communications (later known as SHIN) worth THB 738 million from the Shinawatra's maid Duangta as a wedding gift from Pojamon. I don't have a date when Duangta supposedly received the shares, but Pojamon paid her with an account payee check (which was redeposited in Pojamon's account) before declaring that she (Pojamon) owned the shares and was then giving them to Banapot as a wedding gift (two years after his wedding). Hence, the maid owned the shares, Pojamon paid the maid for the shares and gave them to her brother in law as a wedding gift two years after his wedding, and then the maid gave the money she received from Pojamon back to Pojamon. That's fine as far as it goes- but at what point in this process did tax evasion occur? I can understand that if the courts accepted the arguement that Banapot received the money for services rendered, he in fact was guilty of not declaring income- (I'm certainly not arguing with the verdict- since I really don't understand Thai tax law at all- could someone explain the legalities of what has transpired. In Canadian law gifting is not subject to tax- unless the courts can be convinced that the intent of the gift was for no other reason than to evade taxes- is that what happened here? Edited July 31, 2008 by blaze Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Thaksin must be the only person I know in Thailand that must pay tax on share sales. I trade share all the time, but on one else in Thailand have to pay tax on share transection.Looks at the number. If you transfer 738million baht of shares, you have to pay 546 million Baht in Tax. Assume you get the share at no cost. Do you have to pay a tax of 74% on the capital gain? Spare parts for Grippen fighters are not cheap, my friend! But, alas, they are now assured in Thailand. You are a hypocrite. First you talk about Thaksin as a man that does things for the poor - throwing trinkets around using tax money - and when is wife is convicted of withholding 546 million Baht in tax, money that could pay for several hospitals for the poor, you try to joke it away as it would be the military that lost some of their budget. Dishonest and shameful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roygsd Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Thaksin was scheduled to depart for China today in preparation of the Olympics. I wonder if that'll change. What event is he competing in? Not the high jump for sure! roy gsd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
younghusband Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 I believe that the close relationship between the only real unchallenged power in the Kingom and the judiciary is starting to exert itself. Some (actually everybody except a few reactionaries) might argue that that the courts should be totally independent and free of all influence.I also doubt whether the only real unchallenged power would necessarily agree your interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvo Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Interestingly the issue of the maid illegally holding the shares as a "nominee" share holder seems to have been completely overlooked. Or have I completely overlooked something? Wasn't this the lawmaker's opportunity to really put a fly in the ointment re the nominee shareholder issue generally? Looks like, for whatever reason, they decided not to increase the smell by poking that particular exhibit. Possibly because the judges have a bunch of shares somewhere held by nominees?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grapetable Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Is this correct...........74% tax rate?.......seems one or both figures may be wrong.........anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Is this correct...........74% tax rate?.......seems one or both figures may be wrong.........anyone know? O-M-G...READ the thread people before replying! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanguan Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 What about "Grippen fighters". Did Thaksin government purchase those expensive crap too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A_Traveller Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Suggestion to George, please add an element outlining the reality of this 'tax rate' or the thread is going to go nuts with people all saying 'How much?' Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce1 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 This is very good news for the rule of law in LOS. But it will cause political problems if Mr and Mrs T stay in Thailand and fight the charges and possibly foster a bit of unrest. It would be better all round if they did leave and not come back. Then the authorities could presumably sieze the money sitting in Thai bank accounts and reclaim it for the state and do something useful with it. Is the amount frozen really 70 billion baht or some smaller figure? Its also interesting that the conviction is for tax evasion. At the time of the sale it was argued the sale was tax free and legal. Personally, I thought the sale should have been legal, but they should have paid tax on it. So, allow the foreign investment, but tax it at the appropriate level. Now it seems to be accepted the sale was legal and the focus has shifted to getting the tax. This is actually a good scenario as striking down the sale would have sent a very bad signal to foreign investors in LOS. No investor could argue against paying the appropriate rate of tax, surely. I remember Mr T's diplomatic passport was cancelled a while back. Mrs T's passport has surely been siezed pending the result of these cases, and wouldn't the same be true for Mr T? If they run, they won't be able to come back legally without valid passports. They'll also be stateless. Would Hong Kong or Britain accept them? After all, being convicted of tax evasion makes it harder to argue you're the victim of political persecution, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baanthale Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 All good. So now we only waiting for the court hearings for the junta people (I hope you report that to SJ , who raped the country without even beeing elected. What is the punishment for using the country's and tax payers armed forces to change the constitution after own needs and gains? Would also like to see PAD in court, for hearings regarding destoying Thailands economy and using tax payers money for their own gains! After all, you all want to see justice, don't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baanthale Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 What about "Grippen fighters". Did Thaksin government purchase those expensive crap too? [/quote You don't know what you talking about Swedish quality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frodo Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 (edited) This really is great news for Thailand. Since she has been convicted of a major crime, will she lose her passport? She had permission to go to China yesterday, and I hope that has changed since Pojaman Thaksin is a convicted criminal. Say what you will, but the overthrow of the Thaksin government was a step in the right direction. People were given back the right to vote, the judicial system restored, committees set up to actually investigate without threat or harassment those who are powerful and corrupt, and those who have continued to defy the laws were rooted out and are being brought to justice. Nothing wrong with that. I'll give Thaksin his props as well. He did state that on July 2nd things would change for the better, and how right he has been. I hope his prophecies continue on this course. Edited July 31, 2008 by frodo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Man River Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Does anyone remember the details? On Nov. 7, 1997, Banapot received 4.5 millions shares in Shinawatra Computer & Communications (later known as SHIN) worth THB 738 million from the Shinawatra's maid Duangta as a wedding gift from Pojamon. I don't have a date when Duangta supposedly received the shares, but Pojamon paid her with an account payee check (which was redeposited in Pojamon's account) before declaring that she (Pojamon) owned the shares and was then giving them to Banapot as a wedding gift (two years after his wedding). Hence, the maid owned the shares, Pojamon paid the maid for the shares and gave them to her brother in law as a wedding gift two years after his wedding, and then the maid gave the money she received from Pojamon back to Pojamon. That's fine as far as it goes- but at what point in this process did tax evasion occur? I can understand that if the courts accepted the arguement that Banapot received the money for services rendered, he in fact was guilty of not declaring income- (I'm certainly not arguing with the verdict- since I really don't understand Thai tax law at all- could someone explain the legalities of what has transpired. In Canadian law gifting is not subject to tax- unless the courts can be convinced that the intent of the gift was for no other reason than to evade taxes- is that what happened here? Blaze, while personally I have a problem with a number of cases against Thaksin et. al., this one seems to be one of the clearest. In this one, the court isn't saying that they made an honest mistake and simply owe the back taxes, but rather they conspired to commit tax fraud (i.e. a criminal offense). As you will recall, in 1997 it was reported that Pojamon moved shares out of the family name into the names of their driver, maid etc. Thaksin was ultimately cleared of this by the Constitutional Court in 2001 as they ruled that they believed him that he didn't know the shares were being moved by his wife. OK, so now Thaksin and Pojamon have a great deal of shares in the maid's name (Duangta) and are faced with the dilemma on how to get their shares back. If it was really a gift to the maid then they wouldn't want them back, but clearly this wasn't the case. It has been ruled that Pojamon, her brother in law (Banapot) and her personal secretary (Kanchana) conspired a plan to move the shares back by having Pojamon buy the shares back from the maid paying for them with an account payee check which was never cashed, but instead re-deposited directly back to into Pojamon's account. This way, the shares would be moved back to Pojamon without her ever having to pay for them. Then Pojamon, who now owned the shares, would give them as a gift to her brother in law (Banapot) despite his wedding having occurred two years earlier. While all of the above worked on paper, the courts have ruled that it was a scheme designed to evade taxes. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sanguan Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The SAAB Gripen fighters is powered by a VOLVO engine (from Wiki). I know the Swed makes very safe cars. But can their car maker make planes, especially fighter planes. I head Honda also toying on private jet (after being bored making grass mower). Mitsubishi also used to make planes, I think it is called ZERO (no wander they can't sell), during the 2nd world war. Around that time Thai Navy also used to have 2 Mitsubishi submarine. So will Tata, Isuzu, Ford, Chevy, Hyandai, Lamborgini, Proton, Hoden, Nissan, Renault, Skoda, Ladda, Mazda etc joint the war game too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TAWP Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 If you are going to poke fun at a car manufacturer making a fighter, at least use SAAB, since they are a car manufacturer too and the de facto maker of the airplane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baanthale Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 The SAAB Gripen fighters is powered by a VOLVO engine (from Wiki). I know the Swed makes very safe cars. But can their car maker make planes, especially fighter planes.I head Honda also toying on private jet (after being bored making grass mower). Mitsubishi also used to make planes, I think it is called ZERO (no wander they can't sell), during the 2nd world war. Around that time Thai Navy also used to have 2 Mitsubishi submarine. So will Tata, Isuzu, Ford, Chevy, Hyandai, Lamborgini, Proton, Hoden, Nissan, Renault, Skoda, Ladda, Mazda etc joint the war game too? wikipedia---fighter plane technology, oh I understand, I rest my case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumnien Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 As we speak, the world's largest air show is going on in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. The Honda Jet is there as are many new and exciting general aviation innovations. I think this topic is pretty much talked out (Pojamon) after 147 posts. Naw, let's go another couple hundred more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willy1957 Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 A courageous and excellent start to begin the long road to seeking justice in the Kingdom of Thailand. I wonder if this got anything to do with justice?Maybe this is rather a revenge act.Nobody will have the guts to investigate infraudation of tax by other political and or army familys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blaze Posted July 31, 2008 Share Posted July 31, 2008 Does anyone remember the details? On Nov. 7, 1997, Banapot received 4.5 millions shares in Shinawatra Computer & Communications (later known as SHIN) worth THB 738 million from the Shinawatra's maid Duangta as a wedding gift from Pojamon. I don't have a date when Duangta supposedly received the shares, but Pojamon paid her with an account payee check (which was redeposited in Pojamon's account) before declaring that she (Pojamon) owned the shares and was then giving them to Banapot as a wedding gift (two years after his wedding). Hence, the maid owned the shares, Pojamon paid the maid for the shares and gave them to her brother in law as a wedding gift two years after his wedding, and then the maid gave the money she received from Pojamon back to Pojamon. That's fine as far as it goes- but at what point in this process did tax evasion occur? I can understand that if the courts accepted the arguement that Banapot received the money for services rendered, he in fact was guilty of not declaring income- (I'm certainly not arguing with the verdict- since I really don't understand Thai tax law at all- could someone explain the legalities of what has transpired. In Canadian law gifting is not subject to tax- unless the courts can be convinced that the intent of the gift was for no other reason than to evade taxes- is that what happened here? Blaze, while personally I have a problem with a number of cases against Thaksin et. al., this one seems to be one of the clearest. In this one, the court isn't saying that they made an honest mistake and simply owe the back taxes, but rather they conspired to commit tax fraud (i.e. a criminal offense). As you will recall, in 1997 it was reported that Pojamon moved shares out of the family name into the names of their driver, maid etc. Thaksin was ultimately cleared of this by the Constitutional Court in 2001 as they ruled that they believed him that he didn't know the shares were being moved by his wife. OK, so now Thaksin and Pojamon have a great deal of shares in the maid's name (Duangta) and are faced with the dilemma on how to get their shares back. If it was really a gift to the maid then they wouldn't want them back, but clearly this wasn't the case. It has been ruled that Pojamon, her brother in law (Banapot) and her personal secretary (Kanchana) conspired a plan to move the shares back by having Pojamon buy the shares back from the maid paying for them with an account payee check which was never cashed, but instead re-deposited directly back to into Pojamon's account. This way, the shares would be moved back to Pojamon without her ever having to pay for them. Then Pojamon, who now owned the shares, would give them as a gift to her brother in law (Banapot) despite his wedding having occurred two years earlier. While all of the above worked on paper, the courts have ruled that it was a scheme designed to evade taxes. What do you think? I agree with you OMR- I think there was intent to circumvent the laws- probably those concerned with taxation- I just don't really understand specifically how taxation was avoided (again- I confess ignorance of Thai tax law). I certainly hope this signals a new and sincere rigor in cracking down on tax cheats- regardless of their political affiliations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts