Court rejects tax demand against Thaksin's children

By The Nation

The Central Tax Court yesterday ruled that the Revenue Department had no legal basis to collect nearly Bt12 billion in back taxes from Panthongtae and Pinthongta Shinawatra.

In its ruling, the court said the son and daughter of fugitive ex-prime minister Thaksin were not the genuine owners of Ample Rich Investment's shares, so they were not liable to pay income taxes as sought by the Revenue Department.

Based on an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court, these shares were actually owned by Thaksin and his former wife, Pojaman.

Earlier, the Revenue Department sought to collect back taxes of Bt5.677 billion from Panthongtae and another Bt5.675 billion from Pinthongta largely because of their Ample Rich shareholdings.

The son and daughter got the shares from their parents, who hid the massive ownership of Shin Corp's shares via the offshore company until they sold the majority stake in Shin Corp to Temasek Holdings of Singapore in 2006.

According to the Revenue Department, Panthongtae and Pinthongta, as directors and shareholders of Ample Rich, did not pay income taxes properly when it was found in 2006 that they had sold 164.6 million shares of Shin Corp.

These shares were acquired at a par value of Bt1 each while the market price at the time was Bt49.25. As a result, the Revenue Department sought to collect the unpaid taxes plus penalties amounting to nearly Bt12 billion from both. According to the tax court, the income from selling these shares did not belong to the son and daughter, so there was no basis to levy the taxes on them.

Both Panthongtae and Pinthongta were represented during a two-hour court hearing by Kanjanapa Honghern, the secretary of Khunying Pojaman, and their lawyers.

One of the plaintiffs' lawyers said the Revenue Department could appeal against the tax court's ruling and the plaintiffs were ready to contest the case in the higher court.

Earlier, the Supreme Court ruled that Thaksin was guilty of abusing his powers while prime minister and confiscated Bt46 billion of his family's assets.

-- The Nation 2010-12-30

So does Mummy get the tax bill now?

So does Mummy get the tax bill now?

Would be nice to think so....she could just take it out of her lunch money from the handbag that Khun Thaksin and his children bought her from the Loius Vuiton shop in Paris while Bangkok was engaged in riots and burning

Edited December 30, 201015 yr by Phuket Stan

Any prosecutor worth his salt could shoot holes in this so why didn't they? Deliberate diversion of public company assets viz shares? Underselling shares at 1/50th of the market price? And if the kids were not the owners of 'Ample Rich' shares - then slam a law suit on the owners. Then we have the issue of the court ruling tax is not payable by .... then who? The whole scam reeks and continues as they all walk around free as birds, even the missus, after jumping bail and her arrest warrant walks back in saying they divorced, so why was she not arrested on the warrants? This whole country is all over the place with laws that they cannot apply, Police who do not uphold the law and fugitives who just pay to remain free. I liked Abhisit's comment about the 16 year old driver - "No one is above the law"!!! Then prove it big guy - you da man!!!

Makes no sense to me how can they sell what they don't own.

If they did arrest them for that.

It is not legal for me to sell your goods why is it legal for them to do so?

Any prosecutor worth his salt could shoot holes in this so why didn't they? Deliberate diversion of public company assets viz shares? Underselling shares at 1/50th of the market price? And if the kids were not the owners of 'Ample Rich' shares - then slam a law suit on the owners. Then we have the issue of the court ruling tax is not payable by .... then who? The whole scam reeks and continues as they all walk around free as birds, even the missus, after jumping bail and her arrest warrant walks back in saying they divorced, so why was she not arrested on the warrants? This whole country is all over the place with laws that they cannot apply, Police who do not uphold the law and fugitives who just pay to remain free. I liked Abhisit's comment about the 16 year old driver - "No one is above the law"!!! Then prove it big guy - you da man!!!

All this business stinks to high heaven, nearly as bad as the canals in Bkk, Money talks and it always will, Thais dont want to look further than their noses. They know but don,t care. Its the same as if you had a sewer ouside you door, you would have to do something about it. This case is just the same. Letting these criminals out on bail so they could run off beats me, Bail seams to be given here as if its a normal right no matter what crime you commit. Have any charges been put on the KIDS for misleading the courts, into thinking they had shares when they didn,t, Where are they all now ???? got away with most of it. ================= bleeding amazing.

Gee whiz folks! What you don't understand is that these brats of prats are too taken up with getting their photo's in the "glam" mags to worry about about what mummy and daddy are doing with the paperwork!

"We've got a life to live" is the plaintiff cry, "we're beautiful and we're going to the best schools in the world and it's our right to do what WE want to do and you're all jealous and ........everything!"

These bimbo's and floosies leave no mark on the world....their children will spend like drunken sailors and their children will have nothing, it's how the world spins.

Nobody loves them for themselves, they are truly just walking ATM's. :jap:

So does Mummy get the tax bill now?

They can add it to the 546 Million Baht she owes in yet another tax evasion case.

July 31, 2008

The Criminal Court found Pojaman Shinawatra guilty of intentionally avoiding a tax payment of 546 Million Baht.

Also found guilty Pojaman's brother Bannaphot Damapong and her personal secretary, Kanchana Honghern.

The court sentenced Pojaman and Bannaphot each to 3 years in jail and Kanchana to 2 years in jail.

Also worth mentioning from her 2 and half year-old conviction and unfulfilled prison sentence comes the other aspect of this thread's OP

Both Panthongtae and Pinthongta were represented during a two-hour court hearing by Kanjanapa Honghern, the secretary of Khunying Pojaman, and their lawyers.

We're still waiting for Kanjanapa to ALSO serve HER 2 year prison sentence following her conviction back in 2008.

.

Quite the display of sour grapes. If you are going to say the verdict was bogus here, then what's to stop one from also saying the verdict in respect to Mr. Thasksin wasn't bogus. You can't have it both ways. By any chance, have any of your read the evidence and the applicable law? In your case Sricha John, I doubt it since you cannot read Thai, but hey, that's never stopped you from having a go at Thaksin, right?

I do not doubt for a minute that the case is disturbing. However, what the Thaksins did is most likely done by others, particularly the very wealthy eites that despise Thaksin and that supported the military coup that over threw his democratically elected government. Pushing the case too far here, means that many of the anti Thaksin camp could face similar tax bills. This is one of those times where Mr. Thaksin must be protected and supported by the powerful wealthy people that dislike him.

I find the verdict amusing, especially when some of you squeal with discontent.

Quite the display of sour grapes. If you are going to say the verdict was bogus here

I didn't say the verdict was bogus. I just pointed out that two persons involved in this case have prior convictions with unfilled punishment.

Apologies if pointing out factual information offends you.

- "No one is above the law"!!! Then prove it big guy - you da man!!!

ALL MEN ARE EQUAL BUT SOME MEN ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS...

Let's just say that the legal system in Thailand seems to work

You can scream and jump up and down all you want to . You can not change the earlier Supreme Court decision . The tax court was merely make a statement of the obvious. You can not pay taxes on sale of shares, if the shares belonged to someone else!

Read the article more carefully. It says " Based on an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court, these shares were actually owned by Thaksin and his former wife, Pojaman".

To reverse the Tax Court decision, the Supreme Court would need to reverse their own earlier decision.

Edited December 30, 201015 yr by tigermonkey

You can scream and jump up and down all you want to . You can not change the earlier Supreme Court decision . The tax court was merely make a statement of the obvious. You can not pay taxes on sale of shares, if the shares belonged to someone else!

Read the article more carefully. It says " Based on an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court, these shares were actually owned by Thaksin and his former wife, Pojaman".

To reverse the Tax Court decision, the Supreme Court would need to reverse their own earlier decision.

I have no problem with accepting the logic of that. However it does pose the question why were the kids brought before the Court? Do the prosecutors know their a*se from their elbow or is this filler for the shop window beyond the understanding of the Thai people?

Good lesson here as how we can defraud the government of tax money.

Good lesson here as how we can defraud the government of tax money.

Don't try this one at home. Only the rich and powerful get away with it.

You can scream and jump up and down all you want to . You can not change the earlier Supreme Court decision . The tax court was merely make a statement of the obvious. You can not pay taxes on sale of shares, if the shares belonged to someone else!

Read the article more carefully. It says " Based on an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court, these shares were actually owned by Thaksin and his former wife, Pojaman".

To reverse the Tax Court decision, the Supreme Court would need to reverse their own earlier decision.

Shhhh. You are being too logical and intelligent. It will be lost on some, This is a thread that has "Thaksin" in it. Please try to follow the standard operating procedure: Froth at the mouth, stamp your feet and make wild allegations.

You can scream and jump up and down all you want to . You can not change the earlier Supreme Court decision . The tax court was merely make a statement of the obvious. You can not pay taxes on sale of shares, if the shares belonged to someone else!

Read the article more carefully. It says " Based on an earlier ruling by the Supreme Court, these shares were actually owned by Thaksin and his former wife, Pojaman".

To reverse the Tax Court decision, the Supreme Court would need to reverse their own earlier decision.

Shhhh. You are being too logical and intelligent. It will be lost on some, This is a thread that has "Thaksin" in it. Please try to follow the standard operating procedure: Froth at the mouth, stamp your feet and make wild allegations.

Good lesson here as how we can defraud the government of tax money.

Don't try this one at home. Only the rich and powerful get away with it.

Thailand is my home.

Quite the display of sour grapes. If you are going to say the verdict was bogus here

I didn't say the verdict was bogus. I just pointed out that two persons involved in this case have prior convictions with unfilled punishment.

Apologies if pointing out factual information offends you.

Oh dear oh dear.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "obsession"?

NO - i am not taking sides in the Thaksin discussion, i refuse to choose between pest and cholera.

There are lots of wonderfull things to do in Thailand. Bickering over criminals (plural) is not one of them.

Unless you have issues.......

Sad, govt could have use the money to prepare for a proper election campaign.

Quite the display of sour grapes. If you are going to say the verdict was bogus here

I didn't say the verdict was bogus. I just pointed out that two persons involved in this case have prior convictions with unfilled punishment.

Apologies if pointing out factual information offends you.

Oh dear oh dear.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "obsession"?

NO - i am not taking sides in the Thaksin discussion, i refuse to choose between pest and cholera.

There are lots of wonderfull things to do in Thailand. Bickering over criminals (plural) is not one of them.

Unless you have issues.......

So, one must have an "obsession" or "issues" if they point out inconsistencies?

uhmm... ok.

Quite the display of sour grapes. If you are going to say the verdict was bogus here

I didn't say the verdict was bogus. I just pointed out that two persons involved in this case have prior convictions with unfilled punishment.

Apologies if pointing out factual information offends you.

Oh dear oh dear.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "obsession"?

NO - i am not taking sides in the Thaksin discussion, i refuse to choose between pest and cholera.

There are lots of wonderfull things to do in Thailand. Bickering over criminals (plural) is not one of them.

Unless you have issues.......

So, one must have an "obsession" or "issues" if they point out inconsistencies?

uhmm... ok.

I used the word obsession, not specifically in relation to your last post.

I used the word obsession in relation to most of your posts.

Let go of the controversies between the previous Thaksin governments and the present Suthep/Chidchob government - what is the point????

Same same all of them.

I didn't say the verdict was bogus. I just pointed out that two persons involved in this case have prior convictions with unfilled punishment.

Apologies if pointing out factual information offends you.

Oh dear oh dear.

Do you understand the meaning of the word "obsession"?

NO - i am not taking sides in the Thaksin discussion, i refuse to choose between pest and cholera.

There are lots of wonderfull things to do in Thailand. Bickering over criminals (plural) is not one of them.

Unless you have issues.......

So, one must have an "obsession" or "issues" if they point out inconsistencies?

uhmm... ok.

I used the word obsession, not specifically in relation to your last post.

I used the word obsession in relation to most of your posts.

Let go of the controversies between the previous Thaksin governments and the present Suthep/Chidchob government - what is the point????

Same same all of them.

The point for me is interest.

If you're not interested, there's no requirement to either read the news nor post in the news.

To label someone's interest as an obsession also fails to acknowledge the meaning of the word.

So, one must have an "obsession" or "issues" if they point out inconsistencies?

uhmm... ok.

I used the word obsession, not specifically in relation to your last post.

I used the word obsession in relation to most of your posts.

Let go of the controversies between the previous Thaksin governments and the present Suthep/Chidchob government - what is the point????

Same same all of them.

The point for me is interest.

If you're not interested, there's no requirement to either read the news nor post in the news.

To label someone's interest as an obsession also fails to acknowledge the meaning of the word.

And why would you think i am not interested?

I am interested in the news about thailand - i live here.

But i am not obsessed by Thaksin or Suthep or whoever.

So, one must have an "obsession" or "issues" if they point out inconsistencies?

uhmm... ok.

I used the word obsession, not specifically in relation to your last post.

I used the word obsession in relation to most of your posts.

Let go of the controversies between the previous Thaksin governments and the present Suthep/Chidchob government - what is the point????

Same same all of them.

The point for me is interest.

If you're not interested, there's no requirement to either read the news nor post in the news.

To label someone's interest as an obsession also fails to acknowledge the meaning of the word.

And why would you think i am not interested?

I am interested in the news about thailand - i live here.

But i am not obsessed by Thaksin or Suthep or whoever.

If you're not interested in the political issues in the news, there's no requirement for you to read the political threads nor post in them, particularly since your repeated misuse of the word "obsessed" again reflects a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding its definition.

Wonderfull reply.